Iraq and the election

“Strategies for Iraq may not decide my vote, but it will be important.

As far as I can tell, prospects for Iraq's future look better now than they did a year ago. I think we can screw it up by leaving quickly and for domestic reasons, or by overplaying our hand. I worry that we will leave as recklessly and as thoughtlessly as we went in and without really considering the long term.

My take right now is that all the candidates seem to be either be too hawkish about Iraq and the middle east, or want us to leave too fast and too soon.

I joined demonstrations against this war, before it started, wrote to my Senators to ask them to vote against the authorization for the war and even went to Senator Kerry's office to talk with the flak catchers they sent out.

I haven't demonstrated since, partly out of respect for those whose lives were on the line, but more because I don't believe "US out Now!" is a good strategy.

Oddly, I'm thinking Huckabee might come closest to filling the bill here - but I have other concerns about Huckabee. H. Clinton might be the most hawkish of the Democrats and therefore more likely to be cautious about leaving.

There have been many promising developments. I'd like to see us out of there - but I think we can try to move things so that Iraq doesn't turn into something far worse than Afghanistan under the Taliban, both for our sake and the sake of the people who live in the middle east.

Any ideas? Which candidate do you trust to deal with things Iraq?

Right now McCain is looking good as he criticized the Rummy's strategy, but was an early advocate for a surge (although it seems like working with the Sunni tribes has done more than the surge - but perhaps the surge has helped the tribal leaders develop some courage).”

“H. Clinton might be the most hawkish of the Democrats and therefore more likely to be cautious about leaving.

I don't believe it for a second. She voted for the war, and doesn't want to appear to have flip-flopped ... she saw what that did to Kerry's chances of winning the Presidency.

The ONLY person I trust that is running is Ron Paul simply because he is the only one who VOTES as he preaches - every time. He's easily the most honest man/woman running.

I don't trust McCain for anything. McCain/Feingold? Come on! Bu**sh**! He's a showman.”

“I agree with you that Ron Paul is the most consistent in terms of his actions matching his claims.

Do you think he will do the right thing in Iraq?

Who among the Democrats is more hawkish than Clinton?

Who among the Democrats do you think is more likely to do the right thing in Iraq?”

“Do you think he will do the right thing in Iraq?

I don't think he'll be elected. If he were, I'd say absolutely. Check and balances are part of the package.

Who among the Democrats do you think is more likely to do the right thing in Iraq?

Which can spell better? Dogs or cats?”

“Ron Paul ...

The deal with him is he'll try very hard to maintain a non-interventionist policy. There will be certain realities (of the global situation) which he'll have to face upon taking office - and among them will be congress (good or bad). So, he'll try to get out of Iraq immediately - reality is it will take quite a bit longer than that.

That said, he will work quickly (as he can w/ congress) to secure the border. That's my main priority right now, and it should be all of ours.

NO other candidate is willing to actually do that as far as I can tell.
last edited: 1/03/08 7:11:00 PM”

“Mike Huckabee projected to win Iowa, hopefully will give YEAAAAARGH speech within the hour.”

“I see Obama and Huckabee in the news as the winners. Don't see any numbers though.”

“That said, he will work quickly (as he can w/ congress) to secure the border. That's my main priority right now, and it should be all of ours. - Sarge

Funny how quickly you've shifted on foreign policy. Infatuation is a powerful force for the overly emotional I suppose.”

“Funny how quickly you've shifted on foreign policy. Infatuation is a powerful force for the overly emotional I suppose.

How have I shifted on foreign policy?”

“No answer?”

“Why have you debated on TT repeatedly that the US was justified to invade Iraq and did the right thing when all along you were a "noninterventionist"? Does that not represent a shift in your thinking? I'll keep an open mind if you can reconcile the two in an honest and concise manner.”

“That's simple. As I've (and others) tried to convey to you on here many times in recent weeks, noninterventionalism and isolationism are two different things completely. You need to really understand that to have this conversation, but you don't seem to be interested in doing so. I don't know how else to explain the difference to you without you again turning it into a personal attack and calling names. You've chosen to address this particular issue in that manner, and don't seem to want to understand the difference. Read our older discussions on the matter for clarification.

