Why will the republicans win in 2008?

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Do you know of a single Iraqi refugee that has returned to Iraq in December 2007 that has starved to death?

You don't starve within one month when you receive some food daily.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Canadiens1160
Nation building is a mistake.

It is if you believe Chaos and Anarchy serve your interest.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


You don't starve within one month when you receive some food daily.

Duh, do you know of any significant number of returning Iraqi Refugees in 2007 that have starved to death?

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Strongbow
Most Democrats said the surge would accomplish nothing and that all US combat troops should be withdrawn by March 31, 2008. The surge can technically last longer than what has been planned provided the President mobilized National Guard Brigades that have already been to Iraq over the past 5 years or extended troops in the field even longer. Few want to do that, but those are options the President has if he feels conditions on the ground warrent it. Another thing you seem to be forgetting is that the increase in troops has actually only raised the total level of troops on the ground temporarily by 30%, and most of it in Baghdad. Just as important has been the success politically at the local level, economic progress, the change in military tactics, as well as improvements in intelligence and vehicle design. Even when surge troops leave, these factors will still be there, plus the Iraqi military is more capable now than it has ever been and provides the security for half of Iraq's provinces.

I'm sorry, but what success politically? What accomplishments?

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Strongbow
It is if you believe Chaos and Anarchy serve your interest.

When did he say he wanted chaos and anarchy?

[Vincent Vega]

What's the number of people that have returned home?
What does the food ratios look like?
For how many people are the food ratios calculated and for how long?

The article indicates that the normal ratio hardly was enough to live on, and now they have to survive on half that amount. How long until food supply is sufficient to feed the nation?
How long will th people living there accept the status quo, and why should those who have already fled return to Iraq?
Still so many open tasks, but all you're talking about the whole time is how the numbers of people killed fluctuate from month to month.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


I'm sorry, but what success politically? What accomplishments?

The relationships the coalition has developed with various Sunni tribes have significantly contributed to the security and development of violence plagued provinces such as Anbar. The US military has been working to drag away elements of the insurgency for years now, and has been very successful in doing so in 2007 leading to new intelligence that has helped to combat other insurgents refusing to give up as well as Al Quada. They have worked with the local authorities in communities all over Iraq to help bring services and security that the national government has not been able to deliver at the current time. Economically, the amount of electricity and water that is available to most communities is significantly higher than it was at the start of the year. Markets and businesses that had been closed for years have opened up again. The Iraqi military is now providing all the security for 9 provinces, half of Iraq essentially. The refugee flow out of Iraq has stopped and has started to reverse itself. But more important than all the above is the sharp reduction in violence and civilian and military casualties. The number of lives saved has been enormous.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
What's the number of people that have returned home?
What does the food ratios look like?
For how many people are the food ratios calculated and for how long?

The article indicates that the normal ratio hardly was enough to live on, and now they have to survive on half that amount. How long until food supply is sufficient to feed the nation?
How long will th people living there accept the status quo, and why should those who have already fled return to Iraq?
Still so many open tasks, but all you're talking about the whole time is how the numbers of people killed fluctuate from month to month.

Tens of thousands have returned home recently. The food ratios are apparently equal are better than where they fled too. The article uses a number of statistics with questionable accuracy. Most of the people living there agree the situation has improved and as long as that continues, they will more than just accept, but actively support it. The US military is getting a large increase in help from civilians in locating and capturing insurgence and Al Quada members. Its for the civilians who have fled Iraq to judge whether or not they would be better off where they are or in Iraq. At the current time, some would be better off returning, some would not.

There are plenty of open tasks as their always is in any operation of such magnitude and there will be for many years to come.

You may think that the numbers of people killed from month to month is irrelevant, but it is not. It is in fact the single most important statistic. Nothing trumps security. Without security, progress in the area's is not really possible.

But despite the fact that your country has abandoned Iraq for the past 5 years, significant progress is being made on the ground economically, politically at the local level, and especially in the security situation.

