Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

And that means what to me?

Jeez man, I used a smiley and everything!

Originally Posted by JPhillips

On the experience thing, I really don't think it matters. I used to think experience was more important, but over time I've come to believe that judgment is really what's paramount.

Exactly. "Experience", in campaign rhetoric, is just a way for candidates to enter into a pissing contest to try and score points. The Presidency is a huge job - no single person can be experienced in all of its facets. What we should want is someone who will listen to the thoughts and opinions of his/her advisors and use good judgment to make decisions.

This is why I'm an Obama supporter. Every time I hear him speak, especially when it's in a more informal setting, he comes off as thoughtful and intelligent. He strikes me as someone who is going to approach the challenges of the job in a thoughtful manner, and exercise good judgment when determining solutions.

After 8 years of knee-jerk reactionism, dogma-driven decisions, and scads of poor judgment, this would be refreshing, and certainly a heck of a lot better than 50-years-in-Iraq, Bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran McCain.

[Buccaneer]

I only have a couple of minutes so I can answer the several great posts that have come up. By "experience", it's not legislative experience per se but knowing what is the right thing to say at the right time. Also, I would add relationships to other leaders, their peculiarities and their decision-makers behind the scenes. That way you can make the right judgement (good word, JPhillips) when something unexpected comes up (e.g., knowing that they are bluffing or know that it's posturing for a specific deal).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

50-years-in-Iraq

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

But with McCain we'll still be there in 50 years, with hundreds of thousands of troops, because we'll be fighting skirmishes with all the other muslim nations in the area (chiefly Iran, but also Syria and possibly others as radical muslims gain enough support to take over other governments).

I know which future I prefer.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But with McCain we'll still be there in 50 years, with hundreds of thousands of troops, because we'll be fighting skirmishes with all the other muslim nations in the area (chiefly Iran, but also Syria and possibly others as radical muslims gain enough support to take over other governments).

I know which future I prefer.

Scare mongering.

I don't see that for a bit. After all, Reagan talked a big game too, but engaged in minor skirmashes and quick wars.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

But with McCain we'll still be there in 50 years, with hundreds of thousands of troops, because we'll be fighting skirmishes with all the other muslim nations in the area (chiefly Iran, but also Syria and possibly others as radical muslims gain enough support to take over other governments).

I know which future I prefer.

McCain is not likely to be President for 50 years.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

No, they'll be called troops.

How long have we had troops in Japan? Germany? South Korea?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I work in politics for a living, and have had similar discussions about Senator Obama's experience with a lot of friends and acquaintances.

What I don't really buy is the notion that at the same time most people will agree that Congress is an inept and corrupt and pointless institution that accomplished basically nothing in most situations (whether this is fair or accurate I set aside for the moment) but then seems to be saying that Omaba only needs more of that to be qualified to be our President. I don't get it. What exactly do we want in terms of "experience" here? Sitting around in the US Senate for 8 more years, introducing the occasional bill, scratching Ted Stevens's or Robert Byrd's back for some project or another, holding some press conference here and a fundraiser there to pander to one group or another? Forgive me for being less than inspired.

I'm not saying that experience is irrelevant. I just think in the political realm, it's tough to simultaneously say that the whole game is useless, but you have to play it a lot to get anywhere.

Totally agree Quik. This is one of many aspects of politics that drive me away and cause me to be disinterested. One of the reasons I could personally get behind a potential Bloomberg run (as unlikely as it is to be successful) is because he would hopefully, as long as he doesn't fall into the trap, bring a completely different background and mindset into office.

[Swaggs]

Anyone else curious to see how SNL (which is returning live this week for the first time since the writers' strike) will play things with the election?

They only have one black male on the cast and he doesn't really fit the Barrack Obama bill, so it will be interesting to see which way they go in portraying Obama. I imagine it would be worthwhile for them to find someone to play him, as elections are SNL's bread and butter and they could get a lot of mileage out of an Obama impresonator during the rest of this and next season.

Amy Poehler has done Hillary (poorly, in my opinion) for awhile now and the Clintons have been beaten to death by SNL, so probably not much new there--it will be Hillary the Ice Queen and Bill (still played by Darrell Hammond) goofing around in the background.