That said ... The US WAS justified to invade Iraq. My position has not changed on that. What makes you think it has? Again, how has my position changed?”

“.
last edited: 1/04/08 5:46:40 AM”

“Not only "justified", but you've said it was sound policy. The US could very easily have NOT gone to war with Saddam. That you did support our military intervention seems like a direct contradiction of your new Paulistinian outlook. I've said I'll be open-minded if you can honestly and concisely reconcile this. Apparently you're still sore at me laughing at Ron's ridiculously naive outlooks on foreign policy and the military, but I don't know how else to honestly say that I'll genuinely listen to what you have to say.”

“LOL...I am betting the number of Paul supporters who have sent their personal information to Nigera for a cut of the 60 BILLION GAZILLION dollars the general secreted away...is a pretty high percentage....

LOL”

“Well, looks like it's *run away* this time.”

“I'm here. What do you want me to say Mutt? You don't understand the difference between the two words, and you have made it quite clear you have no interest in understanding the difference in the two terms, and you're just making personal insults and putting (and taking away) words into my mouth. I mean, what is it you want me to respond to?”

“It's hard work to pry the american nose out of the butts of every tin horn dictator that's every lived. Give Ron a chance.”

“I think I'm ready to totally freak out. I've gone from being way left of Buddha Bear on Iraq, to being to the right of Sarge. Actually I don't know whether it is better to say "dovish," "non-interventionist" or what.

OK - I'm kind of kidding, mostly its great to see a clear warning against making your pigeon holes too small.”

“to being to the right of Sarge.

So you want to pull out of Iraq immediately? You do know that the conservative position is non-interventionalism, right? You and Mutt seem to have that confused.”

“Oh please. The only person to bring up "isolationist" in this thread is YOU. Apparently you think it scored you a point in a different thread and that it would transfer here. Childish.

No, my question is very simple. It has nothing to do with terms that describe Paul's policy, it is specifically focused on your past statements about the Iraq War and how it fails - at least nominally - to jibe with your newfound Paulistinian foreign policy view. I've asked you politely to reconcile the two, even going to pains to let you know I'd be open minded.

But no, like EVERY other time I've asked you for direct statements regarding your beliefs on various topics you have totally CRAPPED out, copping some pathetic excuse or dodge. This is why you have zero credibility with me. Like I've said before, you're "pretty good" at trolling when you set your mind to it, but there's not much beyond that one trick. I mean, you've done everything I predicted, including feigning indignation over "personal" attacks. This is why I insult you!”

“Apparently you think it scored you a point in a different thread and that it would transfer here.

Did you not specifically ask me about me changing my position on leaving Iraq? I think that was your question, in which case, the "isolaitonist" discussion is entirely relevant.

No, my question is very simple. It has nothing to do with terms that describe Paul's policy, it is specifically focused on your past statements about the Iraq War and how it fails - at least nominally - to jibe with your newfound Paulistinian foreign policy view. I've asked you politely to reconcile the two, even going to pains to let you know I'd be open minded.

Reconcile WHAT? I've stated my position has not changed. You've stated that it has - but you won't tell me what about my position has changed. If you don't tell me that, how can I reconcile the two? Speaking of childish.

But no, like EVERY other time I've asked you for direct statements regarding your beliefs on various topics you have totally CRAPPED out, copping some pathetic excuse or dodge. This is why you have zero credibility with me. Like I've said before, you're "pretty good" at trolling when you set your mind to it, but there's not much beyond that one trick. I mean, you've done everything I predicted, including feigning indignation over "personal" attacks. This is why I insult you!

Most of the time, I'm told I go into too much detail - but occassionally somebody like you comes along and asks something without backing it up (because it's based on assumptions), then accuses me of not giving enough of an explanation to that strawman to support my position.

