Iraq & the consequences of immediate withdrawal

[kimpossible]

I'm going through the candidates' stances on Iraq troop withdrawal. I think this is going to be a huge decision factor for me this election. Australia will bring back its last ground troop in June, keeping some naval support in place to help secure trade.

What do you think the consequences are if we withdraw in a similar fashion by June?

[Yeahman]

It could cause chaos or it could lead to progress that has been held back by the US occupation. Or some combination of both.

I don't know which is true. I'm not a military strategist. I don't know Iraqi politics. I think any layperson's answer to this question is nothing more than a guess so you shouldn't trust me even if I attempted to give you an answer. But personally I'll err on the side of leaving the destiny of Iraq up to the Iraqis.


All Iraqi Groups Blame U.S. Invasion for Discord, Study Shows (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802262_pf.html)

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of "occupying forces" as the key to national reconciliation, according to focus groups conducted for the U.S. military last month.

[Arex]

I'm not sure what would happen, but I'd love to find out.

I do know that no more American troops will die, and Iraqis will have one less reason to be upset with us.

And even if Iraq becomes a safe haven for terrorists and they try to follow us home, as every Republican predicts, a sizeable chunk of the money saved on the occupation can be redirected toward homeland security.

[SunWuKong]

at this point, what exactly is our goal in staying in Iraq? trying to stabilise the country? do Republicans actually think this can happen if we just throw more money and troops into the mix?

[didu]

I think America should stay in Iraq for as long as they can, and maybe invade Iran as well. I think America's mess in the middle east is actually the lesser evil compared with America's potential conflict with China.

An America that is deeply stuck in the middle east will be far less likely to provoke any serious military confrontations with China, and this is much better than an America that is in military conflict with China.

Bash me all you want for my "anti-America" opinion (which I don't think it is anyway), but I just want what's best for the world.

[Yeahman]

This thread is actually making me think more about the issue.

at this point, what exactly is our goal in staying in Iraq? trying to stabilise the country? do Republicans actually think this can happen if we just throw more money and troops into the mix?
The point of the occupation is to buy time for the Iraqi forces to build up. And yes, throwing more US money and troops into the mix helps accomplish that.

Remember the looting when Bagdad fell? People were rightly saying that the US should've sent in more troops to secure Iraq.

If Rumsfeld was still at the DoD, I would have no hesitation calling for immediate withdrawal. But Gates is actually a pretty good Secretary of Defense who is pleasantly surprising liberals and we've made progress so now I'm not so sure.

At any rate, with the exception of Ron Paul, none of the other candidates, Dem or Rep, differ in substance on the issue of withdrawal. In 2004, the "Anybody but Bush" crowd voted for a Dem who supported a surge in Iraq. In 2006, the Dems took both houses in what was largely a referendum on the war. The Dems then prompted voted for more war funding. Meanwhile, the Republicans' plan is a phased withdrawal that has already begun. One brigade has already been withdrawn this month and plans are to withdraw half the troops by next year.

[Yeahman]

I think America should stay in Iraq for as long as they can, and maybe invade Iran as well. I think America's mess in the middle east is actually the lesser evil compared with America's potential conflict with China.

An America that is deeply stuck in the middle east will be far less likely to provoke any serious military confrontations with China, and this is much better than an America that is in military conflict with China.

Bash me all you want for my "anti-America" opinion (which I don't think it is anyway), but I just want what's best for the world.
What would be best for the world would to be dismantle America's standing army.

[didu]

What would be best for the world would to be dismantle every country's standing army.

fixed

[franco]

I think immediate and orderly withdraw would be great. Think of how the big media corporations use fear mongering propaganda.

Plus, this is an endless war. We would be better to withdraw now than never. We are spending trillions of dollars on our military empire.

[franco]

And even if Iraq becomes a safe haven for terrorists and they try to follow us home

at this point, what exactly is our goal in staying in Iraq? trying to stabilise the country?

The more time we stay in Iraq, the more middle easterners want revenge. So staying in Iraq would fuel more terrorists.

We had embargos in the 1980s and the 1990s that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

According to the most recent poll, 1.2 million innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered in our Iraq war. This is the cause that Al-Qaeda have expanded significantly. opinion[dot]co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

[AngryABCGirl]

I'm pretty sure there will be a civil war followed by some form of political vaccum for awhile. But I think staying is only delaying the inevitable.

[thaite]

instability, power vaccuum, power struggle, return to tribalism and some form of dictatorship, lots of dead Iraqis.

[didu]

^^ that's why America should prolong its presence in Iraq ... they started this mess, they need to clean it up.

[Yeahman]

According to the most recent poll, 1.2 million innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered in our Iraq war.
What did the pollsters ask? "Are you dead?"

[AngryABCGirl]

What did the pollsters ask? "Are you dead?"

I think he's referring to the Lancet study, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals when referring to that number, which is clearly not a poll. Their researchers also did a similar study of the Kosovo conflict.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

[SunWuKong]

so if i understand it correctly, the difference in opinions seems to stem from whether or not you think Iraqi peace is achievable vis-a-vis American presence in Iraq?

has there really been an overall decrease in violence? it seems to me that for the past two or three years, news about Iraq hasn't really changed much.

[Yeahman]

so if i understand it correctly, the difference in opinions seems to stem from whether or not you think Iraqi peace is achievable vis-a-vis American presence in Iraq?

has there really been an overall decrease in violence? it seems to me that for the past two or three years, news about Iraq hasn't really changed much.
Yes, violence has decreased significantly but I am uncertain as to the cause. Was it because of the surge or despite of it? We know that Iraq isn't a homogeneous nation so maybe violence is down because of the surge in some areas and despite of it in other areas. Is the downturn in violence permanent or temporary?

Death toll eases but Iraq awaits its full 'Awakening' (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071225/wl_mideast_afp/year2007iraqunrest_071225184531&printer=1;_ylt=AlLoBc1jqvCA1XvO322d.wObOrgF)

[Broomer]

I'm going through the candidates' stances on Iraq troop withdrawal. I think this is going to be a huge decision factor for me this election. Australia will bring back its last ground troop in June, keeping some naval support in place to help secure trade.

What do you think the consequences are if we withdraw in a similar fashion by June?

This is one probably one of the few times that I agree with Bush - the US must not withdraw from Iraq, not immediately. If the US does do that then they risk repeating the same mistake tat they did with Afghanstan all those years ago.

Iraq needs to be treated in the same way as Korea - that is, it's for the long haul.

An immediate withdraw would be disasterous.

Ka.

[Yeahman]

Iraq needs to be treated in the same way as Korea - that is, it's for the long haul.
The Korean War lasted 3 years. The Iraq War will soon be going into its 5th year. Did you mean unnecessary permanent post-war presence? Our permanent post-Gulf-War presence in Saudi Arabia is partially what started this whole mess in the first place!

[Faithless]

If I read Ron Paul correctly, he's been demanding an immediate withdrawal for a while.

Whether violence has gone down or not, he's advocating withdrawal for another reason. Isn't his position reasonable in that regard?

[Broomer]

The Korean War lasted 3 years. The Iraq War will soon be going into its 5th year. Did you mean unnecessary permanent post-war presence? Our permanent post-Gulf-War presence in Saudi Arabia is partially what started this whole mess in the first place!

The war ended but the US still had a presence there and that's important. They're an important force in the region.

The same needs to be kept in mind for Iraq. The rest of the world needs the US, and others, to keep as much of a presence there as possible.

The UN really needs to setup another HQ (outside Geneva and New York which I've always thought to be pointless these days). Iraq or another place in Asian would be a good place.

Ka.

[Yeahman]

The war ended but the US still had a presence there and that's important. They're an important force in the region.
Yes, they're very important for fostering anti-American sentiment and keeping the military industrial complex going.

The same needs to be kept in mind for Iraq. The rest of the world needs the US, and others, to keep as much of a presence there as possible.
Halliburton, is that you?

