OT: 2008 Elections

[Brando70]

I say we make them the 51st state. Flood them with fast food, Xbox 360's, and Gap outlets. Turning them into a fat, employed nation with a myriad of distractions will do wonders for curbing extremism and transforming the region.

I'm only three-quarters kidding.

I agree. You want to diffuse radical Islam? Flood the Middle East with boobies.

[wco81]

If you think the U.S. presence will be removed from Iraq, you're dreaming. Uncle Sam will have a strong military presence -- definitely tens of thousands of troops -- for generations to come, regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

As Tom Friedman said, we conquered Iraq, and now we own it. That will be the case regardless of how stable the Iraqi government becomes. South Korea and Germany have stable governments, yet the U.S. still has significant military presence in both of those nations more than 50 years after the respective conflicts ended.

You have one party which still wants to "win" in Iraq. That's what this is about, so they can declare a victory. Of course, they have vague notions about what such a victory would entail and under which conditions we can exit.

In South Korea and Germany you had formidable enemy forces arrayed against those fronts. US forces had to be in those hot spots.

What again is the purpose of leaving troops and pouring money into this one country? Sadr can wait it out because it's his home. And Islamists can pop up anywhere in the Muslim world.

Are we going to play whack-a-mole all over the world?

[Smurfy]

Here's a thought - Let's organize a DSP tour of Iraq.

Find a season with comfortable weather or that experiences the least amount of violence and we go in with a few translators and find out for ourselves.

[dougb]

Here's a thought - Let's organize a DSP tour of Iraq.

Find a season with comfortable weather or that experiences the least amount of violence and we go in with a few translators and find out for ourselves.

LOL!

Actually, I have a friend at work who's Iraqi. His wife and kid visited their parents last year - the parents travelled to meet with them in Jordan.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Jackdog]

Here's a thought - Let's organize a DSP tour of Iraq.

Find a season with comfortable weather or that experiences the least amount of violence and we go in with a few translators and find out for ourselves.

Northern Iraq would be the ticket. I know some Kurds that would show us all a damn good time.

[dougb]

Here's a thought - Let's organize a DSP tour of Iraq.

Find a season with comfortable weather or that experiences the least amount of violence and we go in with a few translators and find out for ourselves.

Northern Iraq would be the ticket. I know some Kurds that would show us all a damn good time.

Let's not get too close to the Turkish border though!

Best wishes,

Doug

[Jackdog]

Here's a thought - Let's organize a DSP tour of Iraq.

Find a season with comfortable weather or that experiences the least amount of violence and we go in with a few translators and find out for ourselves.

Northern Iraq would be the ticket. I know some Kurds that would show us all a damn good time.

Let's not get too close to the Turkish border though!

Best wishes,

Doug

Erbil would be my city of choice. It's peaceful and the people are wonderful. we could stay at The Hawler Plaza Hotel. They take American dollars and the bar is a blast!!!!! they have a soccer stadium next door so we could all catch a game. Let's go!!

[pk500]

If you think the U.S. presence will be removed from Iraq, you're dreaming. Uncle Sam will have a strong military presence -- definitely tens of thousands of troops -- for generations to come, regardless of who is in the Oval Office.

As Tom Friedman said, we conquered Iraq, and now we own it. That will be the case regardless of how stable the Iraqi government becomes. South Korea and Germany have stable governments, yet the U.S. still has significant military presence in both of those nations more than 50 years after the respective conflicts ended.

You have one party which still wants to "win" in Iraq. That's what this is about, so they can declare a victory. Of course, they have vague notions about what such a victory would entail and under which conditions we can exit.

In South Korea and Germany you had formidable enemy forces arrayed against those fronts. US forces had to be in those hot spots.

What again is the purpose of leaving troops and pouring money into this one country? Sadr can wait it out because it's his home. And Islamists can pop up anywhere in the Muslim world.

Are we going to play whack-a-mole all over the world?

Given the U.S. history of keeping occupying forces in nations in which it has been victorious, do you honestly think that we'll simply pick up stakes and leave someday from Iraq, especially given its strategic location in the Middle East and its vast oil resources?

You're dreaming.

Iraq will be a valuable, valuable U.S. base for decades to come, whether the enemy is an organized army or a band of insurgents. It would be lunacy for the U.S. to surrender the base of operations it has established in the area, like it or not. Iraq is a centrally located hot spot in the world of Muslim extremism, and the U.S. isn't going to abandon that foothold any time soon.

Iraq will become another Korea, another Germany. I'm not crazy about it, but it's the way the U.S. rolls, to use street parlance. There is historical precedent here, and I don't see the next few presidents -- regardless of party affiliation -- breaking that precedent. Christ, we got Guantanamo in the Spanish-American War -- 110 years ago -- and we still have a military base there. And Cuba is much, much less of a threat to U.S. security than the insurgents in Iraq.

So, is the U.S. going to play Whack-A-Mole? Yes, because it's what we have done around the world since the Cold War began. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Bosnia, the first Gulf War, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan all were cases of Whack-A-Mole. There's nothing new here, like it or not.