They have done McCain in the past (w/ Chris Parnell), goofing on his habits from being a POW and saying outrageous things while on the "Straight Talk Express."

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Anyone else curious to see how SNL (which is returning live this week for the first time since the writers' strike) will play things with the election?

I wondered this the other day, too. They have a good amount of material to work with, so we'll see what ends up coming out of it.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

McCain is not likely to be President for 50 years.

Neither is Obama. I was responding to this, in kind:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think even with Obama, we'll be in the 50 years in Iraq. They'll just be called "military advisors" rather than "combat troops".

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Scare mongering.

I don't see that for a bit. After all, Reagan talked a big game too, but engaged in minor skirmashes and quick wars.

Different situation. We already have troops on the ground in Iraq. McCain is already on the record as wanting to have a "muscular" foreign policy. McCain's on the record as not being averse to bombing Iran.

There is nothing McCain has said in the past year or so of campaigning which leads me to believe that he'll do anything but continue a Bush-style unilateralist foreign policy.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Different situation. We already have troops on the ground in Iraq. McCain is already on the record as wanting to have a "muscular" foreign policy. McCain's on the record as not being averse to bombing Iran.

There is nothing McCain has said in the past year or so of campaigning which leads me to believe that he'll do anything but continue a Bush-style unilateralist foreign policy.

You do realize that President Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, right? And I think ANY President will try to bomb Iran if there is obvious proof of a nuclear weapons program and the reactors are visible (aka, Isreal doing to Iraq in the early 80s).

And a quick look at McCain's website will show that he is VERY big on shoring up our alliances and only using force when the cause is considered to be just and its in American interests (McCain is far more a realist in the IR sphere).

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Jeez man, I used a smiley and everything!

Sorry if I took that the wrong way. Been pretty stressed the last few days with job interviews and waiting for the phone to ring.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There is nothing McCain has said in the past year or so of campaigning which leads me to believe that he'll do anything but continue a Bush-style unilateralist foreign policy.

Had France had the intestinal fortitude to be unilateralist in 1936, millions of lives would have been spared.

As much as we want to judge the Iraq War now, it simply is not feasible. There is no way to know whether or not it will be successful, and we will not know for another 15 years.

The one thing we need to credit Bush with, is that he attempted to do something about the problem. He attempted to change the dynamic of the Middle East. If he does so with the loss of 5000 lives, it will make the world safer in the long run, and that sacrifice will be worth it.

The more and more I think about it (and yes, Bush did screw some things up), the more this situation seems to parallel the Civil War. In both cases, the war was unpopular on the home front. In both cases, everyone wanted some sign of progress in the war. In 1864, most people thought Lincoln was going to lose the election, and the Civil War would have ended in a negotiated peace. It was not until Sherman delivered Atlanta that many truly felt that progress was being made. Looking back, I think it is foolish to think that only when we took Atlanta did it seem like progress was being made. However, we need to keep in mind that it was a far bloodier war than any other war we ever fought in.

I think we are at the same crossroads in Iraq. Why were things bad in the beginning? Simple, we didn't have the troops to occupy the country. We implement the surge and it worked. Big surprise, but it was sound military strategy. Why should we pull out of Iraq if the Iraqi government does not want us to? We have commitments in Germany, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Korea, and Japan. We've been in Germany and Japan for over 60 years, and we have been in Korea for over 50. So why should we be surprised if Iraq will be any different, and is that necessarily a bad thing? Our presence in the Middle East will help pacify the area if we are there with good intentions and with the will of the government.

I think we need to keep in mind what is important for our country. First and foremost we must watch out for our security. A friendly Iraq definitely helps us in the Middle East. It also gives us additional clout in the area. Second, it will help to improve the flow of oil over time. If we can protect the oil fields, it will eventually help moderate the price of oil over time. Third, hopefully our presence there with a united Iraq will force Iran to play nice. I know this might be a pipedream, but with a united Iraq behind us, it gives us a much better position vis a vis Iran. Fourth, we can't try to make everyone in the world happy. We need to keep in mind that when people disagree with us, its not necessarily because they disagree with us. Sometimes they disagree so we can compromise on some other issue. They can wring some concessions from us on one issue, and then back us on another issue. This is a typical negotiation tactic.