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Do you know of a single Iraqi refugee that has returned to Iraq in December 2007 that has starved to death?

Do you know for a fact that people are not starving?

IRAQ: Saddam Provided More Food Than the U.S.

BAQUBA, Dec 27 (IPS) - The Iraqi government announcement that monthly food rations will be cut by half has left many Iraqis asking how they can survive.

The government also wants to reduce the number of people depending on the rationing system by five million by June 2008.

...

According to an Oxfam International report released in July this year, "60 percent (of Iraqis) currently have access to rations through the government-run Public Distribution System (PDS), down from 96 percent in 2004."

The report said that "43 percent of Iraqis suffer from absolute poverty," and that according to some estimates over half the population are now without work. "Children are hit the hardest by the decline in living standards. Child malnutrition rates have risen from 19 percent before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to 28 percent now."

While salaries have increased since the invasion of March 2003, they have not kept pace with the dramatic increase in the prices of food and fuel.

"My salary is 280 dollars, and I have six children," 49-year-old secondary school teacher Ali Kadhim told IPS. "The increase in my salary was neutralised by an increase in the price of food. I cannot afford to buy the foodstuffs in addition to the other necessary expenses of life."

...

"No security, no food, no electricity, no trade, no services. So life is good," said one resident, who would not give his name.

Many fear the food ration cuts can spark unrest. "The government will commit a big mistake, because providing enough food ration could compensate the government's mistakes in other fields like security," a local physician told IPS. "The Iraq will now feel that he, or she, is of no value to the government."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40613

[Vincent Vega]

Oh, now we've abandoned Iraq? No, we just didn't see any sense in starting war after war before the first is solved and stable enough. We didn't see sense in going to war on a very questionable base, with no real backing by the UN and no plan by the government that was pushing for this war.
Yes, we supported the US in Afghanistan, and I think we did so with good reason (although sometimes with bad execution), but we didn't support going to war with Iraq just while we are at it.

How are you going to keep violence low after the surge has ended?
For half a year violence seemed to have significantly lowered, but we don't see how the government in Baghdad is exploiting this security.
Tens of thousands is not much compared with 1.5 million refugees, and from what I've read the food regios where they have fled to is rather equally bad as equally good, so no wonder why they don't stay there.
The question also is, how much security is behind the numbers of people killed, and how sustainable is this security.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally posted by anitram


I don't think this is true this time around. The Republicans are the ones who can't come up with a candidate to energize any large faction, much less the base.

yes but unless we simply ignore recent voting records i think it's pretty safe to say that once a republican candidate is nominated that the party will rally around that person, even if they don't agree with their entire agenda.

i think we under estimate the will of the republicans to elect anyone republican over a democrat or independent, where as democrats, ya know, have morals and vote their conscience more often, easily being strayed by third party candidates.

silly democrats and using their minds to vote

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
Oh, now we've abandoned Iraq? No, we just didn't see any sense in starting war after war before the first is solved and stable enough. We didn't see sense in going to war on a very questionable base, with no real backing by the UN and no plan by the government that was pushing for this war.
Yes, we supported the US in Afghanistan, and I think we did so with good reason (although sometimes with bad execution), but we didn't support going to war with Iraq just while we are at it.

How are you going to keep violence low after the surge has ended?
For half a year violence seemed to have significantly lowered, but we don't see how the government in Baghdad is exploiting this security.
Tens of thousands is not much compared with 1.5 million refugees, and from what I've read the food regios where they have fled to is rather equally bad as equally good, so no wonder why they don't stay there.
The question also is, how much security is behind the numbers of people killed, and how sustainable is this security.

I've got news for you, ITS 2008, NOT 2003! I think Germany could provide significant financial and military support for the operation today, but their not. Germans reasons for letting Saddam stay in power are simply absurd, and never mind the fact that the operation was approved by UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the occupation approved every summer since 2003 by the UN security council.