[Broomer]

Yes, they're very important for fostering anti-American sentiment and keeping the military industrial complex going.

Lesser of two evils. Not saying the troops there have been angels but the support they do provide is important.

Also, if you're a shop or business owner, would you rather they be there or not be there. Troops provide additional investment in the local economy.

Even the most discipline soldier is going to get sick of army rations sooner or later.

Halliburton, is that you?

Nope. Who the heck is he/she/it? (No offence to Hallburton).

Ka.

[VV o n g B a]

Nope. Who the heck is he/she/it? (No offence to Hallburton).

Ka.
u should look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton#Iraq_controversy

[haplesshobo]

If I read Ron Paul correctly, he's been demanding an immediate withdrawal for a while.

Whether violence has gone down or not, he's advocating withdrawal for another reason. Isn't his position reasonable in that regard?

Um... Ron Paul is a 1920s isolationist. Do you really think that's reasonable in this day and age?

I'm going through the candidates' stances on Iraq troop withdrawal. I think this is going to be a huge decision factor for me this election. Australia will bring back its last ground troop in June, keeping some naval support in place to help secure trade.

What do you think the consequences are if we withdraw in a similar fashion by June?

The reality is that its not the Australian troops that will determine the future of Iraq and the surronding region. If Australia withdraws its limited forces, then it really won't affect what will happen to Iraq. The same can not be said if the US withdraws.

If there was an immediate withdrawal of US forces, John Burns, the NYT Baghdad reporter, has written:


quick, early withdrawal of American troops of the kind that is being argued by Nancy Pelosi, for example, would very likely lead to catastrophic levels of violence here. And in that, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will be saying something which is pretty broadly shared by people who live and work here, I have to say. The removal of American troops would very likely, we believe from all indications, lead to much higher, and indeed potentially cataclysmic levels of violence, beyond anything we’ve seen to date.

I really have to disagree with Yeahman about the possibility of progress
if the US immediately withdrew. For progress, you need political stabliltiy and compromises but that would be impossible without first having security progress and stability which the American forces are providing and hopefully give enough time and training for the Iraqi forces to eventually take over but which they're still not ready yet.

Of course, there's no guarantee that there will be any political progress even if we stayed as we still haven't seen much political progress and that perhaps all we are doing is delaying the inevitable. But, at least, there is some hope and posibility now that security has stabilized whereas there would be no hope and posibility if the US withdrew immediatlely.

In the end, I'm not really sure you should base your vote on what the candidate promises as it will be just another broken campaign promise in a long line of promises that all candidates break. Any responsible president, when faced with the reality of the situation, will not order an immediate withdrawal no matter what he or she may have promised while campaigning for president. Iraq is simply too important to let it fall apart if we immediatley withdrew. And, not only that, but the ensuing chaos would destablilze that region as Iraq's neighbors would then carve up Iraq and further damage American interests.

[Faithless]

Some on the presidential election front are mentioning full withdrawal within a year of starting one. I can live with that, since it's technically impossible to immediately withdraw in a day or so.

I think Ron Paul describes his foreign policy in this area as noninterventionism and not isolationism (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm).

Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

[monkeygone2]

i know of an east coast yw-er who just returned from iraq several months ago.
he'll probably get sent back (for a 3rd time) before this spring.
wish he'd chime in. *hint*

[SunWuKong]

i may have to resort to voting for Hillary in the presidential election because she's still heading the Democrat polls right now. on the off chance that Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, then i'd have to really think about my vote. basically, even though i don't think Hillary is good for the economy, she still wants to withdraw from Iraq, and Iraq is the last place on which i want my tax dollars spent. Hillary might mismanage the billions of tax dollars saved by withdrawing, but i can live that down more than i can live with continuing to fund the war.

i'm technically a Florida resident, so my vote actually matters. i still think voting third party is like throwing my vote away, and i considered not voting at all, but decided that's probably even worse than voting third party. so unless Hillary gets beat in the Democratic primary or Ron Paul wins the Republican primary, it looks like i'll be voting Hillary.

[Broomer]

I think he's referring to the Lancet study, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals when referring to that number, which is clearly not a poll. Their researchers also did a similar study of the Kosovo conflict.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Question is, who were they murdered by?
It's like the problem in Kenya now, who's actually causing the problem. Government troops or Opposition supports angry at now being able to get thei share of funding?
(Hate to be cynic but such is life).

Ka

[Faithless]

Should we be there, if Iraqis don't want us there?

What Iraqis Think, Again (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2007/0911iraqisthink.htm)
By Marc Lynch | Abu Aardvark | September 12, 2007

What do Iraqis think about the surge? The first nationwide opinion survey since February has just been released, and it provides absolutely essential context for this week's debate over Iraq. The survey should help Americans cut through the spin and get a better view of what Iraqis really think.

The BBC/ABC/NHK survey, conducted in all 19 provinces during August, finds that 70% of Iraqis believe that security has deteriorated in the areas covered by the US "surge", and 11% say it has had no effect. Only 11% say that security in the country as a whole has improved in the last six months. And 70% say that the conditions for political dialogue have gotten worse in the last six months. Bottom line: Iraqis overall, and especially Sunnis, are more opposed to the American presence than ever, do not think the surge has accomplished either its military or its political goals, and have dwindling confidence in the US forces.

Has Petraeus's counter-insurgency strategy and the surge won respect for the American presence? No. Only 15% express confidence in US/UK occupation forces, down from 18% in February, with 58% expressing "no confidence at all" - the highest in any of these surveys dating back to 2003. 80% say that the US has done a bad job in Iraq. 79% oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq. 72% say that the presence of US forces is making security worse.

When should US forces leave? 47% say "leave immediately" - by far the highest support for immediate departure on record (it was 35% in February). 34% say stay until security is restored, 10% say stay until the Iraqi government is stronger. Only 2% say "remain longer but leave eventually".
...

Worldwide opinion would like the US out of Iraq soon (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/394.php?nid=&id=&pnt=394&lb=hmpg1).

[AngryABCGirl]

Question is, who were they murdered by?
It's like the problem in Kenya now, who's actually causing the problem. Government troops or Opposition supports angry at now being able to get thei share of funding?
(Hate to be cynic but such is life).

Ka

I haven't read the entire study, but I think it is actually for total number of deaths including non-combat related to see if it rose as well (ie more people dying because of decreased sanitation)

[Yeahman]

As I've said before, we're going to have a phased withdrawal regardless of who's elected. In terms of what we should do in Iraq, there's no difference between Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, McCain, or Huckabee! I'm not sure about Giuliani.

Um... Ron Paul is a 1920s isolationist. Do you really think that's reasonable in this day and age?
Ideally, I'd like the UN to do all the international brokering and fighting. Ideally, the US wouldn't meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, at all.

I really have to disagree with Yeahman about the possibility of progress if the US immediately withdrew. For progress, you need political stabliltiy and compromises but that would be impossible without first having security progress and stability which the American forces are providing and hopefully give enough time and training for the Iraqi forces to eventually take over but which they're still not ready yet.
Stability is possible without the US. It existed under Saddam. But the US wants a friendly government and is willing to continue this war to get it. At this point the attitude is "Well we spilled this much blood already. It'd be a shame if we didn't get something out of it."

In the end, I'm not really sure you should base your vote on what the candidate promises as it will be just another broken campaign promise in a long line of promises that all candidates break. Any responsible president, when faced with the reality of the situation, will not order an immediate withdrawal no matter what he or she may have promised while campaigning for president. Iraq is simply too important to let it fall apart if we immediatley withdrew. And, not only that, but the ensuing chaos would destablilze that region as Iraq's neighbors would then carve up Iraq and further damage American interests.
I agree that it won't make a difference who is elected (unless of course it's Ron Paul). But I don't think Iraq is "too important." I think Iraq's neighbors would do much of what the US is doing now. I.e., support friends in Iraq. In the end, Iraq will be divided or united under the most powerful faction. If by "American interests" you mean US companies in Iraq, then, yes, they will be harmed. But if you simply mean oil then, no, there's no reason to believe that our interests will be harmed in the long run. Iraq produced more oil under Saddam.