We must not be afraid to use force when it is necessary. If we do not, why have the force. However, whenever we choose to use force, we must get in there and forget political ramifications. Get in, get the job done, and get out. If we had immediately instituted the surge once Saddam was captured, we would have avoided a significant time frame in which the insurgency was able to dig in. We would essentially be two years ahead of schedule. The other thing, how dare we impose milestones and timetables for Iraq to come up with a working government. It took us from 1781 to 1788 to come up with a working government. Why should we expect the citizens of Iraq to come up with one faster just because we told them to?

Anyhow, after veering off-course, you may resume our discussion about Obama trouncing Hillary.

[JPhillips]

Warhammer: There's a lot of thought in your post, but there's also a lot that I disagree with.

First, the WWII reference is tenuous at best. If France had acted unilaterally in 1936 things may have turned out almost exactly the same. There's no reason to think France could have defeated Germany in 1936 and further a French attack on Germany would have made it difficult to impossible for the U.S. to enter the war.

On knowing the results of the Iraq War, yes history will give us a clearer view, but we can judge some things now. We have spent hundreds of billions, we have last thousands of lives, the armed forces are stretched thin, etc. I think you could credibly argue it's worth it, but the idea that we can't make any judgments for decades leads to a very dangerous policy of never being able to make judgments on policies.

I have a lot of problems with the Civil War analogy, mostly regarding the stakes. The very future of the country was at stake in 1861, that's simply not true now. Even if Iraq is turning or is about to turn a corner the fact that it isn't central to our survival should be a part of the equation.

That's why I was stunned to see that we should stay in Iraq because the Iraqi government wants us to. Shouldn't we act in or own interest first?

Finally, I think the best use of our military is not using it as often as possible. We simply don't have the resources to act militarily all the time. I think our threats of force often serve us better than full use of that force. One of the problems in Iraq is that we haven't achieved much, but we've bogged down our military.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Our presence in the Middle East will help pacify the area if we are there with good intentions and with the will of the government.

That's the problem.. when have we ever had good intentions in that area of the world? From their point of view anyway, which is what counts because they are the ones that supposedly are being pacified.

From colonialism we went right into meddling. Propping up the Shah in Iran (after deposing a legally elected government) sure didn't lead to many positive results in Iran.

Moreso than Iraq, I think our support for the Saudi government could end up biting us in the ass.

Either way, we do not have very clean hands over the years when it comes to the Arab countries. I don't see how continuing to stick our nose in affairs over there will somehow make everybody love us.

[BishopMVP]

DC - I'm too lazy to look up the page where I compared Deval Patrick to Barack Obama and you disagreed, but one of the memes going around the blogosphere now is that Obama is basically plagiarising Patrick's platform. (I wouldn't use the term plagiarising because they have the same campaign advisor/speechwriter.) So there's more similarities between the two campaigns.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

DC - I'm too lazy to look up the page where I compared Deval Patrick to Barack Obama and you disagreed, but one of the memes going around the blogosphere now is that Obama is basically plagiarising Patrick's platform. (I wouldn't use the term plagiarising because they have the same campaign advisor/speechwriter.) So there's more similarities between the two campaigns.

Well, I disagreed with the idea that they're similar people other than the obvious similarity and even that's debatable. I think that Obama is a wonkish technocrat with a lot of nitty gritty ability, whereas Patrick was a wet suit with Clintonian credentials who swept into power using inspiration, hope and his race as the propeller. But in a state that elected Mitt Romney, I don't know that it's really that big a deal.

As for the policy similarities, I don't think that's really a big deal. I mean, if Patrick was a Clinton supporter it might be a bigger deal. And I saw the thing you're talking about or at least, something similar to it, and while it's a little silly for him to have gone that route or whatever....I tend to think that reinventing the wheel is a little silly if you don't have to. And clearly in this case, they don't have to.

Obama does his best work ad-libbing and really struggles more because I think he has to dumb down his speech to a filled to capacity arena. He seems more earnest to me and the main difference between a President and a Governor are the tons of people that he has at his disposal to help advise and guide him if he so chooses to solicit them.

So I don't think the similarities are really apt. Obama won't run again for President if he loses this time. People doubt that and think it's crazy to suggest since he's so young. But Michelle is not a traditional politicians wife and his message is one that if he were to do that, he'd basically be just the same thing as what he's supposedly fighting against.

