If Obama Wins

Hear hear, Del Boy... You've made the most sense I've read so far...


Though I'm sure we'll hear tomorrow of something along the lines of "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Or some other bollocks.
 
I take your points guys - but you know how I feel - I want to see the big gest picture, which means standing back and away somewhat . I guess I await history. My view is now that, whatever the ins and outs of the decision to go to war, and God knows Sadam got enough warning, there is a job to be done and is being done; this is what Obama will face, if he is the chosen one, this is what he will have to deal with. Finish the job, or take the popular route ? He will not be competing with Geo W. over tactics - that time is long gone.

What if an acceptable political situation is achieved, following a very short and successful war, and a disaster of a post-war campaign . What if the strategy actually works; what if the middle east is gradually and patiently transformed?

What if ? Yeah, I know. The big picture, a long telescope. It's all still too close for me to make a firm judgement.

I agree with both of you that all the accepted certainties seem to be with you, but I still back the good guys and good intentions rather than the unqualified condemnation scenario . I am concerned with looking forward, not backwards.

I understand that Obama has not ALWAYS been against the Iraq war, soon we may be able to see what he is made of, and as President it will need to be good, and I will throw my lot in with the President of USA, as always. Not as a fan, but as a hard-head. I cannot believe that in a job that big, that awesome, any man can fail to give of his best, for his best reasons.

Just my opinion, I ain't gonna fight about it. I guess it will unfold to a large degree within the next few months. Awesome!
------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately I happen to think this is wishful thinking. Because of Iraq, we have seen a transformation in the Middle East to one increased danger and violence NOT to one of peace and democracy. No Democratic change ever came as part of a Foreign military occupation, the closest you could say was Japan after 1945 and even that isn't a true Democracy.

C/LT.Henderson doesn't want to believe me, but any decent History book will tell you that good intentions have been behind some of the worst military and foreign policy disasters. Just look under "causes of war". Even the Nazis though they were acting with good intentions. Napoleon wanted to spread the Napoleonic Code throughout Europe. The Code itself preached most the virtues of the French Republic, and the US Constitution (Liberty, Equality, Bill of Rights, etc). And the European empires promptly rejected it, not because of what it preached, but because it was preached by military conquest of their country. Same is true in Iraq.

If the Arabs (not just the Iraqis) are going to be a democracy they are going to have to want it, no one can force it down their throat. And from what I gather they are more inclined toward a Islamic Republic (like Iran) than a Democracy.

What Obama needs to do is declare "Mission Accomplished" (or whatever) and promptly withdraw at let the Iraqis sort themselves out because no military occupation can (just ask Israel, they have been trying for 30 years). Once a STABLE government is installed, THEN you can talk about Democracy.
 
Stability and wealth come before democracy.
People seem to forget the wealth part because they take it for granted. The average Iraqi man needs to bring food to the table and send his kids to school and a roof to house his family. That's just how it is. That's numero uno. Getting to select the thief who will take a percentage off what he earns isn't going to be one of his prime concerns.
 
Again we get have good posts, and I am not arguing with them; for Iraq it IS stability and wealth I target, not necessarily democracy. A stable regime with its oil revenues flowing and protected from distance by a benign patron until they are strong. A peaceful region, democratic or otherwise, sick of conflict. A worthwhile target for the world.
 
------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately I happen to think this is wishful thinking. Because of Iraq, we have seen a transformation in the Middle East to one increased danger and violence NOT to one of peace and democracy. No Democratic change ever came as part of a Foreign military occupation, the closest you could say was Japan after 1945 and even that isn't a true Democracy.

C/LT.Henderson doesn't want to believe me, but any decent History book will tell you that good intentions have been behind some of the worst military and foreign policy disasters. Just look under "causes of war". Even the Nazis though they were acting with good intentions. Napoleon wanted to spread the Napoleonic Code throughout Europe. The Code itself preached most the virtues of the French Republic, and the US Constitution (Liberty, Equality, Bill of Rights, etc). And the European empires promptly rejected it, not because of what it preached, but because it was preached by military conquest of their country. Same is true in Iraq.

If the Arabs (not just the Iraqis) are going to be a democracy they are going to have to want it, no one can force it down their throat. And from what I gather they are more inclined toward a Islamic Republic (like Iran) than a Democracy.

What Obama needs to do is declare "Mission Accomplished" (or whatever) and promptly withdraw at let the Iraqis sort themselves out because no military occupation can (just ask Israel, they have been trying for 30 years). Once a STABLE government is installed, THEN you can talk about Democracy.
And then, as I'm sure you've heard before, as I remember the argument that if we completely pull out now, then we'll see another Vietnam. Another dictator will come into power, or we'll see complete and total anarchy. We may not have thought the whole thing through when we got in there, but the fact remains, we got in there. To leave the Iraqis now would be morally wrong. At least, to me it is.
 
And then, as I'm sure you've heard before, as I remember the argument that if we completely pull out now, then we'll see another Vietnam. Another dictator will come into power, or we'll see complete and total anarchy. We may not have thought the whole thing through when we got in there, but the fact remains, we got in there. To leave the Iraqis now would be morally wrong. At least, to me it is.