The surge is not just the temparary increase in troops, but it involves changes in military tactics, political development at the local level, new alliances among Iraq's tribes and militia's, and the continued development and growth of an Iraqi military and police force.

It took years to form a government in Baghdad although they actually did it faster than Germany did after World War II. It will take the Baghdad government years more to achieve many of the goals you mysteriously believe it should be able to obtain in a record 6 months.

The resettlement of refugees takes years and will involve periods when the process is stopped. This is a long process and tens of thousands of refugees returning is a start. Its easy to find problems and area's to criticize given the magnitude of the operation. Its a lot harder to find solutions. Most people who can objectively look at what has happened in 2007 in Iraq would agree that significant progress has been made. Many with anti-American, anti-Bush feelings will never acknowledge any progress in Iraq no matter how overwhelming the evidence is.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Strongbow

I've got news for you, ITS 2008, NOT 2003! I think Germany could provide significant financial and military support for the operation today, but their not.

No, you're stuck with the bill for this great idea.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by anitram


No, you're stuck with the bill for this great idea.

The United States does have the financial and military resources to do this nearly on its own, but why wouldn't a country like Germany not want to contribute to the development, growth, prosperity and well being of the Iraqi people? What because that by doing so they won't be "sticking it to the USA and George Bush"? What a BS reason for not helping Iraqi's in 2008.

[phillyfan26]

Why not?

Oh, where to begin...

[deep]

Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


yes but unless we simply ignore recent voting records i think it's pretty safe to say that once a republican candidate is nominated that the party will rally around that person, even if they don't agree with their entire agenda.

i think we under estimate the will of the republicans to elect anyone republican over a democrat or independent, where as democrats, ya know, have morals and vote their conscience more often, easily being strayed by third party candidates.

I read when you posted something like this before,
in relationship to a possible independent run by Bloomberg

what you are not considering is that a 100% vote by either party for their candidate
will not necessarily elect them.

In Iowa for example, the registration breaks this way;

GOP 30%
Dem 31%
undeclared 39%

in CA

GOP 34%
Dem 43%
declined to state 19%

I have not looked up the per cents in Florida, Ohio, Mass, NH and where ever the few "battle ground" states are for 2008


So a well funded campaign by Billionaire Republican Bloomberg could flip a couple of states by appealing to the independents
that were expected to break for the Dems just as they did in the 2006 elections

also, I have a quote from Huckabee I read yesterday
where he says he thinks a run by Bloomberg would be great for the GOP.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Strongbow
The United States does have the financial and military resources to do this nearly on its own, but why wouldn't a country like Germany not want to contribute to the development, growth, prosperity and well being of the Iraqi people? What because that by doing so they won't be "sticking it to the USA and George Bush"? What a BS reason for not helping Iraqi's in 2008.

I don't want my tax dollars going on your misadventure either. You screwed it up, mismanaged it, have how many billions that have gone missing, etc? No thanks, you can contribute your tax dollars to the cause you so wholeheartedly support.

Instead of lobbying Germany, maybe you should ask your Republican president to get rid of his tax cuts.

[ntalwar]

Originally posted by Strongbow

anti-American, anti-Bush feelings

Please don't equate these two things - they are not even close to one another.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow



I've got news for you, ITS 2008, NOT 2003!

and yet, you post like it's 2004.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Strongbow


The United States does have the financial and military resources to do this nearly on its own, but why wouldn't a country like Germany not want to contribute to the development, growth, prosperity and well being of the Iraqi people? What because that by doing so they won't be "sticking it to the USA and George Bush"? What a BS reason for not helping Iraqi's in 2008.

I thought you were aware that we are already helping Iraqis on many accounts, doing several training measures for Iraqis in Kuweit and supporting them with equipment.

What we won't do is going in there with our military (though I wouldn't be surprised if KSK or GSG9 operations were carried out in Iraq), we didn't back then, and we won't do so now.

It's because I like the US so much that it makes me sad what has happened to the country over the past years.