But all of that aside, it's probably pretty clear that the slick marketing of his campaign is historic in ways that will be studied for years and years. Because what worked for Patrick in his ridiculously longshot candidacy for Governor, is working for Obama in his similarly ridiculously longshot candidacy for President.

[flere-imsaho]

I'll only respond to the part that JPhillips didn't already, because I agree with what he said.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The one thing we need to credit Bush with, is that he attempted to do something about the problem. He attempted to change the dynamic of the Middle East. If he does so with the loss of 5000 lives, it will make the world safer in the long run, and that sacrifice will be worth it.

If. And if it makes the world less safe in the long run (which I think is equally, if not more, possible), then what of those 5000 lives (and the countless Iraqi civilian casualties?

We implement the surge and it worked.

I am confident that history will not come to this conclusion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we'll look back at this in a year and not come to this conclusion. Why?

The "success" we're seeing in Iraq is not due to the increase in the number of U.S. soldiers on the ground, or to the change in their tactics, alone. It is also due to:

1. The segregation of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq (and especially in Baghdad) becoming almost totally complete in the past year or so.

2. Al-Sadr putting the Madhi Army into a ceasefire for the past 6 months.

If creating a segregated state is considered a good thing, then we might as well partition the country and be done with it. The Kurds will be ecstatic.

If Al-Sadr doesn't extend the ceasefire, we'll almost certainly see a resurgence in violence, no matter the "boots on the ground". And bear in mind we have no more manpower to rotate into the area in the next few years.

So, the changes in military strategy brought about during the "surge" are important influences, but they aren't the only ones. Look beyond the headlines.

We've been in Germany and Japan for over 60 years, and we have been in Korea for over 50.

These examples aren't even remotely analogous. We functioned as "law & order" in Germany and Japan for very short periods, and then had bases there first as a counter to Soviet power and later to enable our own force projection needs.

We're not acting as a counter to anyone in Iraq, unless you want to suggest that any of their neighbors would invade when we still have carrier battle groups and bases in Saudi Arabia & Turkey nearby. They all saw Gulf Wars I and II. They know what we can do to a conventional army. Besides, they've already infiltrated the country with us there. It's a very different scenario.

I think we need to keep in mind what is important for our country.

I couldn't agree more. Every day we spend in Iraq is a day closer we come to bankrupting this country. In the next couple of years the bill for this war is likely to be a trillion dollars.

First and foremost we must watch out for our security.

It will be woefully ironic if, in the name of ensuring our security, we send our country into a debt and economic death spiral. What happens when there's nothing left to protect?

The other thing, how dare we impose milestones and timetables for Iraq to come up with a working government. It took us from 1781 to 1788 to come up with a working government. Why should we expect the citizens of Iraq to come up with one faster just because we told them to?

That's 7 years. We've been in Iraq for 5. Communications technology is far better in 2003 than it was in 1781. The U.S. Constitution was the first document of its type since Magna Carta. The Iraqis now have literally hundreds of similar documents upon which to base their new constitution.

American men and women are dying so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations. We, as a country, have spent half a trillion dollars so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations.

I think we have every right to impose milestones and timetables.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You do realize that President Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, right? And I think ANY President will try to bomb Iran if there is obvious proof of a nuclear weapons program and the reactors are visible (aka, Isreal doing to Iraq in the early 80s).

And a quick look at McCain's website will show that he is VERY big on shoring up our alliances and only using force when the cause is considered to be just and its in American interests (McCain is far more a realist in the IR sphere).

One thing I'll give McCain is he disapproved of the war game plan from the beginning with the lack of troops and such.

[Buccaneer]

The U.S. Constitution was the first document of its type since Magna Carta.

Hmmm.

[Jas_lov]

Iraq this, economy that. Blah blah blah. Let's get to the good stuff! The best part about Presidential politics are the smears of the candidates!

In 2000 we learned that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby. This year we learn that he had an affair with a female lobbyist according to the New York Times, a very credible and unbiased source. This story is completely true and not at all based on the assumptions of McCain's advisors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...hp&oref=slogin

Three days ago we also learned that Barack Obama had sex with Larry Sinclair from Minnesota and did drugs with him. I can't think of any reason why this guy would lie about one of the biggest public figures in America this close to the general election, so I'm going to take his word for it. Thank you to the website offering up the money for Mr. Sinclair to take the polygraph. $10,000 well spent.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=56626

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

American men and women are dying so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations. We, as a country, have spent half a trillion dollars so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations.