Agreed, but to think that a continued military presence is the answer is fundamentally flawed.

Your comment is similar to saying, well we buggered it up, we know that but we need to stay.

My question is, until when? What is the mission you have and what is the final result you hope to achieve. THEN, how long will it take and if you do not reach the objective within a specified time, what then.

Why is it that the military can see these questions and solutions but the civilians can not? If the military are left to fight the wars these problem would be easy. We are not and never will be.

Therefore, to expect a solution that does not involve civilian dialogue is hopeless. Then, going back to my original post, go and fight the war where the war should be fought, why is this so complicated

Going on from your comment with respect to leaving would be another Vietnam, NO, staying will lead to another Vietnam..
 
If Obama wins there is a chance the bleeding immigration laws will be revised so that me n my missus stand a chance of moving back home to the US... but I ain't holding my breath. Thank God for Australia or I'd be moving to Canada, eh.

As for the rest of it... I no longer care. People with money control the whole friggin system and nothing will ever substantially change regardless of what talking head sits in the Oval Orifice.
 
I second that statement. And again, that's a big reason why I'm just staying in Korea despite the fact that it is a foreign country to me in every way except on paper.
 
The US's loss is our gain.

If Obama wins there is a chance the bleeding immigration laws will be revised so that me n my missus stand a chance of moving back home to the US... but I ain't holding my breath. Thank God for Australia or I'd be moving to Canada, eh.

As for the rest of it... I no longer care. People with money control the whole friggin system and nothing will ever substantially change regardless of what talking head sits in the Oval Orifice.
 
Everyone will have a turn at being the new America.
in terms of education, Korea is working tirelessly to become the next America.
 
Yeah, you just have to love this interview/article. I find it revealing, although very disingenuous in places (since when to liberals care about earning “…the trust of men and women in uniform"?). :drill:

There are so many other things wrong with what he says that one hardly knows where to start. Things I have questions on:

1. What is the point of a 65,000-person increase in the Army and a 27,000-person increase in the Marine Corps while holding steady on the Navy and Air Force if you u are going to pull out of Iraq post haste?

2. How do you withdraw combat troops from Iraq at the rate of one or two brigades a month, as soon as he takes office and still maintain a viable security force on the ground and get all our stuff out (equipment, facilities, etc.)?

3. It would sure be nice if he had a clue about how to pay for all the nifty things he wants to do, but I don't think he understands how GWOT is funded. As noted in the article, and not discussed by Obama, emergency appropriations are not part of the budget, so there are no savings. I also think he seriously underestimates the need for recapitalizing the current force (the costs of recapitalizing the wheeled vehicle fleet alone are scary), let alone developing and buying new stuff.

4. I don’t understand Obama believes he would be a far better commander in chief than John McCain would. Have to tell you that working on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for far less than 2 years and growing up traveling around the world makes him “…think I can be an effective commander in chief… .”. How does that give you any sense of the “…nature of both the transnational threats and challenges but also the opportunities that are going to determine our safety and security for the foreseeable future… .”? How does this compare to devoting your entire adult life to service in the US Navy and in the US Senate.

5. I understand diplomatic power, economic power, intellectual power and even scientific power, but what the heck is “…cultural power… .”?

Note that this interview was primarily for the Army Times, which is a trade publication for the US Army and DoD. So unless you are a subscriber, have access to the Early Bird (this appeared there too), get it passed to your from someone who does or it gets picked up by other media outlets (could be as Army Times and the other Military Times papers are run by Gannet I think), you may never see this article. :roll:
Most unfortunate.


Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of Obama's, but at least read the article before spouting off against him like that. It's the media that is making things sound like he wants to pull out post haste (1-2 brigades as soon as taking office), whereas if you read the article it states that he does not wish to do this unless the conditions are appropriate.

For all of you that keep spouting that the Iraqi war was for oil, tell me why the price of gas has gone UP since the war, and not down. Tell me that the schools being opened for the first time aren't worth it. Tell me that the children getting medical care including BASIC immunizations isn't worth it. How about the people being able to compete in the Olympics isn't worth it. Seriously. We went to war because of information that we had at the time led us to believe there was a serious risk of Saddam having WMDs. This has proven largely false (there have been caches found but nothing to the magnitude of what people expected). What sets up everyone so upset is that we went in with guns a blazing and no plan for getting out. And instead of it being quick and done, there were things that happened we hadn't anticipated, like the insurgency.

Politicians have screwed things up like the do in most every non-clear cut war (vietnam anyone). War is meant to be fought by the soldiers. Politicians should stay the hell out of it. People die in wars, get over it.

And don't start talking about the death tolls here either. Total deaths in the Vietnam war was in the neighborhood of 58,000. Thus far in Iraq there's been about 4,000 (total deaths combat and otherwise). That's one HELL of an improvement.
 
