U.S. 2008 Election

[DarthTofu]

I was talking to Tex, but that's beside the point. For the record, it would appear that our foreign policy sway has gone rather up, contrary to popular belief: Check it out.

[Evaders99]

I'm not surprised the socialists states want a more socialist President.

It is interesting the support McCain got from Iraq, perhaps indicating that they don't necessarily approve of Obama's "get out of Iraq ASAP" message.

[Eagle]

I recently heard something completely different from iraquie officials, that they would like to be responsible for their own now. Its also common knowledge that the iraquie people dont like foreign troops in their country (who would at all) and see them as occupying troops.

 

BTW Im not quite sure about that, but according to the choice of words some of you use here Ive got the impression that some of you mistake socialism with solidarism. Thats not the same. Its pretty strange if not disturbing if you would view all other countries of the world as socialistic states. Theres nothing wrong with helping those who cant help themselves. Thats why we here in Europe have a health care which is based on solidarism(!). Think about that if you one day get seriously ill and cant afford important medication or a live safing OP.

[Evaders99]

I don't really get the term solidarism... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarism

Can you explain?

 

There have been many great gains in Iraq troops regaining control of their provinces. But it obviously isn't going to be an easy process with an untested new force.

I'm not saying there isn't a big push from the Iraqi government to get us out. The story isn't that they don't want us out... you've heard that through every news media since day 1. But the reality is that many officials in their government realize our forces are necessary until the Iraqi's have confidence in this own forces, to the point the Iraqi government requested the UN Security Council extend the mandate of the Multinational force in Iraq in 2006 and then again in 2007.

 

What we ultimately disagree with is when US forces should leave... should be it be set to an unrealistic, static timeframe (Obama's plan) or should be ultimately be left to the dynamics and conditions in areas of Iraq.

[DarthTex]

Your primary criticism of the man is that we know nothing of him, yet you claim that he can't be a great president. Could it be that you've formed an opinion of the man based upon his political party before ever giving him a chance? If he does poorly, I'll be the first to admit that he's done poorly, but if everyone is calling his reign the apocalypse and choosing to hate him in advance, it'll be that much harder to do a good job for his four years.

It's not totally based on his political party (although it does have some significance), it has mostly to do with his proposed policies (and/or "party" policies). I just don't like them. I'll give the guy a chance, but I'm definitely not expecting anything but miserable decisions (if he gets to actually make them himself, vs being told what to do by other party officials).

 

Just for example: In Iraq, if I were an insurgent & Obama says all US troops will depart by Dec. 31, 2009. Then I'll sit around and do nothing but plan like crazy. On Jan 1, 2010 there'll be more chaos then all other years combined. Why? Because the US troops are gone, & Iraqi troops/police will eventually be whittled down. I would hope not, but it has happened locally in Iraq before.

 

As far as I know, the happiest world leaders, and those first to congratulate Obama's win have been Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), President Tom from Iran (I'm not even trying to spell his name), and Castro; countries most against the United States.

 

 

I recently heard something completely different from iraquie officials, that they would like to be responsible for their own now. Its also common knowledge that the iraquie people dont like foreign troops in their country (who would at all) and see them as occupying troops.

Eagle, do you see American troops stationed in Germany for the last ~60 years as occupying troops? Last time there was a permanent pullout of US troops, there was a bit of an uproar about US dollars leaving the local German economy. I don't hear about IED's and suicide bombers in Germany, so what is different between Germany & Iraq (other than the time troops have been "onsite")?

[Eagle]

Dear Tex, I beg you, but these are two different shoes IMO.

 

The US troops and also other allied forces had to stay here in germany after WWII because of the feared heatening of the cold war. That war is already over, right, and because of that they should have already left german territory like the russians did, the britts, the french and the canadian already did a long time ago. The US troops are the only former allied forces who stayed here, because german ground became much more of strategic importance for the US military. Weve got of course the biggest military installations here outside of the US and maybe even bigger than anything you have in your own country. For example the NSA headquarters here in Germany is even much bigger than in your own country and there are good reasons for that for sure. At the start of Dessert Storm pt. 2 people here would have loved to see the US troops leaving because of our stance against that war and its illegality. Now they have to stay or otherwise they wouldnt be able to support their troops in the gulf region and in Afghanistan.

 

I doubt that they will be able to pull out the troops of Iraq that fast, because like you both already mentioned, they have to finally enable the iraqy government to be able to protect its citizens on their own. The problem was and still is, which has been critized from the beginning of that war by many sides, but mostly by the french and german governments, but has been ignored, that the Bush administration had no plan about what shall happen with Iraq after the invasion has been achieved. I dont want to retell the whole story but we all know what kind of chaos there was soon after the victory and that they have put ordinary front soldiers in place to do police duties, who seemed to be kinda trigger happy and shot first before asking questions. So get your job finally done down there and let your troops being replaced by local forces and than pull out your troops. But I have no doubts that some US Forces will remain there. And if its just one or two carriers.