Anyway, one of my goals for this winter break was to read up on the international oil markets so I'm still learning.

[haplesshobo]

Some on the presidential election front are mentioning full withdrawal within a year of starting one. [/URL].

I hate to break it to you, but there's really no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny and a lot of times politicians make promises that they know they won't keep.

Stability is possible without the US. It existed under Saddam.

Are you referring to stability immediately after the US leaves?

It needs to be pointed out that with Sadam, there was already a strong central government when he took over. But, if the US leaves, it would create a vacuum and a free-for-all. Sure, there might be stability years later but only after a brutal, bloody war where one faction was able to win the war and then repress the other factions afterwards.

I think Iraq's neighbors would do much of what the US is doing now. I.e., support friends in Iraq. In the end, Iraq will be divided or united under the most powerful faction.

A division would be impractical without massive ethnic cleansing since Iraq, with the exception of the north, doesn't break down into convenient geo-ethnic lines and the issue about who would get the oil if Iraq was divided.

And, Iraqi neighbors going in would only exacerbate the problem. Do we really want to see Turkey go in and invade Kurdistan, Iran invade central Iraq, and Saudi Arabia support Sunnis?


If by "American interests" you mean US companies in Iraq, then, yes, they will be harmed.

No, I'm talking about how the American economy, and the world's economy, is dependant on oil. And, that a unstable, failed state in Iraq, and the ripple effect that would cause in the surronding region, would threaten that.

[Yeahman]

The withdrawal from Basra has taught us that letting the most powerful militia rule is actually a pretty good idea.
I'm not saying that quick withdrawal is the best solution. I'm just not sure that's it's such a bad idea. Was leaving Vietnam really that bad? Granted Iraq is looking better than Vietnam, but my point is that leaving control to the most powerful enemy is sometimes the best solution.

No, I'm talking about how the American economy, and the world's economy, is dependant on oil. And, that a unstable, failed state in Iraq, and the ripple effect that would cause in the surronding region, would threaten that.
In the short-run, yes. Once the dust settles, it won't make a difference. I can claim that withdrawal will help create a more stable Iraq which would be beneficial to our interests.

[Broomer]

The withdrawal from Basra has taught us that letting the most powerful militia rule is actually a pretty good idea.
I'm not saying that quick withdrawal is the best solution. I'm just not sure that's it's such a bad idea. Was leaving Vietnam really that bad? Granted Iraq is looking better than Vietnam, but my point is that leaving control to the most powerful enemy is sometimes the best solution.

In the short-run, yes. Once the dust settles, it won't make a difference. I can claim that withdrawal will help create a more stable Iraq which would be beneficial to our interests.

In many respect I agree with you, and the reality is that this is probably the best thing for the region, however just bear in mind that in the short term, you'll end up with a blood bath.

There's also the danger of who'll fill that vacuum.

Ka.

[Yeahman]

U.S. could hand over Iraq's Anbar in March-April (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080111/ts_nm/iraq_anbar_dc)

Anbar is the big one. When they hand over Anbar, the US would have withdrawn from most of Iraq.

[Broomer]

I haven't read the entire study, but I think it is actually for total number of deaths including non-combat related to see if it rose as well (ie more people dying because of decreased sanitation)

Collateral damage huh?
That's even worst. It's like been dead but alive at the same time to experience it.

Ka.

[Zombie Dave]

Yes, violence has decreased significantly but I am uncertain as to the cause.

It could be because 'they' are running out of people to kill. Seriously, with two or more warring factions out there, it has to happen that unchecked ethnic cleansing will achieve its bloody aim. I agree with your position in this thread, the job in Iraq is done and we've achieved all that we can there. We've gone from liberators to occupiers and that can't be right.

[Yeahman]

It could be because 'they' are running out of people to kill. Seriously, with two or more warring factions out there, it has to happen that unchecked ethnic cleansing will achieve its bloody aim.
No that's not it. There's still plenty of people of different sects in Iraq.

Iraq to reinstate Saddam party followers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq)

That's the latest in the re-Baathification process.

[Zombie Dave]

No that's not it. There's still plenty of people of different sects in Iraq.

Well yes, plenty of people in Iraq. But the theory is if you have a Sunni insurgency targeting specific areas (a Shia village in a largely Sunni area for example), then the constant death toll of men folk will have the result of there being fewer (and then no) targets to kill in that area, contributing to a smaller daily death toll for the whole country. Anyway it is just something I've read which strikes me as a plausible theory, one of several. Incidentally I'm a mad obsessive collector of facts and anecdotes about history, science, the whole humanities. Our attack on Iraq seems to be a part of an endless cycle of history repeating, but our invasion is tame compared to the Mongol invasion of 1258. Hulagu Khan destroyed Baghdad (supposedly the world's most beautiful and civilised city), killing a million of its citizens and driving Islam out of the Mid East completely. As a by-product, the Mongols also eliminated one of the first known Islamic fundamentalist groups, an extreme Shi'ite sect known as the Assassins who had been terrorizing the Muslim world for 200 years.

[Broomer]

It could be because 'they' are running out of people to kill. Seriously, with two or more warring factions out there, it has to happen that unchecked ethnic cleansing will achieve its bloody aim. I agree with your position in this thread, the job in Iraq is done and we've achieved all that we can there. We've gone from liberators to occupiers and that can't be right.

Worst still, no one is recording the data anymore.
It's a common thing. The body count gets to a certain number that people is so de-sensitized to the whole thing that no one even cares anymore.

At most, governments will just provide rough estimates and that's it.

Ka.

[Zombie Dave]

Worst still, no one is recording the data anymore.
It's a common thing. The body count gets to a certain number that people is so de-sensitized to the whole thing that no one even cares anymore.

At most, governments will just provide rough estimates and that's it.

Ka.

It is sad that so many people are dead for some WMD which didn't exist.

[Broomer]

It is sad that so many people are dead for some WMD which didn't exist.

Don't know whether there was WMDs there, however there are better ways to go about business.

It was badly handled since people treated the whole thing as a sprint when they should've prepared for a marathon.

Ka.

[Zombie Dave]

Don't know whether there was WMDs there, however there are better ways to go about business.

It was badly handled since people treated the whole thing as a sprint when they should've prepared for a marathon.

Ka.

Maybe we will get the invasion of Iran right.

[Arex]

Don't know whether there was WMDs there, however there are better ways to go about business.

It was badly handled since people treated the whole thing as a sprint when they should've prepared for a marathon.

Ka.We know for a fact there were no WMDs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/) (well, almost for a fact). Do you also wonder whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? Please.

It was badly handled, not because we went in with the wrong expectations as to what kind of war we would be waging, but rather because we shouldn't have been there in the first place, at least not based on the administration's stated justifications (WMDs).

Better ways to go about business? How about not rushing into a war, invading countries and committing enormous resources, including the lives of our soldiers, based on discredited intelligence?

[Thaddaeus]

It was badly handled, not because we went in with the wrong expectations as to what kind of war we would be waging, but rather because we shouldn't have been there in the first place, at least not based on the administration's stated justifications (WMDs).

Better ways to go about business? How about not rushing into a war, invading countries and committing enormous resources, including the lives of our soldiers, based on discredited intelligence?

hindsight = 20/20. relatedly, i'm thinking about getting lasik surgery. i wear really stylish glasses now (all in, i spent about $825 on them), but i'd like to get rid of them. and i hate contact lenses for their tendency to dislodge and resettle themselves in all the wrong places.

[Arex]

The intelligence claiming Saddam was trying to build nukes was discredited before we invaded. Does the name Joe Wilson ring a bell?

