Give a Legitimate Argument For McCain, Against Obama

[MadelynIris]

You can't afford to stay there for 50 more years.

Are you willing to bankrupt your country for theirs?

Peace Corps is cheap no? Seriously, why do we assume we'd have the same level of deployement/cost model that whole time? I don't want to bring up the Japan/Germany model, but economic aid that promotes social and idealogical change, while protecting, as much as possible, against a reversing of progress.

[anitram]

I don't think you can afford to stay there long enough to get it to the point where something like Peace Corps would be viable.

And the rest of the world has no interest in bailing you out financially or contributing to the cause.

[MadelynIris]

I must also admit, that the "GET THE HELL OUT AND DON'T LOOK BACK -- FEND FOR YOURSELF" philosphy does have some merit as well.

The Ron Paul version? Or does Obama have a similar policy?

[Bluer White]

It may not be not advisable for political reasons, but permanent military installations in Iraq breaking America financially??? That's silly.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
I must also admit, that the "GET THE HELL OUT AND DON'T LOOK BACK -- FEND FOR YOURSELF" philosphy does have some merit as well.

The Ron Paul version? Or does Obama have a similar policy?

No he doesn't, that is, if you're referring to the "just get out" policy. That's why I posted the link to his Iraq policy. It will allow us to begin the imperative measure of pulling our troops out of Iraq while still helping the Iraqi government through diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

[BVS]

Originally posted by Snowlock


Pussy. It's true and you know it. Sorry if you were offended. Hillary lost because of her personality end of story. Everyone hates her.

Hmmmm, I don't recall making any personal remarks about you prior either Irvine.

You gotta love the Snowlock once a month drunken drive-by...

[martha]

Originally posted by MadelynIris

I think it's a message to the boomers, albiet an early one. Your time is over. We're taking over early.

I can only hope this is true.

[MadelynIris]

Understand U2isthebest. But in the middle east especially, you have to back it up with some military might.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Understand U2isthebest. But in the middle east especially, you have to back it up with some military might.

We've been backing it up with military might for almost 5 years now, and it's caused nothing but trouble and death. Diplomacy will always trump military action because it's the higher way. Yes, we likely need troops in the Middle East, especially to protect our embassies, ambassadors, diplomats and other non-military workers who are currently in them, but military might in terms of wars and attacks will not help anything at this point. We've lost all our credibility in terms of being a relatively civil nation that knows how to employ and obey just war regulations, and it's going to take us years to get it back if we ever do.

[MadelynIris]

Diplomacywithout economic or military power = ?

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Zoomerang96
i'm sorry, but in almost everything, experience is massive.

why can that not be used in this thread?

1. It's been beaten to death, and thus, exxagerated and obscured. I wanted a thread that talked about the issue stances. Instead I got ... well ...

2. I agree, experience is one thing. But Obama's lack of experience in comparison to older folks has been exxagerated. He's still been a politician since 1997. He's a former civil rights lawyer and community organizer. He's got some very good experience already, and it's not like he's unaware. No one's caught him off-guard and shown him to not understand the issues. He's not saying things like, "I don't understand the economy but I'm reading a book about it" (coincidentally, McCain is).

3. Experience has been overrated. All the people complaining about Obama's experience never complained about Bush.

Essentially, I think people have just used that number, number of years, to shun Obama unfairly. There have been plenty of people with more experience who are less competent and less understanding of the issues than Barack Obama.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Diplomacywithout economic or military power = ?

We've abused our use of the military so badly in the past few years that it will be a long time before it's trusted again. The American attitude about military force has to change before it can ever be effective and more importantly, as humane and respectful of life and freedom as just war stipulations state. In the past few years, our mishandling of a war based on lies has just reinforced that the U.S. thinks we're superior to other countries and will resort to any means necessary to make others agree with us or do what we want them to do.

[onebloodonelife]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Iraq for 50 for sho. Hopefully not 100. And I'm talking social and economic reform, with the backing of a military presence.

Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.

It's not our place to impose the western way of thinking into their country or culture.

Historically, when military power is used to force democracy as a political system onto a country, the country that has been violated retaliates, and in a huge way. We're seeing it now in Iraq. The entire idea of democracy being pushed on another country goes entirely against the ideal of sovereignty for states. The U.S. generally doesn't want other states meddling in our business, and there's no reason we need to push our way into other states' business.