I just like how you phrased it. Because when it comes down it, it's all of that and this one addendum.

"And despite all of that, we're still not making anyone any safer than they were before."

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I just like how you phrased it. Because when it comes down it, it's all of that and this one addendum.

"And despite all of that, we're still not making anyone any safer than they were before."

Couldn't you extend that to other War on [Something] that the federal govt have spent trillions of dollars on only to have realized marginal benefits at best? We expect and want them to do throw tons of money at something with the hope that something good comes out of it. Until the majority of voters wise up, we will continue to see them spend trillions of dollars on nation-building, poverty, welfare, drug control, security, foreign aid to every single nation, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, unneeded weapons programs, etc.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Couldn't you extend that to other War on [Something] that the federal govt have spent trillions of dollars on only to have realized marginal benefits at best? We expect and want them to do throw tons of money at something with the hope that something good comes out of it. Until the majority of voters wise up, we will continue to see them spend trillions of dollars on nation-building, poverty, welfare, drug control, security, foreign aid to every single nation, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, unneeded weapons programs, etc.

Yes, it could be extended that way. Voters aren't going to wise up. They are too zombie-like and too conditioned. It'll take a revolution and a paradigm shift of epic proportions before people come to the realization that things would be a lot better if they were able to truly earn an "honest day's living" and actually keep all of that money or the majority of it, only paying taxes for the necessities for government to run and leaving the rest of it to individual, private citizens to come together and make stuff happen as they want to.

Or if they want to vote for it as a town or a city or even as a state, so be it.

That's just too forward thinking for the nanny state times we live in now.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Wow. WH is smoking the same stuff Obama was smoking when he was younger.

[Young Drachma]

The People's Questions

I saw a few that I thought were pretty good. What question would you ask to either of the candidate tonight's if you could?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Warhammer: There's a lot of thought in your post, but there's also a lot that I disagree with.

First, the WWII reference is tenuous at best. If France had acted unilaterally in 1936 things may have turned out almost exactly the same. There's no reason to think France could have defeated Germany in 1936 and further a French attack on Germany would have made it difficult to impossible for the U.S. to enter the war.

Germany was a paper tiger at the time. Do some reading on the subject and
you'll find that Hitler was terrified of the French and the Brits standing up to him. Additionally, the German Army was looking for an excuse to get rid of him even then, but they did not feel like getting involved in political matters. However, a failure in the Rhineland would probably have spurred them into action. "On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace" has an excellent chapter on this issue. There's another book on the German Army of this period that you can get the army's view of things, but I can't recall the title (I can get it if you or anyone else is interested as it is at my dad's, PM me if interested.)

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Finally, I think the best use of our military is not using it as often as possible. We simply don't have the resources to act militarily all the time. I think our threats of force often serve us better than full use of that force. One of the problems in Iraq is that we haven't achieved much, but we've bogged down our military.

Fair enough. Part of the reason why we had some issues in the past with small banana republics was because they never thought we would use force due to the political climate. That was part of the reason why the Russians were terrified of Reagan because he did put our military to use.

Again, we don't know what we have achieved in Iraq yet. We won't know yet for some time. That is my point.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'll only respond to the part that JPhillips didn't already, because I agree with what he said.

If. And if it makes the world less safe in the long run (which I think is equally, if not more, possible), then what of those 5000 lives (and the countless Iraqi civilian casualties?

I don't think our invasion of Iraq will make the world less safe. Regardless of our belief, it is only by giving up that we make the loss of lives vain.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I am confident that history will not come to this conclusion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that we'll look back at this in a year and not come to this conclusion. Why?

The "success" we're seeing in Iraq is not due to the increase in the number of U.S. soldiers on the ground, or to the change in their tactics, alone. It is also due to:

1. The segregation of Sunnis and Shias in Iraq (and especially in Baghdad) becoming almost totally complete in the past year or so.