Hindsight may be 20/20, but more than half the world, including a lot of people here on YW also had "20/20 foresight" and wanted evidence of WMDs before we started this stupid war. And it's not like 20/20 foresight was required to avoid this whole mess, just a healthy dose of wanting to see evidence is all it would've taken.

http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=4160

[Zombie Dave]

hindsight = 20/20. relatedly, i'm thinking about getting lasik surgery. i wear really stylish glasses now (all in, i spent about $825 on them), but i'd like to get rid of them. and i hate contact lenses for their tendency to dislodge and resettle themselves in all the wrong places.

There were mass protests worldwide before the war, and the UN refused to pass a resolution to go to war, so yes a lot of people had clear vision before the bloodbath began.

[Yeahman]

I just saw Charlie Wilson's War. Who would've thought a pro-war movie would come out of Hollywood these days?! The moral of the film is "Stay and fix the aftermath."

[Zombie Dave]

I just saw Charlie Wilson's War. Who would've thought a pro-war movie would come out of Hollywood these days?! The moral of the film is "Stay and fix the aftermath."

This is a comedy about the men who would (ultimately) put the Taliban in power. Those crazy Hollywood writers! :tongue:

[Broomer]

Maybe we will get the invasion of Iran right.

Huh, no one ever gets an invasion right. The trick is to mess up and make sure no one notice it.

Ka.

We know for a fact there were no WMDs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/) (well, almost for a fact). Do you also wonder whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? Please.

It was badly handled, not because we went in with the wrong expectations as to what kind of war we would be waging, but rather because we shouldn't have been there in the first place, at least not based on the administration's stated justifications (WMDs).

Better ways to go about business? How about not rushing into a war, invading countries and committing enormous resources, including the lives of our soldiers, based on discredited intelligence?

Mate, never suggested for a second that the invasion was a good thing in the first place, just that if you're going to go into a war, at least it could be better.

Pesonally speaking, there were better ways to get rid of Saddam and the oil out of Iraq.

Ka.

[Zombie Dave]

Huh, no one ever gets an invasion right. The trick is to mess up and make sure no one notice it.

Sorry, my comment was supposed to be dripping with sarcasm. Shoulda added a smiley or something.

My guess is Bush plays a lot of Command and Conquer and Age of Empires; he tried a tank rush on Iraq without caring what happened next.

[Yeahman]

This is a comedy about the men who would (ultimately) put the Taliban in power. Those crazy Hollywood writers! :tongue:
Yeah. Charlie Wilson gets $1 billion for the war but can't get $1 million for reconstruction. Later conflict is foreshadowed when he says that leaving Afghanistan a mess will harm American interests.

[Player 0]

http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JA08Df01.html

Here's a review of the movie, i found it entertaining and informative.

[Yeahman]

^ The reviewer is probably right that your average Joe probably doesn't know the significance of the final line of the movie: "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world. And the people who deserved the credit are the ones who made the sacrifice. And then we fucked up the endgame."

The De-Bremerification of Iraq (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4139)

Last year things were hopeless but now Iraq seems to be on the right track.

[Broomer]

Sorry, my comment was supposed to be dripping with sarcasm. Shoulda added a smiley or something.

My guess is Bush plays a lot of Command and Conquer and Age of Empires; he tried a tank rush on Iraq without caring what happened next.

Mate, noted the sarcasm and I don't it was Command and conquer, that actually takes strategy. I suggest something more like green, toy soldiers.

Ka.

[kimpossible]

With the exception of Ron Paul, who, while he has some refreshingly honest and common sense approaches, is a bit idealistic and radical, do any of the other candidates have a clear plan to get us out of this clustermessup? The only thing I've seen is "Yes, we finish the job," - whatever that means - and "I'll work on getting us out." Though I really dislike the idea of voting for Hillary Clinton she's the only one I've seen with any written staged withdrawal plan.

[Yeahman]

^ I don't know much about Hillary's plan. Isn't it the same as everyone else's (i.e., phased withdrawal)?

[kimpossible]

As far as I know. She at least has a small blurb outlined on her website that cites a start within the first 60 days. I was wondering if it's the same or different from any other candidate looking to withdraw.

[Yeahman]

^ Bush's plan started withdrawing troops in December.

[kimpossible]

Candidates, not the current President. I'm not seeing much difference among them. I'm wondering if someone else is aware of one (besides Paul) who has made a somewhat clear statement on withdrawal.

[haplesshobo]

^ I don't know much about Hillary's plan. Isn't it the same as everyone else's (i.e., phased withdrawal)?

It depends on when she said it, as its changed over this election cycle. Of course, that's true for most of the candidates.

Back when she was the early frontrunner, it was a lot more nuanced about Iraq. Even Barack was already giving himself an out back then. But, as the race as gotten more competitve, all those clauses have been left by the wayside as the candidates pander to the democratic, anti-war base. Right now, the democratic candidates are competing with each other to see who can promise to bring the troops home the fastest despite how unrealistic it may be and contrary to what they were saying just six months ago.

The irony is that the democratic candidates are acting like this even as the situation in Iraq has gotten better over this time period. We've already seen improved security from the Surge, and are now starting to see the important political reconciliation. And, now with a fragile Iraq in the balance, making important strides politically and in safety, we're going to risk all that with a rush to pull out our troops?

[Zombie Dave]

Don't know whether there was WMDs there, however there are better ways to go about business.

It was badly handled since people treated the whole thing as a sprint when they should've prepared for a marathon.

Ka.

I wonder if Bush really ever thought there was WMD there. All the thinking went on how to get the war started. Nothing else seemed to matter (to the hawk politicians). Question is, does anyone give a hoot now?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

- A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.


The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

[Faithless]

I hear there's a cease fire with some of the battling factions in Iraq. And they're threatening to end it.

[Broomer]

I wonder if Bush really ever thought there was WMD there. All the thinking went on how to get the war started. Nothing else seemed to matter (to the hawk politicians). Question is, does anyone give a hoot now?


Well, we're talking about a hawk, who's needs a real reason? He just needs an excuse. As a president for the here and now, that's Bush's failing. These days, politicians needs to be less "honest" and more subtle (read underhanded, et al).

Ka.

[SunWuKong]

i was watching an old Bill O'Reilly clip on youtube (youtubers love to upload videos of O'Reilly getting owned), and he was using his usual rhetoric of asking, "let me ask you a question, do you want us to win in Iraq?"

then i was thinking, at this point, what does that even mean? to win in Iraq? i mean, Bush declared victory all the way back in May 2003. so under what condition can we say we've really "won" in Iraq? when absolutely all the known terrorist leaders are captured or killed? would that even stop terrorist attacks? let's say we don't get one terrorist attack in Iraq for 6, 7, or 8 months. at that point, do we say we've "won"?

[Yeahman]

^ For me, a victory would be a stable Iraq that doesn't require US aid.

[SunWuKong]

^ For me, a victory would be a stable Iraq that doesn't require US aid.

but what does it mean for Iraq to be stable? no more terrorist attacks? for how long? let's say no more attacks for a whole year, and then after that year, another attack occurs? is that still a victory?

[Yeahman]

Maybe we would use Saddam-era violence stats as a point of reference. Or pick a country that you consider "stable" and use it as your standard. Or maybe just a permanent government with the ability to suppress violence to whatever degree is "stable."

[Zombie Dave]

but what does it mean for Iraq to be stable? no more terrorist attacks? for how long? let's say no more attacks for a whole year, and then after that year, another attack occurs? is that still a victory?

Victory conditions are the same there as with IRA, Eta, Tamil Tigers, the PLA. You can't kill them all, they'll never have a problem with recruitment. Stable will come when the insurgents/terrorists/resistance movement have done all that they can. "They" have a broad but clear objective. Do we?