For all of you that keep spouting that the Iraqi war was for oil, tell me why the price of gas has gone UP since the war, and not down. Tell me that the schools being opened for the first time aren't worth it. Tell me that the children getting medical care including BASIC immunizations isn't worth it. How about the people being able to compete in the Olympics isn't worth it. Seriously. We went to war because of information that we had at the time led us to believe there was a serious risk of Saddam having WMDs. This has proven largely false (there have been caches found but nothing to the magnitude of what people expected). What sets up everyone so upset is that we went in with guns a blazing and no plan for getting out. And instead of it being quick and done, there were things that happened we hadn't anticipated, like the insurgency.

Politicians have screwed things up like the do in most every non-clear cut war (vietnam anyone). War is meant to be fought by the soldiers. Politicians should stay the hell out of it. People die in wars, get over it.

And don't start talking about the death tolls here either. Total deaths in the Vietnam war was in the neighborhood of 58,000. Thus far in Iraq there's been about 4,000 (total deaths combat and otherwise). That's one HELL of an improvement.

I can answer this easily.

1. We went to Iraq for oil, but not to control the price of oil (that's a misconception, although the oil companies didn't complain) but to control the world supply of it. There is a oil race going on between the West and China. Both sides wish to control the world supply of it in order to support their enormous economies, unfortunately their isn't enough oil for both. Whoever controls the oil supply controls the world.

2. Any Iraqi will tell you they got better basic services under Saddam than after the US invasion. Even under the strictest period of UN embargo Food and Medicine were exempt. If anything it was the Destruction of Iraqis Infrastructure and the DeBaathification at the hands of the so-called 'liberators' that caused all the distress of cilvilians in the first place. So I will say it outloud "IT WASN'T WORTH IT".

BTW. There is a huge and real Humanitarian crisis in both Myanmar and Zimbabwe (but no oil) how come we haven't invaded there yet?

3. So we invaded the country so Iraq could compete in the Olympics, is that what you are saying? They could do that BEFORE the invasion as well, so again what did we improve exactly?

4. The information on Iraqi WMDs wasn't just false, it was Cherry-Picked, distorted, forged, lied about, and otherwise complete fabricated. The evidence and witnesses to testify to this is now so overwhelming it has crossed partisan lines. If we had a more honorable and less cowardly Congress, the entire Bush Administration would be sitting in a Federal Prison. In WWII people went to the gallows for what Bush has done (launching a aggressive war and torture).

Make no mistake the GOP had wanted to attack Iraq BEFORE Bush was elected. There is a famous letter written to President Bill Clinton by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton and all the other DC Neocons urging Clinton to invade.

5. Its not the number of KIA that is the problem, it could be 1 person or 100,000. Its what they died for. Which I am sorry to say was nothing other than Politics and Money.

And thats a pretty lousy reason...
 
Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of Obama's, but at least read the article before spouting off against him like that.
I did read the article, several times, and I thought a lot about what I wanted to say before I posted them. I can't figure where this guys is coming from (or going to) and that's my main point.

It's the media that is making things sound like he wants to pull out post haste (1-2 brigades as soon as taking office), whereas if you read the article it states that he does not wish to do this unless the conditions are appropriate.
Boy, I am glad you figured that out, because I sure couldn't, especially in light of his later statements (and restatements). He is either going to consult with Ambassador Crocker, GEN Petraeus and the others there, or he isn't; he will order a major withdrawal right away, or a measured one based on conditions. Which is it?


I get the feeling that he is making things up as he goes along; triangulating on the issues via opinion polls and at the direction from his legion of advisors (including George Clooney???????):???:

Who is this guy, really? Where does this guy stand on important issues? How can we be sure?

---------------------
Does anyone find it hilarious that Cindy Sheehan is runnning against Nancy Pelosi? I sure do!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/25/BAU310AJJ9.DTL&tsp=1
 
Last edited:
And don't start talking about the death tolls here either. Total deaths in the Vietnam war was in the neighborhood of 58,000. Thus far in Iraq there's been about 4,000 (total deaths combat and otherwise). That's one HELL of an improvement.

This very typical of the arrogance you bring to the discussion. Don’t make comments you know nothing about. How does the saying go, “rather be still and let people think you know nothing than open your mouth (pen here) and let them be sure”

The death toll in Vietnam is closer to these figures;

South Vietnam dead: 220,357;[5] wounded: 1,170,000
US dead: 58,159;[5] 2,000 missing; wounded: 303,635[6]
South Korea dead: 4,407;[5] wounded: 11,000
Thailand dead: 1,351[5]
Philippines dead: 1,000[5]
Australia dead: 520;[5] wounded: 2,400*
New Zealand dead: 37; wounded: 187
Total dead: 285,831
Total wounded: ~1,490,000

North Vietnam & NLF dead/missing: 1,176,000;[5]
wounded: 600,000+[7]
P.R. China dead: 1,446; wounded: 4,200
Soviet Union dead: unknown, less than two dozen USSR military deaths acknowledged.
Total dead: ~1,177,446
Total wounded: ~604,000+
South Vietnamese civilian dead: 1,581,000*[5]
Cambodian civilian dead: ~700,000*
Laotian civilian dead: ~50,000*

The above EXCLUDES the civillian dead in Nort Vietnam but estimates are well into the millions.


Iraq has already topped 1 200 00.

Next time, don’t just list USA figures, other people died there as well (believe it or not)
 
Back
Top