 

I don't really get the term solidarism... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarism

Can you explain?

Oh, Im sorry for the confusion. I used the wrong english word. I mean solidarity.

[DarthTofu]

Iraq has become very much like Vietnam- it's a pity that we have to pull out, but we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. Our "Iraquinization" has failed just as much as "Vietnamization," and we have to accept that and move out. Eventually the country will figure out what it's doing, and when it does it may reenter world politics... but it's going to be a while.

 

Just because a few enemies of the US have been vocal in support of Obama doesn't mean that more allies (and potential allies) haven't been vocal. Castro hasn't moved against the US actively in- what, almost fifty years, now? Chavez... well, Chavez is nuts- you really can't tack too much weight on anything he says or does. As for the Irani support... make of that what you will. We'll see what happens there.

[DarthTex]

Iraq has become very much like Vietnam- ...

The war in Iraq was nothing like Vietnam, if anything it was the complete opposite. Vietnam was a quagmire because politicians tried to micro-manage a military campaign, instead of those trained to run a military campaign. This just showed that politicians should "butt out" of military affairs, AND not to start wars if you weren't willing to pay the consequences (the unpopular support by vocal young hippies, that went against everything of the previous generation). Anyways, politicians always want to get re-elected, so they cater to the most vocal criticisms to "show" they're doing something. The Vietcong knew militarily they couldn't beat the US, but had a strategy to fight by playing off the vocal opponents. If the press didn't cover any of the protests in the US, most other protests wouldn't have even started; then where would the Vietcong have been with no antagonist group to play off of?

 

In Iraq, the politicians for the most part "stayed out" of the military's way. Unfortunately, the military was expecting the Iraqi army to mass surrender like in Desert Storm; but they mostly deserted taking their arms with them, and/or letting their military arms be seized. Basically there was no one left to surrender when US forces drove into Baghdad. So, now the military was left fighting terrorists instead of an army. But, US forces have made great stride and have all but eliminated Al-queda thugs and terroristic activity in Iraq.

 

Tofu, you said we shouldn't have gone in the first place; Eagle says the war was illegal. Unfortunately, this is not a nice little cut & dry like Pearl Harbor to make decisions easy. The war started because of Saddam, so blame him if you have any problems. He used mustard gas (a WMD) against his own people & Iranians, so you KNOW he has WMD's. The Israeli's took out a nuclear power plant in the 80's, so you know he has uranium & some atomic know how. He invades Kuwait, threatens practically everybody nearby, then loses in Desert Storm. He ignores multiple UN resolutions, finally kicking out inspectors checking for WMD's. Every official gov't intelligence agecy in the world believes he has WMD's (not just the US, but plenty of others). Saddam, didn't make special rooms with giant atomic bombs with big red ribbons saying "Here I am, an Atomic Bomb, Mr. WMD". WMD's were found in Iraq, but liberal media doesn't want the war to be justified, so they don't report it. Chemical weapons were found, uranium was found, what else do you want. No one said Saddam, directly helped Al-queda, but he did help other terrorists, and violated UN resolutions. I guess you think things would have been better if Saddam was still in power? I don't think the Iraqi people would agree with you. The US has helped these people more in the last couple of years, than probably any of their own leaders for their entire history. Iraq (in the recent past) is what happens when leaders worry more about themselves (power, wealth, etc) instead of caring for their citizens. Now they have new schools, roads, sewer systems, running water, electrical power, etc. I would say life is probably much better for them now than it ever was.

 

 

Man that turned into a long rant. I hate rants. Obama better not mess this up now that it's winding down.

[Eagle]

I could be wrong of course but I am pretty sure that Tofu didnt mentioned the Vietnam war to bring it in relation with the losses you had in the Iraq war and after. There cannot be any relation, thats right. But please dont bring up all those old stories of the 80s. Saddam used Mustard Gas 20 years ago against the Kurds. That was also one mentioned reason for Dessert Storm part I in `91. After that war he had to destroy all WMDs. Which has been achieved even as he threw out all UN inspectors. Till this day there hasnt been found any SCUD rocket equipped with WMDs. All which has been found were about a dozen of arty grenades with gas of some kind. But thats not what you can call a WMD. Did they found any SCUDs equipped with WMDs, ready to go to be shot against allies, than please give me a link about that report. Because than Ive missed something. Im always open for some new info.