Stable MIGHT ultimately mean a harsh Saddam Hussein type leader in Iraq, in which case what was the point of it all. Funny how all media focus on al qaida is on 'al qaida-in-Iraq'. Before the invasion there was no al qaida in Iraq, Husseins brutal brand of secular rule kept them out. Irony can be be pretty ironic sometimes.

[Yeahman]

I just came back from a seminar on the Treaty of Versailles. This guy from the CFR insisted that Iraq needs to be split up if it is to succeed.

[Feger]

I'm probably going to get blasted for this. But, I think the issue in the mideast is more than stablizing Iraq. (and by the way, my came home from Ramadi, Iraq a few months ago.) So, I wrote up a rough draft of some of my thoughts about the Islamic Facist, like Osama bin Laden the taliban and their specific goals of reculuralizing the world in their image by thought or deed.

Dead Walkers:

Stop calling them, the terrorist, “suicide bombers” or even “homicidal bombers”. If you are going to speak of this breed of infidels, call them for what they are. They are “Zombies”. They are the walking dead, masquerading as religious zealots.

And, Zombies are the tools of a demonic mindset controlled or brainwashed by satanic fanatics who are themselves mindless, soulless, and Godless. There is no redemption for these mentally and spiritually disordered aberrations.

Zombie attacks are what they are, they are evil and they are insidious acts of moral obscenity. Even as malicious and vicious the terms “suicide and homicide” are, they are stated in human reference: Zombies are a species of inhuman filth.

Maybe we should find an appropriate community and name streets after zombies and/or display large pictures of zombies to remind us all that hell is real and Lucifer lives among us: A kind of fiendish theme park with a name something like “The Gaza”, with Taliban Tour Guides, women who always dress like they are going to be buried the next day, and where children are educated with bomb making skills so they can blow themselves up a mass murderers.

[AngryABCGirl]

I guess I get what the point is your trying to make. But when you say zombies, I just think 28 days later.

In any case, Iraq won't ever be stable with the rosy American picture of a democracy. I do agree a Saddam-like leader will rise again in Iraq, for better or for worse.

[Bhodi_Li]

I'm currently attending the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. This is a school that along with many other on-post organizations (the Combat Studies Institue, Center of Army Lessons Learned, etc.) spend a considerable time examining strategic (national) level operations. Not surprisingly, the school focuses a large portion of time on the US' conduct of the Global War on Terror. Additionally, the school hosts many speakers such as Rep Ike Shelton (chairman of the House Armed Services Comittee) and GEN(R) Barry McCaffery (military analyst used by CNN and MSNBC) that discuss this very issue.

Since the surge, the security situation within Iraq has dramatically improved. There are many things that contribute to this, including a change in the leadership at the the DOD level (the replacement of Donald Rumsfield with Secretary Robert Gate and the arrival of GEN David Petraeus as the Commander of Multi-National Force - Iraq), improvements in Counter-Insurgency tactics, as well as a rejection of the radical fundamental Islamist terror organizations by the general population of Iraq.

This improved security situation should not be mistaken as victory, but nevertheless provides a much needed opportunity for the Iraqi government to continue to establish itself. This is a considerable challenge due to the ethnic tensions within the country and represent one of the greatest frictions points for success in the region. However, ethnic strife is not the only area that require emphasis.

Increased security enable multiple agencies (Dept of State, Agriculture, Commerce, etc) to operate with their Iraqi counterparts to improve conditions within the country. These improvements have a strategic, operational, and tactical effect that further reduces the recruitment of Islamic extremist organizations within the region.

Trained Iraqi forces continue to take over more and more of a role in the defense of their country but are NOT ready to secure the entire country on their own yet. Turning over the security mission completely to the Iraqi forces at this time would result in the loss of all that the Coalition forces have acheived to this point. The solution continues to be a gradual replacement of Coalition forces with Iraqi forces and the United States #1 priority is the military transition teams that help prepare the Iraqi forces.

This war is not lost, contrary to what the media attempts to portray. (BTW, anyone notice how the media doesn't cover the war like they did previously? Why doesn't the media cover these improvements with the same zeal that they covered the struggles in 2006?) However, if the United States conducts a withdrawl prior to the Iraqi being ready to govern themsleves, the US will create a safe haven for terrorist organizations and embolden those terrorist organizations and countries that wish to do harm to the United States.

This is why a gradual phased reduction is the preferable course of action, which most, but not all, candidates agree on. This withdrawl should be event-driven rather than time-driven, since wars don't follow timetables well.

[Zombie Dave]

I guess I get what the point is your trying to make. But when you say zombies, I just think 28 days later.

Did someone say zombies?

[Feger]

BRAVO

And, thank you Mr. Li

I'm currently attending the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. This is a school that along with many other on-post organizations (the Combat Studies Institue, Center of Army Lessons Learned, etc.) spend a considerable time examining strategic (national) level operations. Not surprisingly, the school focuses a large portion of time on the US' conduct of the Global War on Terror. Additionally, the school hosts many speakers such as Rep Ike Shelton (chairman of the House Armed Services Comittee) and GEN(R) Barry McCaffery (military analyst used by CNN and MSNBC) that discuss this very issue.

Since the surge, the security situation within Iraq has dramatically improved. There are many things that contribute to this, including a change in the leadership at the the DOD level (the replacement of Donald Rumsfield with Secretary Robert Gate and the arrival of GEN David Petraeus as the Commander of Multi-National Force - Iraq), improvements in Counter-Insurgency tactics, as well as a rejection of the radical fundamental Islamist terror organizations by the general population of Iraq.

This improved security situation should not be mistaken as victory, but nevertheless provides a much needed opportunity for the Iraqi government to continue to establish itself. This is a considerable challenge due to the ethnic tensions within the country and represent one of the greatest frictions points for success in the region. However, ethnic strife is not the only area that require emphasis.

Increased security enable multiple agencies (Dept of State, Agriculture, Commerce, etc) to operate with their Iraqi counterparts to improve conditions within the country. These improvements have a strategic, operational, and tactical effect that further reduces the recruitment of Islamic extremist organizations within the region.

Trained Iraqi forces continue to take over more and more of a role in the defense of their country but are NOT ready to secure the entire country on their own yet. Turning over the security mission completely to the Iraqi forces at this time would result in the loss of all that the Coalition forces have acheived to this point. The solution continues to be a gradual replacement of Coalition forces with Iraqi forces and the United States #1 priority is the military transition teams that help prepare the Iraqi forces.

This war is not lost, contrary to what the media attempts to portray. (BTW, anyone notice how the media doesn't cover the war like they did previously? Why doesn't the media cover these improvements with the same zeal that they covered the struggles in 2006?) However, if the United States conducts a withdrawl prior to the Iraqi being ready to govern themsleves, the US will create a safe haven for terrorist organizations and embolden those terrorist organizations and countries that wish to do harm to the United States.

This is why a gradual phased reduction is the preferable course of action, which most, but not all, candidates agree on. This withdrawl should be event-driven rather than time-driven, since wars don't follow timetables well.

[j&j2]

The "success" of the surge has more to do w/ the Sunnis getting sick of the demands and crappy lifestyle (not to mention the executions for dissenters and breaking of fingers for smoking, etc.) imposed upon them by the radical foreigners.

Once we gave up on the asinine demand that Sunni territory be patrolled by Iraqi National (i.e. - Shia) Police - they were quick to switch sides.

The problem is that who knows how much longer this relative calm is going last since the Central Iraqi govt. has been doing everything to not fund the new Sunni security forces or local administrations.

[Bhodi_Li]

The "success" of the surge has more to do w/ the Sunnis getting sick of the demands and crappy lifestyle (not to mention the executions for dissenters and breaking of fingers for smoking, etc.) imposed upon them by the radical foreigners.

Once we gave up on the asinine demand that Sunni territory be patrolled by Iraqi National (i.e. - Shia) Police - they were quick to switch sides.