The fact is whenever somebody tells me what the heck they're specifically asking about (I still don't know what you think I've changed positions on specifically), I've ALWAYS gone into great detail explaining where their discrepency lies. Now, we could continue down this path of you throwing insults and strawman, and me responding to you asking you to stop - or you could just tell me what it is precisely that you think I have to reconcile. Which will it be?”

“Maybe I should accuse you of running away now?”

“I've stated my position has not changed. You've stated that it has - Sarge

LOL - that seems to be the heart of your dodge - refocus on an extraneous issue. Not bad, but rather stale. Like I said before, it's funny that you've always been gung-ho about the Iraq intervention and we never heard a peep about nonintervention until Ron Paul came on the radar recently. Now you talk about severe military cutbacks, homeland border security, and nonintervention. Yeah, a spade is a spade, and I'm placing 95% certainty that you've changed your outlook - not that there's anything inherently wrong with that. I'm willing to consider the fact that you were consistent all along, but that you won't even address it tells me everything I need to know. Moreover it shows you're insecure about it. (which is even more amusing) It certainly jibes with your constant indignation over personal attacks.”

“I waited hours for you to respond. You waited what, 15 minutes? LOL

You're getting desperate.
last edited: 1/04/08 12:04:48 PM”

““to being to the right of Sarge.

So you want to pull out of Iraq immediately? You do know that the conservative position is non-interventionalism, right? You and Mutt seem to have that confused.”
Sarge
3:28:48 PM
1/04/08

No - I understand that "conservative," as well as the word I used "right" are contested terms and their relationship to terms like "hawk," "dove," "interventionist," aren't set in stone.

What we should do about Iraq now, is a much more difficult issue than whether we should have gone in. Clearly, non-interventionism would have kept us out - but once we are in, the stakes and the issues change.”

“And you still won't give a specific of any policy I've changed on.”

“I think non intervention is good..why should we be involved with other countries...heck how bout STATES...yeah...the next terrorist attack will hit one of the major cities...SCREW EM (LOL)...I love the Non Interventionists...but bet you bottom dollar the same clowns will be decrying the little third world Flycatchers in some WE ARE THE WORLD. Crap...demanding I give up MY money for someone who really doesn't care to change.

Its like the Leeches in the inner cities...they want the cops when they 'bein hurt..but GOD help you if you go in there to help someone else.

Most non interventionists are just spoiled little brats who truly cannot think beyond their own pathetic lives to consider the dangers other face.

Sorry I know many people think Disconnecting with the world is the solution...it hasn't been since the mid 1800's we tried that crap in 1916....we paid a heavy price. We really tried that crap in 1939....the world paid a 60 MILLION lives price.

So you want to be non interventionist...you are saying pull our embassies (cause THEY WILL GET HIT) hell you all gonna stop traveling outside the US? Cause I can tell you as SOON as the wack jobs see we won't fight...its like putting a sign in your front yard that says "THIS HOUSE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN Violence to solve anything" You gonna be laying on the living room floor as some scum makes you his beyotch.
last edited: 1/04/08 1:40:30 PM”

“What's all this "We" stuff?

You're just and armchair quarterback, XBoy.”

“What we should do about Iraq now, is a much more difficult issue than whether we should have gone in. Clearly, non-interventionism would have kept us out - but once we are in, the stakes and the issues change.

All true.”

“Getting into the thick of primary season and the Democrats are basically mum on Iraq.

All we hear is "Change." Change from what? Changing their positions since their last speech? Who buys into this mythical "Change?" It is double speak as usual.”

“Consultant driven sloganeering.”

“No change...from a growing or resilient economy based more and more on citizens having true freedom of their own money to a government that tells you HOW to and WHERE to spend your money...or they take it and spend it for votes....”

“One of the beauties of a national credit card , ah?”

“Change from a white man to a woman or a black man.

They are campaigning on sexism and racism.”

“That's entirely correct. If you vote for Hillary, you are sexist and if you vote for Obama you are a racist.”

“Id rather vote for howard stern right now....”

“Come on, bacpac. Use your peabrain.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Do your own research, dude.”