2008 Presidential Election

[Ex-D&Der]

I think it's worth a shot to draw the troops down in Iraq. It certainly hasn't worked having them there so far. It seems to me that we are the cause of the conflict, not a restraint on it.

Also the Iraq Study Group, which incorporated the views of the best experts on this issue, recommended a very sensible plan for drawing the troops down, but it was a dead letter because Bush has no desire to do so.

[Evangelion]

RE BigPapa:

You want to know the difference between America and Australia, and the rest of the world?

We have more 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrants than any country in the world. We have people in political office who were raised in households traditional of their countries, and even some I'm sure who were raised IN their countries. America is not like Australia, or China, or India, in that we have so much representation from foreign countries. And if our government isn't going to represent all of our nation's people, then they're not doing their jobs. So we can tell the rest of the world to bugger off. But how do we say that to ourselves?

[Mister E]

Since America entered the middle east there has not been one attack on American soil. That is the point, the conflict had to be taken there, where it has always been, before America even existed. Sure the world needs oil and ironically that happens to be the best place to get it, but besides that terrorism is a serious problem and not only in America. Luckily the USA has the balls to stand up to it and not be afraid to roll up a country if their leader promotes the stuff. It seems the rest of the world would rather not take action, but the reason is because they have a large islamic population and are afraid of local uprising. AKA france, spain, holland etc...The world is becoming a global village and all countries need to get on side.

I could complain about a lot regarding western civilization, but in the case of the lesser of two evils, we win. Sometimes force is necessary but it would be best if all parties could live in relative peace and grow culturally and econmonically.

[Kinicky]

I hate to shatter misconceptions, but the war on terror and the war in Iraq were two completely different things. The fact that they coincided so closely caused a great deal of confusion, but we declared war on Iraq for their refusal to disarm weapons of mass destruction. Of course, when we found out that they never HAD those weapons, the spin changed to 'liberating a nation from a tyrant.'

The war on terror was/is a completely different kind of war. It was a war of intelligence gathering and small strikes. Many of those were against Al-Qaida leaders who were nowhere near Iraq.

[Kinicky]

Let me also throw in my opinion regarding where we are at with the Iraq war.

I have to agree that to pull out now will make us just as tyrannical and terroristic (is that a word?) as those organizations we so vehemently battle against. We need to leave a country better than it was when we entered - or, at the very least, at the same place. If we were to pull out now, can you imagine the type of uprising that would take place by the militants we are so busy trying to suppress?

I do not agree with the war in Iraq. However, I think that given the reports which we had at the time, coupled with Iraq's VERY shady way of interacting with UN investigators, we made the correct decision. Unfortunately, it turned out that the information we had acquired was inaccurate (and subsequently the people responsible for that information were stripped of their positions). By that time, however, we had commit ourselves and had to see it through. Which, I believe, we still do.

When it comes down to it, the UN as a whole said to Iraq "Do this, or we will be forced to take military action." Iraq did not comply, and the UN said, "Well, lets give them another chance." The US said, "Screw that. If we say we are going to do something, we follow through with it." And so they did. If we do not follow through with what we say we are going to do, how long until nobody takes us seriously?

And while the rest of the world would sit around and make empty threats, the US followed through with the difficult part - putting your money where your mouth is. Because of that, we also take the brunt of the disfavor for making difficult decisions.

For myself - power to them. If you won't follow through, don't open your mouth - even if in reflection mistakes were made. It's about responsibility and integrity. And at least the US held to that, instead of pansying out.

[Questioner]

Just to stir the pot a little...

We DID get blown the **** up several times, both abroad and at home, BEFORE we ever entered Iraq.

Well, what I meant was that the U.S. would not be annihilated in an all out war. But yes, we have been attacked several times before etering Iraq.

[Pali]

Well' date=' what I meant was that the U.S. would not be annihilated in an all out war. But yes, we have been attacked several times before etering Iraq.[/quote']

Well, yeah. Worst-case scenario in a conventional war would be us losing until we said "All right, your armies either stop or we start firing nukes. And we have more than all of you put together."

[goldbond]

the "you broke it, you fix it" argument, in any of its various forms, is highly flawed to say the least. it is demeaning to Iraq, demeaning to our military because it is false, and demeaning to the American people.

throughout history nations have been able to settle their problem without the American military being there. i daresay that Iraq could even solve its problems faster and permanently without our presence in any form, unless it is diplomatic with Iraqi permission.

arabs aren't stupid, in fact as a society, they think in much longer term than American society. they know how to be nice to occupiers' faces until either the occupiers leave or are driven out.

the length of our military's presence in Iraq and the MidEast does not correlate with solving the Alkaeda dilemma or success in Iraq nationbuilding. and all the while our country is getting broker and broker doing this. the price of oil continues to climb. the threat of extremists in our country grows while we continue to occupy the MidEast.

a lot of people are waking up to these facts, and all the neocons can now do to drum up the wars is continue to try to scare the public and make false correlations. this MidEast war will end will America going broke and/or nuking some countries(namely Iran and Syria) unless we admit the fallacies of this current interventionalist policy.

['tarako]

Well, yeah. Worst-case scenario in a conventional war would be us losing until we said "All right, your armies either stop or we start firing nukes. And we have more than all of you put together."

'That's MAD I say, just plan MAD...

[Pali]

'That's MAD I say' date=' just plan MAD...[/quote']

Yeah, that would be the name of the policy.

[Questioner]

Um, no. Everyone knows that the U.S. has the capability to deter anyone's warheads from reaching their targets. And no one has the capability of stopping our warheads from hitting them. So we don't even have to wait until they start attacking us, we just threaten their imminent destruction. But we would never really nuke anyone, cause what's the point in being a world power over a wasteland?

[Cycel]

Being a world power, maybe?

Its like that phrase, "What does it profit a man to gain the world if he should lose his soul?" It profits him the world, duh.

Kidding of course.

[Evangelion]

'That's MAD I say' date=' just plan MAD...[/quote']

Heh.

That made me chuckle.