The problem is that who knows how much longer this relative calm is going last since the Central Iraqi govt. has been doing everything to not fund the new Sunni security forces or local administrations.Here is an article published in the Military Review about the Anbar Awakening (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf). In case you don't want to read the entire article, here is the first paragraph:

The stunning security improvements in Al Anbar province during 2007 fundamentally changed the military and political landscape of Iraq. Many, both in and outside the military (and as late as November 2006), had assessed the situation in Anbar as a lost cause. The “Anbar Awakening” of Sunni tribal leaders and their supporters that began in September 2006 near Ramadi seemed to come out of nowhere. But the change that led to the defeat of Al-Qaeda in Ramadi–what some have called the “Gettysburg of Iraq”— was not a random event.1 It was the result of a concerted plan executed by U.S. forces in Ramadi. Tactical victory became a strategic turning point when farsighted senior leaders, both Iraqi and American, replicated the Ramadi model throughout Anbar province, in Baghdad, and other parts of the country, dramatically changing the Iraq security situation in the process.

[Feger]

Thanks again Mr. Li

My son was in Ramadi and it is very gratifying for me to have someone of your insight to lay matters out in the open.



Here is an article published in the Military Review about the Anbar Awakening (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MarApr08/Smith_AnbarEngMarApr08.pdf). In case you don't want to read the entire article, here is the first paragraph:

[Yeahman]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4228

[haplesshobo]

In the end, I'm not really sure you should base your vote on what the candidate promises as it will be just another broken campaign promise in a long line of promises that all candidates break. Any responsible president, when faced with the reality of the situation, will not order an immediate withdrawal no matter what he or she may have promised while campaigning for president.

It depends on when she(HRC) said it, as its changed over this election cycle. Of course, that's true for most of the candidates.

Back when she was the early frontrunner, it was a lot more nuanced about Iraq. Even Barack was already giving himself an out back then. But, as the race as gotten more competitve, all those clauses have been left by the wayside as the candidates pander to the democratic, anti-war base. Right now, the democratic candidates are competing with each other to see who can promise to bring the troops home the fastest despite how unrealistic it may be and contrary to what they were saying just six months ago.

Earlier in the campaign, Obama threw Samantha Powers under the bus in part because of her honesty about Obama's Iraq 16 month withdrawal timetable of sending one to two combat brigades back home so that "all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months." But, now, that Obama has wrapped up the nomination, Obama is all but admitting Powers was right as he's signaling that he'll break this campaign promise as well.

In a recent news conference, Obama said that he would 'refine' the withdrawal plan after consulting with the generals in Iraq so that such a withdrawal would leave Iraq stable. But, this is all a sham cause it will provide a convenient out for Obama where the generals will tell him that such a timeline will not accomplish that even as Obama has understood that but never stopped promising to bring the troops home in 16 months.

But, then, hours later, Obama realized the political fallout and started backtracking from this and denied this was any shift from before. To win the general, Obama has to go to center on some issues. But, in the past few weeks, Obama has been abandoning so many issues- FICSA, NAFTA, public financing, gun control, he's even started to wear a flag pin after lecturing how it was pseudo-patriotism- that Obama risked a backlash. And, while Obama could have gotten away with breaking this promise or that promise, finally fessing up about his withdrawal plan would have broken the camel's back as its been so central to the fairy tale narrative of his campaign.

If Obama becomes president, I don't really believe there will be a 16 month withdrawal timetable and Obama's and McCain's position on Iraq will be a lot closer than people think. But, right now, politically, coming out and telling the truth about Iraq didn't make sense. For the general election, so many Americans are so sick of Iraq that Obama didn't have to start 'refine' it to win the election. Instead, he could wait until after he was elected to announce any changes in his Iraqi withdrawal timeline.

[Yeahman]

I was just reading about how Obama's faith-based initiative on steroids plan includes the ability of the organization to use religious tests for hiring. Obama is not just pander to the center, he's appealing to the religious right!

As I've stated before, I like it. He's turning into the candidate that McCain should have been. I'm just waiting for Obama to say "You know I'm personally pro-choice but I would appoint a pro-life justice because really Roe v. Wade wasn't the best of decisions." If he does that, he has my vote.

[haplesshobo]

I was just reading about how Obama's faith-based initiative on steroids plan includes the ability of the organization to use religious tests for hiring. Obama is not just pander to the center, he's appealing to the religious right!

From what I've read, Obama's proposal will not allow these religious groups that accept public money to use religious tests for firing and hiring for government-subsidized social programs, but is willing to allow those groups to use such religious tests in the rest of their organization outside those programs. Didn't Bush propose the same thing only to get shot down?


As I've stated before, I like it. He's turning into the candidate that McCain should have been. I'm just waiting for Obama to say "You know I'm personally pro-choice but I would appoint a pro-life justice because really Roe v. Wade wasn't the best of decisions." If he does that, he has my vote.

Isn't that and the environment the only core Democratic value Obama hasn't flipped flopped on yet? He's already shifted positions on gun control, free trade, started to position himself for a shift on withdrawal, etc..

But, if this gets you off, Obama in a recent interview with a Christian magazine, rejected the idea that 'mental distress' should qualify as an justification for late-term abortions.

Obama said, "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

That's probably the most you can hope from a Democrat these days and not something a lot of abortion rights supporters would embrace. Certainly, not NARLA whose official position on this matter is:


A health exception must also account for the mental health problems that may occur in pregnancy. Severe fetal anomalies, for example, can exact a tremendous emotional toll on a pregnant woman and her family.

[Yeahman]

^ Give me some more of that and I'll go campaign for Obama. If he gets elected and veers left again, I will campaign against him even if he runs against Hitler.

On the environment, he doesn't differ much from McCain so that isn't something that will swing votes. Even on health care, Obama hasn't offered too much detail but it's the one issue where he smartly stood to the right of Hillary on.

I wonder how Hillary would have modified her positions had she won the nomination.

[haplesshobo]

I wonder how Hillary would have modified her positions had she won the nomination.

Well, I think HRC's mistake was that she ran a general campaign before she even won the nomination so if you went back to the beginning of her campaign, I think you'd have a good idea what her positions would have been.


^ Give me some more of that and I'll go campaign for Obama. If he gets elected and veers left again, I will campaign against him even if he runs against Hitler.

You've fallen for the Obama trap! The guy has been a blank slate where people have projected onto him, and people on different sides of an issue both think Obama stands with them on that issue.

Obama's great talent in speeches isn't to sell a particular idea and move the country towards that idea. Instead, his great talent is to sell himself to different audiences by telling them what they want to hear. Whenever I read or hear something by Obama, most of the time I have a pretty good idea who the audience was just from Obama's position. People here were saying how honest Obama was for that guns and religion comment, but that was for a liberal SF audience that was never supposed to have been disclosed outside that audience. And, if he had been before a red state audience, you know he would have said something different.


Even on health care, Obama hasn't offered too much detail but it's the one issue where he smartly stood to the right of Hillary on.

I have to disagree about health care. For the primaries, Obama positioned himself as the progressive darling of the Daily Kos activists with all those positions to the left. But, if Obama was going after those voters, why not support a health care plan that would have actually worked like HRC's? Obama might as well have supported an identical plan to HRC's instead of his flawed one cause if both candidates had identical issues and plans, then voters would have voted for the more charismatic candidate as we saw with his win.

And, then after wrapping the primaries, come out and start shifting your position on health care as he's since done on a number of other issues in the past few weeks.

[SunWuKong]

And, then after wrapping the primaries, come out and start shifting your position on health care as he's since done on a number of other issues in the past few weeks.

he's basically going to position himself just enough to the left of McCain in order to win the presidency. i can respect more centrist views, in fact i prefer it, but it would have been much better if that's what he started out with in the primary. but now i have no idea what kind of candidate i'm really voting for if i voted for Obama, because i don't really know where he stands.

[Yeahman]

Well, I think HRC's mistake was that she ran a general campaign before she even won the nomination so if you went back to the beginning of her campaign, I think you'd have a good idea what her positions would have been.
True. Clinton actually offered detailed plans which would have been hard to go back on.