2. Al-Sadr putting the Madhi Army into a ceasefire for the past 6 months.

If creating a segregated state is considered a good thing, then we might as well partition the country and be done with it. The Kurds will be ecstatic.

If Al-Sadr doesn't extend the ceasefire, we'll almost certainly see a resurgence in violence, no matter the "boots on the ground". And bear in mind we have no more manpower to rotate into the area in the next few years.

So, the changes in military strategy brought about during the "surge" are important influences, but they aren't the only ones. Look beyond the headlines.

I'll agree with those. However, it is funny that things do correspond to the when the surge went into effect. Additionally, the surge is in complete accordance with proven military doctrine (not current, but also past doctrine as laid out in the English conquest of Wales).

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

These examples aren't even remotely analogous. We functioned as "law & order" in Germany and Japan for very short periods, and then had bases there first as a counter to Soviet power and later to enable our own force projection needs.

You're right. What is to say that is not going to happen in Iraq? Neither you nor I have the power to see in the future. The people saying we're going to be there for 50 years have not given any context of the way in which we will be there. Being there with bases as a projection of force in the region is not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

We're not acting as a counter to anyone in Iraq, unless you want to suggest that any of their neighbors would invade when we still have carrier battle groups and bases in Saudi Arabia & Turkey nearby. They all saw Gulf Wars I and II. They know what we can do to a conventional army. Besides, they've already infiltrated the country with us there. It's a very different scenario.

We can battle the forces of instability in the region. As you point out, anyone invading any of our allies in the area is insane when we have a military presence there. That will add stability to the area. We can also cut our ties with the Saudis if we choose.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I couldn't agree more. Every day we spend in Iraq is a day closer we come to bankrupting this country. In the next couple of years the bill for this war is likely to be a trillion dollars.

It will be woefully ironic if, in the name of ensuring our security, we send our country into a debt and economic death spiral. What happens when there's nothing left to protect?

So we've spent a trillion dollars. Compare that to the cost of WWII, or any other war you wish. Compared to our GDP it is not that significant and we are not incurring any substantial debt due strictly to the war. The war would not even be the biggest item on the budget in any given year. Taken as a whole one time sum, sure, but let's compare entitlements over that time frame compared to the war and see which one is bigger.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That's 7 years. We've been in Iraq for 5. Communications technology is far better in 2003 than it was in 1781. The U.S. Constitution was the first document of its type since Magna Carta. The Iraqis now have literally hundreds of similar documents upon which to base their new constitution.

American men and women are dying so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations. We, as a country, have spent half a trillion dollars so these guys can sit around, waffle, and take 3-month summer vacations.

I think we have every right to impose milestones and timetables.

So we just need to cram a Constitution down their throat? (Not that I don't entirely disagree with you) We are the preeminent democracy in the world and we should help those that want to implement one in their country. We should act as advisors and help stabilize their country until they get a stable government in place. If we can get a stable, thriving Iraq, you don't think that they will be grateful?

If you want to impose milestones and timetables go ahead, but don't sit there and say "I told you so!" after we pull out due to an artificial milestone or timetable.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Germany was a paper tiger at the time. Do some reading on the subject and
you'll find that Hitler was terrified of the French and the Brits standing up to him. Additionally, the German Army was looking for an excuse to get rid of him even then, but they did not feel like getting involved in political matters. However, a failure in the Rhineland would probably have spurred them into action. "On the Origins of War: And the Preservation of Peace" has an excellent chapter on this issue. There's another book on the German Army of this period that you can get the army's view of things, but I can't recall the title (I can get it if you or anyone else is interested as it is at my dad's, PM me if interested.)

Fair enough. Part of the reason why we had some issues in the past with small banana republics was because they never thought we would use force due to the political climate. That was part of the reason why the Russians were terrified of Reagan because he did put our military to use.

Again, we don't know what we have achieved in Iraq yet. We won't know yet for some time. That is my point.

From what I've read the German Army likely would have defended east of the Rhine had France attacked. It's debatable whether they would have won, but I don't see any reason to think that would have significantly altered the death toll in Europe. Based on Eden's memos it's clear that the British would not have gotten involved in 1936 and France would have had to go alone.

I'd also question your idea that Reagan used force in some way analogous to GWB. Reagan basically left the armed forces on the sidelines except for a couple of minor operations. It was the credible threat of force that Reagan used effectively.