 

And, uhm, what was that? Youve got liberal media? Since when? Theyve always been with your president at all time. Since one or two years they start to ask some silent questions, which gives you hope that some day there will be maybe real investigative journalism again, like in the Watergate-era of the good old 70s.

[Darth_Rob]

I just have my two cents about the Iraq war.

 

I watched an interview they did with Saddam after he was captured, before he was executed. In it, he stated that he did not have the WMDs in Iraq, hence why U.S. forces have not found them yet. However, he implied that he did have them, and wanted the international community to believe that he had them. His greatest concern was that Iran would invade Iraq, and in order to deter them, he led everyone to believe that he had a stockpile of WMDs. So even when the U.S. was preparing to initiate the war, he did not say otherwise. He would rather have the U.S. invade Iraq then Iran. So yes, Saddam is to blame, since he led the U.S. to believe that he was a threat, and the U.S. acted on that threat. The job of a government is to promote the safety and security of the nation, and the U.S. acted on what it believed was a threat.

 

Heres a link to the interview.

 

On a second note, I just want to say something else about all this. I am a firm believer in international cooperation, and I dont agree with the U.S. stance on not supporting the ICC (International Criminal Court). I really believe that Saddam should have been tried there, for war crimes. Instead, he was given a trial in Iraq and executed. I feel that his case warranted an international trial.

 

Like I said, just my two cents.

[DarthTex]

Do a google search; you'll find sarin and mustard gas loaded into artillery shells. Some where even used as IED's. I don't know if the terrorists knew they were chemical shells or not (I would guess not, because they usually want a big explosion, and a "gas" IED would do better in a places more crowded with people). Also, over 500 tons of uranium was shipped out of Iraq. Nobody read about that because the authorities didn't want it known to prevent search & theft of the material for "dirty" bombs.

 

And, uhm, what was that? Youve got liberal media? Since when? Theyve always been with your president at all time.

Since before you were born. Liberal media and liberal professors at colleges have been the norm since the 60's.

 

I am a firm believer in international cooperation, and I dont agree with the U.S. stance on not supporting the ICC (International Criminal Court).

I remember reading something similar about Saddam, Rob. As for the "World Court", it's more problems than it's worth. Mainly because you'd forfeit your US Constitutional rights, and any Tom, Dick or Abdullah could file charges against you. Every single person in the government and most of the military would have charges filed on them by the dozens. It would just be a waste of time trying to defend everyone, every single day over "bogus" charges as disgrunted people (and probably lots of terrorists) use the system to "bog down" society. Personally, if the US had the technical know how, resources and "cajones", I'd prefer going totally isolationist, and "screw the world"; [mocking nay-sayer]: nag, nag, nag; You're the US & think you can do whatever you want. Well, get out of here we don't want you. Help us! Help us! Why doesn't the US send help! We need food, money and/or support; why doesn't the US help? [/mocking off] Make up your minds, either you want or help or not, but you don't get to change your mind when it suits you.

 

Damn, another rant!

 

I'm really starting to hate this thread; and anything political

[Eagle]

LoL, Tex! If so than I would agree with leaving it now. This topic was about the US election and not about Iraq or anything else. The election is now finally over since more than a week and I hope that we all will be happy in some way with your choice.

 

Peace and may the force be with you.

 

One more thing to add:

A good citizen is a critical citizen. At least in a democratic state. Dont ever see your presidents or chancelors as a kind of god who never ever does anything wrong. Especially if they do belong to your favoured partie. Allways watch closely what they are doing. Because after all, you are their boss and they have to work for you and not for any kind of corporate interest or selfishness or anything else! So if they dont do what the people want, than kick their butt at any time, at any place!

[DarthTofu]

I was actually referring to the style of combat when I said Iraq was like Vietnam. That is to say, we don't know who our enemies are until they start shooting at us, and new enemies are being created all the time. The difference between the V.C. and the "good guys" was indistinguishable in most cases. Geography didn't always determine who wanted to fight for which side- same goes for this Iraq war.

 

Disgruntled folk are changing sides all over the place. Maybe the media is liberal, as you say, Tex, but they tend to report the facts. The nerve gas, mustard gas, etc. have been around since the Cold War. They've been stockpiled, and nothing I've seen suggests production. I'm not trying to say that Sadam is a great man, but hey- neither was Stalin. Neither is Castro. Neither is Hugo Chavez, who staged a military coup to seize power. We can't play world police, here. Unless and until those nations start playing the aggressor/committing genocide like that which called for Operation Desert Storm, it isn't our place to invade.

[Lord_La_forge]

I think we are through with this. I'm closing the thread now, before we get seriously off-topic in a 'bad' way.