You've fallen for the Obama trap! The guy has been a blank slate where people have projected onto him, and people on different sides of an issue both think Obama stands with them on that issue.

Obama's great talent in speeches isn't to sell a particular idea and move the country towards that idea. Instead, his great talent is to sell himself to different audiences by telling them what they want to hear. Whenever I read or hear something by Obama, most of the time I have a pretty good idea who the audience was just from Obama's position. People here were saying how honest Obama was for that guns and religion comment, but that was for a liberal SF audience that was never supposed to have been disclosed outside that audience. And, if he had been before a red state audience, you know he would have said something different.
I'm a third party voter which always leads to disappointment so I'm looking for any excuse to vote for a major party candidate. I'd vote for a candidate with ambiguous positions over one with clear positions in opposition to my own.

I have to disagree about health care. For the primaries, Obama positioned himself as the progressive darling of the Daily Kos activists with all those positions to the left. But, if Obama was going after those voters, why not support a health care plan that would have actually worked like HRC's? Obama might as well have supported an identical plan to HRC's instead of his flawed one cause if both candidates had identical issues and plans, then voters would have voted for the more charismatic candidate as we saw with his win.

And, then after wrapping the primaries, come out and start shifting your position on health care as he's since done on a number of other issues in the past few weeks.
I have no idea what the Obama camp was thinking but there was obviously a reason why he decided to stand to the right of Clinton. Maybe he thought that getting any closer to the left would prevent him from being able to move right during the general. Maybe he thought that voters would be too stupid to know the difference. I think that's true for the most part. If you asked people who voted for him, I bet a large number of them, maybe even most, think that he was proposing universal health care.

[haplesshobo]

i can respect more centrist views, in fact i prefer it, but it would have been much better if that's what he started out with in the primary.

Yeah, but look at what happened to HRC when she tried to do that.

If Obama's plan the entire time was to flip flop after the primaries, I think he would have been better served to have started slowly drifting to the middle after Ohio. Right now, what's hurting Obama is that he's flip flopped so much in just a few weeks- I think he's shifted positions on about eight or nine things so far. This way, it wouldn't have looked so obvious if he had started changing position on something once every couple of weeks instead of this current rate.


I have no idea what the Obama camp was thinking but there was obviously a reason why he decided to stand to the right of Clinton. Maybe he thought that getting any closer to the left would prevent him from being able to move right during the general. Maybe he thought that voters would be too stupid to know the difference. I think that's true for the most part. If you asked people who voted for him, I bet a large number of them, maybe even most, think that he was proposing universal health care.

Yeah, whenever I saw Obama's plan and universal health care, I always felt it should have been typed out 'universal health care' with quotation marks.

And, there's also a possible third reason- the cult of Obama where the Obamiacs mantra would be "Obama is never wrong unless he tells us he was wrong, and then Obama was only wrong that one time. But, even then, Obama was not wrong." Obama could say anything, and his followers would believe it no matter how ridiculous or absurd it may have been.

Part of me wants to see Obama win just to see how crestfallen his cult will be when they discover he's not the Messiah whose blood will not absolve this country of its racial division and solve all our other issues.

But, then, I'm also kind of worried about a Obama presidency with a commanding Democratic majority in the House and Senate. That's almost never a good mix with one party dominating both the presidency and congress. After eight years of Bush, the country seems like its ready to tack left with the Republican party is in shambles. But, a bad mix of Obama and a democratic congress could reverse that course.

[buttermilkwise]

As I've stated before, I like it. He's turning into the candidate that McCain should have been. I'm just waiting for Obama to say "You know I'm personally pro-choice but I would appoint a pro-life justice because really Roe v. Wade wasn't the best of decisions." If he does that, he has my vote.

What will be funnier is when Obama selects George Bush as his running mate.

(and McCain picks up hillary).

[SunWuKong]

If you asked people who voted for him, I bet a large number of them, maybe even most, think that he was proposing universal health care.


i thought it was because voters think he would change the country and unite peoples...

at this point, to me, i'm left with:
McCain - clear on his views, but foreign policy way too hawkish for me. but slight possibility he'll be better with taxes, trade, and the economy - depending on who he appoints.
Obama - not sure on his views, and could be almost as bad as McCain on foreign policy, who the fuck knows? also he as president means we have a Democrat White House and Democrat-controlled Congress.

What will be funnier is when Obama selects George Bush as his running mate.

i think the Constitution bars ex-presidents from becoming vice president.

[AngryABCGirl]

^I'd prefer a democrat controlled presidency and republican controlled congress- economies tend to do best in those conditions according to my old job.

It's fair to say most people in the Obama camp who aren't partisian democrats or republicans or firm political stances support him more based on his personality than policy.

[tommyhtown]

What will be funnier is when Obama selects George Bush as his running mate.


Jeb's son? Is he even old enough?

[Yeahman]

^I'd prefer a democrat controlled presidency and republican controlled congress- economies tend to do best in those conditions according to my old job.
Correlation with probably no causation. But the situation you mention may be more conducive to spending restraint than the opposite. It looks like a Republican Congress is more effective at opposing a Democratic president's programs than a Democratic Congress has opposing a Republican president's programs. Still, either would be preferable to a one-party government.

Jeb's son? Is he even old enough?
Three years short.

[haplesshobo]

i thought it was because voters think he would change the country and unite peoples...


What exactly is this 'change', and do even Obamaics know what it means? Did Obama ever specifically lay out what these changes were going to be?

I've read 5,000 word manifestos by Obamiacs about how Obama's life story will usher in a new era but I still have no idea what this 'change' was supposed to be. To me, this whole 'change' thing was just a shallow campaign slogan that was just as meaningful as saying 'hope' or 'yes'.

[buttermilkwise]

Jeb's son? Is he even old enough?

lol good catch, other than Jindal, I think this is probably the only non-white future candidate the republicans will groom as Obama's counterpart.

[SunWuKong]

What exactly is this 'change', and do even Obamaics know what it means? Did Obama ever specifically lay out what these changes were going to be?

I've read 5,000 word manifestos by Obamiacs about how Obama's life story will usher in a new era but I still have no idea what this 'change' was supposed to be. To me, this whole 'change' thing was just a shallow campaign slogan that was just as meaningful as saying 'hope' or 'yes'.

i think he tends to speak in generalities. one of the things i think he wants to change, or says he wants to change, is DC's "politics as usual" and decrease partisan politics.

[Sunflare]

I just read in the news today that Iraq's national security advisor Mowaffaq al-Rubaie has made an official statement declaring that Iraq will not settle for any security agreement unless the U.S. and other foriegn forces set specific dates for withdraw of all of its forces from Iraq. Rubaie said that Iraq is "waiting impatiently for the day when the last foriegn soldier leaves Iraq." He continued saying " "We can't have a memorandum of understanding with foreign forces unless it has dates and clear horizons determining the departure of foreign forces. We're unambiguously talking about their departure ... "

Previously, the day before, Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki discussed Iraq's wishes for a definite timetable to be set for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces in particular under the agreement negotiations being made.

The White House responded stating that they are not looking towards a definite deadline for withdraw of its troops. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe was quoted as saying : "Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day ... It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal".



http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0353522920080708?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0&sp=true

[haplesshobo]

i think he tends to speak in generalities. one of the things i think he wants to change, or says he wants to change, is DC's "politics as usual" and decrease partisan politics.

Obama has already flip flopped on a number of issues, broken campaign promises, and pandered to his party's base to win the nomination only to move to the middle after winning said nomination. Sounds like politics as usual to me.

Not that being just another politician should disqualify him or somebody else from running for office. But, Obama's problem is his campaign has been centered upon this quixotic fairy tale that Obama was somehow not a politician even as he ran for political office. And, once you tear down that facade, what's left?