[Young Drachma]

I caught the debate late into it, so I have no idea what's going on. I do think that she's trying really hard to remind people that the Clinton years were "great" and that Bush messed up what the Clintons did.

Obama looks more and more Presidential in these deals as things going on. Clinton dodged a question about superdelegates and saying that the party would be picked and that it'll be all okay and that she's not "worried about that."

Obama is being more and more attack dog in this, versus before when he was being nice and that's it.

He's learning this game pretty quickly...and I think that it'll be interesting to see how this debate translates to his results going to March 4th.

[Young Drachma]

FOX does a funny thing with supposedly undecided voters. It was pretty lame, because those people didn't look undecided. They looked goofy.

After the debate tonight, Obama goes over to shake the hands of the moderates and looks relatively warm to Hillary, who seemed like she just wanted to get away from him as soon as possible.

Chelsea went up to her mom after it was over and looked really...happy...it seems pretty obvious that they're close, just from the way that they looked when it was over. I guess that would make sense, but...still.

Waiting to hear what the pundits thing, mostly because I didn't see the whole thing.

[Young Drachma]

Obama's gotten the endorsement of every major newspaper in the state of Texas. That's gotta sting. The pundits are calling her final remark as a valedictory speech and the more I see the highlights, seems that way.

I don't understand how anyone thinks that people who used to work for them (like former speechwriters) can't be anything other than schills.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From what I've read the German Army likely would have defended east of the Rhine had France attacked. It's debatable whether they would have won, but I don't see any reason to think that would have significantly altered the death toll in Europe. Based on Eden's memos it's clear that the British would not have gotten involved in 1936 and France would have had to go alone.

Of course, the key was the 2 battalions the Germans marched across the Rhine, not the support element that was left on the east bank. Hitler's generals were all too aware of the mismatch and wanted nothing to do with armed conflict with the French on the west bank of the Rhine.

The French could have marched a single division into German, the Nazi's would have turned tail and run and the gamble would have failed. The west bank of the Rhine would have been re-occupied by France and Britain and instead of a glorious first victory, Hitler would have instead looked quite pathetic. According to the Rise and Fall of the 3rd Reich, the German military machine in 1936 was nowhere near ready to be an offensive weapon and was never truly prepared to be a defensive weapon.

As we find out later, the prize of the American and British army was the Rhine river, holding that would be the last key defensive position before the defenseless plains of Germany. The French, in 1936, had every right to march right up to it and hold it until they figured out what Hitler's deal was. Further reading would show that Hitler was still an ackward fledgling political leader at that point in time and was under threat of being overthrown (up until the successful remilitarization of the Rhineland, after that, assissination plots were the concern), with two battalions of troops who were under orders not to engage French if they were to enter German territory.

I think the French should have given it a go, what's the worst that could've happened?

[JPhillips]

It might have worked, but there's no way you can guarantee that if the French invaded the Rhineland in 1936 millions of lives would have been saved, so we should be in Iraq.

That's really my point. It's silly to use a counterfactual to "prove" a political argument.

[Galaxy]

Yikes!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...beral-activist

[Young Drachma]

http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_...ry/486413.html

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It might have worked, but there's no way you can guarantee that if the French invaded the Rhineland in 1936 millions of lives would have been saved, so we should be in Iraq.

That's really my point. It's silly to use a counterfactual to "prove" a political argument.

If you're interested in the subject, I really advise you to read the book On the Origins of War that I mentioned earlier. Not only does it talk about WWI and WWII, but it also talks about the Peloponnesian War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The whole point of the book is about the methods people have used to avoid war, what worked, what failed, etc.