I'm not going to deny that obeying a state's sovereignty can lead to massive problems as well, and it also calls into question "When is it okay to go into another country?" Is it okay to force a political system onto a people if human rights abuses are occurring under the current government? Maybe. I think it depends on circumstance. But, the fact is that unless the people of the country choose their political system, there will be massive and violent revolts.

In my view, Iraq was an unnecessary target, and there was no evidence that the country was a threat to the U.S.; therefore, we had no legitimate reason to invade.



Anyway, I think that Obama's healthcare policy is much better than Clinton's, and that is a major reason in my support for him. The feature that I like more about his plan is that he allows for individuals to keep their current healthcare, if they so choose, but allows for those who do not have healthcare to get it. To me, that's a win-win. I happen to have very good insurance, and I would likely have no reason to change it, but I also believe that healthcare is a right, and everyone should have the opportunity to have good healthcare.

[BVS]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Iraq for 50 for sho. Hopefully not 100. And I'm talking social and economic reform, with the backing of a military presence.

Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.

Modern day Crusades...

At least you're somewhat honest.

[melon]

Originally posted by MadelynIris
Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.

Personally, I think it's doubtful that Iraq will achieve that, if only because that statement isn't mindful of the traditional distribution of Islamic culture.

It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs, thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farsi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent they invented rules of (Arabic) grammar. Great jurists were Persians. Only the Persians engaged in the task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet (Muhammad) becomes apparent, "If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it"…The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture. --Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah (1377)

Basically, in terms of cultural influence of Islam, historically, it is divided between three cultures: Arabic, Persian, and (I believe?) Turkish. So, basically, I doubt we're going to get a revolutionary change in the region, unless you can get all three of the main actors on our side.

Unfortunately, Iraq's place in all of this is merely where the three nations that are most representative of those three cultures--Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey--try to extend their influence, and so I doubt that Iraq is ever going to be a model for anything. Turkey is already fairly Western-friendly, and so, even though the Turks and the Kurds hate each other, I think it isn't surprising that the Kurds are the most secular of the three factions in Iraq, because of Turkey's cultural influence. On the other hand, Iran and Saudi Arabia will be rather difficult to change. Traditionally, Iran would probably be the easier of the two to "Westernize," and we saw measures of that in the mid-20th century, but we do happen to have a rather awful government in power there that has used anti-American rhetoric as one means of staying in power. So, chances are, that won't be changing, as long as their current government is in power. Saudi Arabia, likewise, will probably be very difficult, due to the traditional close ties between the House of Saud and Wahhabi Islam. Of course, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. also have traditional close ties, at least economically, so they may be more open to persuasion, particularly if they even sniff the possibility that the U.S. might become energy independent and not need them at all anymore.

Unfortunately, for all our hopes, I don't think that Iraq registers all that highly in the Middle East importance scale. But I guess, while we're there, it's worth a shot.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Zoomerang96


i'm sorry, but in almost everything, experience is massive.

why can that not be used in this thread?

This is talked about in five threads or so, and always there is call for discussing the actual political programs.
Now we have a thread focussing on actual programs of the two likely contender, and suddenly everyone is emphasizing on the importance of experience and that it can't be left out.

Originally posted by MadelynIris

Can we really change the middle east to sort of a modern western way of thinking? Iraq would be our best shot at this moment.

Did it every occur to you that the people of Iraq, or the neighbouring countries, might not be too much interested in that, and more over, are not interested in getting told by the US on how to develop? That's exactly the "US hegemony" that has dragged on the US's reputation for so long, and not only in the Middle East.

Originally posted by MadelynIris


Peace Corps is cheap no? Seriously, why do we assume we'd have the same level of deployement/cost model that whole time? I don't want to bring up the Japan/Germany model, but economic aid that promotes social and idealogical change, while protecting, as much as possible, against a reversing of progress.

That's not very comparable. In both Japan and Germany the US has just bases and training ranges. They don't have to watch their back and fear the German or Japanese citizens.
I don't see such a safe state established in Iraq in the medium term.
Additionally, in Germay, and probably in Japan as well, the US bases don't have to be entirely self-provisioning. The bases in Germany get supplied with meat, eggs and dairy products from Denmark, due to decade old contracts, and bakery stuff supplied by German bakeries from those cities. Most of the non-military stuff has been outsourced. Since Spetember 11 security has been massively increased, though to a large extent with help from German Bundeswehr or private contractors such as Securitas. But Securitas is a security company, not a private military company.
Hence, costs of operating bases here, or in Japan, are in no way comparable to costs operating bases in Iraq, and that won't change too much over the next decades. If you look how long such "wars" can go on, and how expensive they become, I don't think Iraq will be all that different than e.g. Palestine for Israel, or Northern Ireland for England (in that comparison, rather much worse).