[Yeahman]

^ I don't his campaign has been centered around him not being a politician but rather him not being a typical politician. And he isn't. His rhetoric is decidedly less partisan and more inspiring than most others even if his voting record says otherwise. He may not walk the walk but he can sure talk the talk. On July 24, Obama is going to speak in Berlin in what could turn out to be one of the most watched speeches in history. He is no typical politician.

[BillHoo]

The more time we stay in Iraq, the more middle easterners want revenge. So staying in Iraq would fuel more terrorists.

We had embargos in the 1980s and the 1990s that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.

According to the most recent poll, 1.2 million innocent Iraqi civilians were murdered in our Iraq war. This is the cause that Al-Qaeda have expanded significantly. opinion[dot]co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

Yea, and we thought things would quiet down in Asia when we left Vietnam too!

Instead, the lack of US presence in the region opened the way for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge to slaughter 2 million people to purge the educated class and create an agrarian society. Then Vietnam invaded to fight them well into the late 90s and then China invaded spraking the Sino-Vietnam War. Millions more displaced or murdered where they stood.

The Bosnia model has been most successful, but not without it's own problems.

The Korean War lasted 3 years. The Iraq War will soon be going into its 5th year. Did you mean unnecessary permanent post-war presence? Our permanent post-Gulf-War presence in Saudi Arabia is partially what started this whole mess in the first place!

The Korean War (north vs. south) ended after 3 years. the US has been there for over 50. We've been fighting and dying since. I was there with the US Army in 1987, fully loaded for combat on the DMZ.

Average 6 to 7 American troops are killed by hostile fire each year in Korea.

We know for a fact there were no WMDs (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/) (well, almost for a fact). Do you also wonder whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? Please.

It was badly handled, not because we went in with the wrong expectations as to what kind of war we would be waging, but rather because we shouldn't have been there in the first place, at least not based on the administration's stated justifications (WMDs).

Better ways to go about business? How about not rushing into a war, invading countries and committing enormous resources, including the lives of our soldiers, based on discredited intelligence?

We know for a fact that there were WMDs because WE GAVE THEM TO IRAQ after Saddam saved us from OPEC and $4 gasoline in the 1970s. He used these on the Iranians and his own people. We were able to account for the ones he used. There are still hundreds of tons of the stuff he didn't use.

Every intelligence service in the world knew he had WMDs. the French, Russian, Chinese, and British intell groups knew he had them.

In all likelyhood, they had been moved to Iran along with 80 percent of Saddams airforce during the first Gulf War. (that was an interesting tactic. Send all your expensive weapons to your most hated enemy for safekeeping to keep the americans from destroying them. Right. Real smart Saddam!)

[Arex]

We know for a fact that there were WMDs because WE GAVE THEM TO IRAQ after Saddam saved us from OPEC and $4 gasoline in the 1970s. He used these on the Iranians and his own people. We were able to account for the ones he used. There are still hundreds of tons of the stuff he didn't use.

Every intelligence service in the world knew he had WMDs. the French, Russian, Chinese, and British intell groups knew he had them.What the hell are you talking about? We didn't invade Iraq because he at one point in time had WMDs because we gave them to him decades earlier, or because possibly had WMDs remaining after the first Gulf War. The story given to the American people was that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the U.S. because he had WMDs at the time we invaded.

At most, U.N. weapons inspectors--who reported finding no weapons immediately prior to the invasion--reported only that Iraq could not account for all the weapons it was known to have had at the end of the first Gulf War. (Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm)) Not being able to account for weapons is a far cry from actually possessing (and being ready and willing to use) said weapons.

We don't send people to prison unless it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime. So why the hell are we invading a sovereign nation, killing tens of thousands of its citizens, in addition to incurring thousands of casualties within our own armed forces, all at an incredible cost to taxpayers, based on a mere suspicion, or worse, known discredited intelligence (see Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson)?

The entire war was premised on bullshit and most of the world knew this before we went in.

[haplesshobo]

Isn't that and the environment the only core Democratic value Obama hasn't flipped flopped on yet? He's already shifted positions on gun control, free trade, started to position himself for a shift on withdrawal, etc..


Looks like Obama has also flipped flopped on the environment as well where he's now willing to give the green light to offshore drilling. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you McBama...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that's what it takes to enact a comprehensive policy to foster fuel-efficient autos and develop alternate energy sources.

Shifting from his previous opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator told a Florida newspaper he could get behind a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

The irony is that the Democrats went on a five week vacation without allowing a vote on the oil drilling bill to protect Obama, and he ends up doing this. LOL.

[Yeahman]

^ That was expected. With today's gas prices you can't oppose off-shore drilling. The whole party had to move. He just had to move with the nation. We've always known that he was a populist.

[Arex]

Looks like the Bush administration has tentatively agreed to a timetable for withdrawal. Wonder when McCain/Palin are going to get their heads out of their asses and accept that withdrawing from Iraq does not mean surrendering or "losing."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/14/iraq.security/index.html

Iraqi leaders consider troop deal with U.S.

From Elise Labott
CNN State Department Producer

(CNN) -- Iraqi leaders met Tuesday to review a draft of an agreement on the future of U.S. troops in Iraq, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said.

A senior Bush administration official said the text calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraqi cities, cease street patrols and return to their bases by June, unless Iraqis request their support.

The agreement also calls for U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011, the senior official said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

The official said that the Iraqis could ask U.S. troops to stay beyond 2011 depending on conditions on the ground but that the Iraqis would have "sole discretion" as to whether troops remain.

Al-Maliki met Tuesday with President Jalal Talabani and two vice presidents to review the "semi-final draft" of the agreement, al-Maliki adviser Yassin Majid said.

But the U.S. official said that the draft was final and that negotiations on the Status of Forces Agreement had finished.

"But that doesn't mean we have a deal until the Iraqis agree," the official said. "We may have a text, but do we really have an agreement? We don't until the Iraqis sign off."

With the United Nations mandate authorizing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq expiring December 31, U.S. officials are examining "contingencies" in case the Iraqi government is unable to sell the deal to the country's various factions, the U.S. official said.

One issue that had held up negotiations was whether U.S. troops will remain immune from Iraqi law. The U.S. official said negotiators had "reached a compromise" on the issue, but details of the immunity compromise weren't available.

Baghdad has sought the authority to arrest and try Americans accused of crimes unrelated to official military operations. It also wants jurisdiction over troops and contractors who commit grave mistakes in the course of their duties.

Over the weekend, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said he thought the draft's language concerning the immunity issue "could be supported by Iraqi leaders."

"I think both sides offered whatever they have, so I think now we have a text that is reasonable," Zebari said.

Majid said al-Maliki will show the draft Wednesday to the Political Council for National Security, a body that includes al-Maliki, Talabani, the two vice presidents, leaders of political blocs and the parliament speaker.

If those groups are approve the draft, al-Maliki will submit it to his Cabinet and ask for members to approve it by a two-thirds majority, Majid said. As a final step, al-Maliki will submit it to the Iraqi parliament to approve the draft.

If Iraq's various executive councils and parliament do not approve the deal, fallback options include "a new U.N. Security Council resolution legally authorizing the extension of the U.S. footprint" or an "informal agreement between the United States and the Iraqis," the U.S. official said.

The official said that there is a general consensus within the Bush administration on the draft and that Congress expects to be briefed on the draft "soon."

[j&j2]

^ That was expected. With today's gas prices you can't oppose off-shore drilling. The whole party had to move. He just had to move with the nation. We've always known that he was a populist.

It's called pragmatism.

No way the Republicans are going to agree to investing in renewable energy sources, etc. unless they got something in return.

At least Obama changed his stance (reluctantly) in order to avoid gridlock (that's what the best politicians do - compromise to get something done).

McCain, otoh, reversed course on drilling offshore solely to pander to the public.

As for flip-flopping, no one has done more than McCain - he is virtually unrecognizable from the McCain of 2000.