[Warhammer]

Here's the except from wikipedia on the subject:

During January 1936 German Führer Adolf Hitler decided to reoccupy the Rhineland. On 12 February he informed his War Minister, General Werner von Blomberg, of his intentions and asked the head of the Army, General Werner von Fritsch, how long it would take to transport a few infantry battalions and an artillery battery into the Rhineland. Fritsch answered that it would take three days organisation but he was in favour of negotiation as he believed that the German Army was in no state for armed combat with the French Army.[2] General Ludwig Beck warned Hitler that the German Army would be unable to successfully defend Germany against a possible retaliatory French attack.[3] Hitler reassured Fritsch that he would ensure that the German forces would leave at once if the French intervened militarily to halt their advance. The operation was codenamed Winter Exercise. Not long after dawn, nineteen German infantry battalions and a handful of planes entered the Rhineland. They reached the river Rhine by 11am and then three battalions crossed to the west bank of the Rhine. When German reconnaissance learned that thousands of French soldiers were congregating on the Franco-German border, General Blomberg begged Hitler to evacuate the German forces. Hitler inquired whether the French forces had actually crossed the border and when informed that they had not, he assured Blomberg that they would wait until this happened.[4]

Heinz Guderian, a German general interviewed by French officers after the Second World War, claimed: "If you French had intervened in the Rhineland in 1936 we should have been sunk and Hitler would have fallen".[5] Hitler himself later said:

"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even a moderate resistance."[6]

Guderian was not the only general that felt this way either.

[JPhillips]

But you're expecting the French leadership to be completely different. Bold, quick decision making simply wasn't going to happen. Even if they would have crossed into the Rhineland there's no telling what blunders they would have made. Regardless of what Guderian said I think it's nearly impossible to make such a straight line from French invade the Rhineland to millions of lives saved.

Even if Hitler was overthrown and there was no militaristic Riech, what would have stopped a Soviet invasion and a war of the same intensity, but with different dance partners? I like counterfactual history and the French indecision is fascinating, but it's simply not wise to make such broad conjectures without understanding the limitations of such predictions.

[Fighter of Foo]

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But you're expecting the French leadership to be completely different. Bold, quick decision making simply wasn't going to happen. Even if they would have crossed into the Rhineland there's no telling what blunders they would have made. Regardless of what Guderian said I think it's nearly impossible to make such a straight line from French invade the Rhineland to millions of lives saved.

Even if Hitler was overthrown and there was no militaristic Riech, what would have stopped a Soviet invasion and a war of the same intensity, but with different dance partners? I like counterfactual history and the French indecision is fascinating, but it's simply not wise to make such broad conjectures without understanding the limitations of such predictions.

But you did say you saw no reason. Naturally, I assumed if someone could clarify how it was possible, you would consider it. If we've ever considered any historical event a blunder, certainly there has been some thought put in to how the blunder could have been avoided. It just so happens that many historians consider the way the European nations (France and Britain in particular) dealt with the rise of Nazi Germany as blunderous.

By your logic, you are suggesting that no matter what anybody does, things play out the same way. I disagree.

Anyway, we've taken the thread off the path far enough. I just wanted to bring some clarity from an opposing viewpoint. Nothing personal intended.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

For you? Probably nothing. However, not to leave you completely out of the thread, here's something that might be more interesting for you. Pretty colors on your computer screen! Yay!

[JPhillips]

Dutch: No reason was too far. I should have said something like "can't guarantee." I'm not saying things will always turn out the same way, just trying to point out that a single conterfactual doesn't provide proof of a different outcome, especially when the projection is as far ranging as this. It may have made a big difference, it may not have. It certainly doesn't provide any evidence that we should or shouldn't be in Iraq.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Sorry if I'm slow, but what the fuck does the French army in 1936 have to do with anything?

+1

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: No reason was too far. I should have said something like "can't guarantee." I'm not saying things will always turn out the same way, just trying to point out that a single conterfactual doesn't provide proof of a different outcome, especially when the projection is as far ranging as this. It may have made a big difference, it may not have. It certainly doesn't provide any evidence that we should or shouldn't be in Iraq.

I think we better end on that note before somebody accuses us of thread-jacking.

[Galaxy]

So what's Hillary mad about? Just another attack to try to make herself look "good"?

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So what's Hillary mad about? Just another attack to try to make herself look like a hypocrite.

Perhaps fixed?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

So what's Hillary mad about? Just another attack to try to make herself look "good"?

Same ol' stuff. Said he distorted her message or whatever. She's in New Orleans now speaking at the State of the Black Union. Obama (and McCain and Huckabee) didn't accept an invitation at the event.

She deflected a question about the Michigan and Florida delegates, basically saying that there will be a nominee before the convention and that they won't play a part because it'll be over by June.

Otherwise, same ol' stump speech basically..only with more quotes in it from black historical figures.