Additionally, in both Germany and Japan there was no such need for an ideological change. That's not comparable. Social change as well, wasn't needed that much.

[MadelynIris]

Look, I agree with you all that it's a complicated mess.

But, all I'm repeating here, is a doctrine that the US has had since post WWII. Spread democracy and economic freedom (yes, capitalism).

Should we continue to do that?

Is the spread of fundamental islam a real threat to the US? Kind of like communism? Will it threaten our state?

Is there a reason to do this?

Melon, Vega, BVS, I understand that fundamental islamist do not want to start democratic elections, promote a free economy, etc... Obviously.

But should we try and influence them? Or fend them off at our borders sometime in the future.

Please don't nick pick (not all islam is extremist, and this argument doesn't care how the war was started etc...) Do we have any reason at all to try and change Iraq today? Or do we retreat back to a leze faire thing and beef up homeland security?

Is there a problem? Does turning Iraq represent a solution to the problem, or a deepening of it? Can you start a chain reaction of the 'american way' or will we piss them off so bad, that...

Even if we do turn Iraq, will that keep Al Queida from trying to light up NYC?

I say with troops on the ground, and incremental progress made, the next decision (obama, mccain or whomever) is going to be crucial to the US for the next 50 years.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by MadelynIris

Melon, Vega, BVS, I understand that fundamental islamist do not want to start democratic elections, promote a free economy, etc... Obviously.

I would say it's important to stress that it's not only the fundamentalists who might not "want to start democratic elections, promote a free economy, etc.", but also often moderate Muslims.

Additionally, a free economy in the American sense is a country engaging in free trade and liberalised markets. A policy the World Bank and the IMF are dictating their debtors for decades now, but in cases of weaker economies about the most devastating they can do.
In my opinion, one policy that has to end immediately.
We have to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, and try to overcome it. But I think in that respect McCain's hawkish foreign policy model is rather establishing the opposite. In many of those countries the US does not have the reputation of being a country that is interested in their well being, but in them being suppliers to the American prosperity, with the aforementioned fear of US hegemony. And the US, at the moment, is doing much to consolidate that perception.

[MadelynIris]

Ok. I get it. What's the solution?

[Vincent Vega]

Good question. Definitely one worth a dissertation.
For a term paper I'm currently writing I'm reading some works by Richard B. Freeman, a professor of Economics from Harvard, and to use some quotes of him, though made in another context: "In what follows, I offer some candidate proposals [...]. I emphasize their 'candidate' status. Excepting radio talk show hosts, nobody claims certainty about what new policies we need." and "Consider my suggested strategies, then, as an invitation to that debate. I think they make sense - otherwise I wouldn't make them - but of course you may disagree. Don't leave it there, however. If you disagree, say why. And if you think you've got a better suggestion, get it on the table. Let the argument begin about how we as a nation might alleviate the new inequality that threatens us."

This is from his book The New Inequality - Creating Solutions for Poor America, published in 1999.
Though it deals with another problem, and another question on how to solve that problem, I think it fits perfectly the problems and questions we are facing now. And too often I miss the willingness to discuss issues on a basis of no certainty among politicans and experts. And I feel sad that today all too often those arguments quickly faint, and all parties just come up with polemic nonsense, such as: "If you are not with us, you are against us." or "If you don't support this, you are not American." (Though both quotes from the Neocons, I wouldn't go as far as to say the "left" isn't using the same kind of "arguments", but that's the only ones that came to mind).
So, in my opinion this quote can be transferred to the actual discussion, and I think trying to find solutions to this complex issue we really need to discuss this on a level where everybody is willing to listen to the other.
The question "What's the solution?" cannot really be answered, but it has to be tried.
But in my opinion, attacking country after country and not critically questioning the actions the US are currently undertaking have so far proven as to be not solving anything. The perception and reputation of the US has suffered so far, and that not only in the Middle East.