Yes, the Iraq War is a much larger exercise of Whack-A-Mole, based on dubious intelligence, and the cost sadly has been much higher in terms of human life. But it's still Whack-A-Mole. And by saying that, I'm not endorsing the policy. I'm simply stating that there is nearly 60 years of historical precedent.

Take care,
PK

[XXXIV]

There's nothing new here, like it or not. And by saying that, I'm not endorsing the policy. I'm simply stating that there is nearly 60 years of historical precedent.

Take care,
PK

You are so right on!!!

There are bases other places too...Many other places.

Japan..Greece... Italy ...also WWII left overs...Plus many many many more...

I wish I could live in his politically driven fantasy world.

[wco81]

Valuable?

A permanent presence will engender jihadists for decades to come.

We haven't pacified the country with the number of troops we've had now. Can they cover enough ground with a fraction of the troops?

Permanent bases against a visible enemies made sense during the Cold War.

How will they fare against insurgencies and jihadists hiding among the general population? How will they fare against a possibly hostile govt. if someone like Sadr wins power through elections?

[RobVarak]

Valuable?

A permanent presence will engender jihadists for decades to come.

Domestic issues inside the middle east are what fuels jihad. Islamic fundamentalism existed prior to the US setting foot in the region, and in the absence of economic reform, will continue to exist even if we pulled out. The NeoCons have seriously flawed arguments at the core of many of their positions, but they have one thing right. If Iraq were made to be stable, prosperous and economically liberal (with the oil revenues reasonably distributed by market forces rather than pooling with entrenched elites as in other Mid East states) there would be a net decrease in the socio-economic forces which give fuel jihad.

It's easy for bin Laden and his ilk to use the madrasas to indoctrinate youth with little or no real prospect of prosperity in their future. But convincing young men with jobs and families to kick out the evil Americans simply because they're there will be another task altogether.

I'm not saying that it's going to happen, but in any event the roots of anti-Western sentiment and its calcification into jihad are well-known and essentially disconnected from any US presence in the region. Post Gulf War US presence on the Arabian peninsula was an irritant to be sure, but insignificant when compared to the domestic economic, social and political forces that shaped millenial fundamentalism.

[Jackdog]

Valuable?

A permanent presence will engender jihadists for decades to come.

Domestic issues inside the middle east are what fuels jihad. Islamic fundamentalism existed prior to the US setting foot in the region, and in the absence of economic reform, will continue to exist even if we pulled out. The NeoCons have seriously flawed arguments at the core of many of their positions, but they have one thing right. If Iraq were made to be stable, prosperous and economically liberal (with the oil revenues reasonably distributed by market forces rather than pooling with entrenched elites as in other Mid East states) there would be a net decrease in the socio-economic forces which give fuel jihad.

It's easy for bin Laden and his ilk to use the madrasas to indoctrinate youth with little or no real prospect of prosperity in their future. But convincing young men with jobs and families to kick out the evil Americans simply because they're there will be another task altogether.

I'm not saying that it's going to happen, but in any event the roots of anti-Western sentiment and its calcification into jihad are well-known and essentially disconnected from any US presence in the region. Post Gulf War US presence on the Arabian peninsula was an irritant to be sure, but insignificant when compared to the domestic economic, social and political forces that shaped millenial fundamentalism.

This is a very valid point. After spending time in hot spots like Iraq,Lebanon,Somalia,Afghanistan. I can truly say that all these people want is simple. A normal life. They have lived under operssive dictators or warlords that have taken all hope away from the normal everyday working family. I've talked to many Iraqi people that just want a good job and education for their children. They want an so called "American Life".

Sure some spout the anti American rhetoric. Until they get a chance to move here. many dream of sending their children here for an education. Iraqi people live in a country with vast wealth and they have seen none of it. They are starting to taste what democracy and a free market society can bring them. Because of this El Sadr will not be voted into a position of power in Iraq. The only way he will become the leader of that country is by force. He is being helped by Iran to try to gain a foothold in cental Iraq. I should say his what's left of his Mahdi militia.

El Sadr has lost many followers,they have split from his movement or do not heed his leadership.Many moderate Shiite leaders would like to see him dead. Thy know if he comes to power people are going to die by the thousands. He had a chance in 05-06 but his thrist for Sunni blood has made him a target.

[wco81]

Which Arabic country is distributing oil wealth equitably?

I also have to question that distributing by market mechanisms will eliminate inequities or a class of angry, dispossessed youth. There is never a perfect market for these things. You will still have cronyism or graft/corruption for doling out oil wealth.

Look at Putin's Russia. Look at the insiders in our own system. While most of the country suffers, some entities have made out in the run-up oil. Maybe these traders and hedge funds made smart bets but there's talk of market manipulation.

Will the US support democratic process in Iraq, regardless of where it may lead? For instance, can we allow Sadr or some other figure friendly to Iran to be elected to power? Or some figure who's not interested in economic liberalism or committed to the democratic process beyond using ethnic majorities to rise to power (and then impose anti-democratic sharia laws)?

As for what engenders terrorism, sure youth who have good economic prospects have more to lose so are less likely to turn to extremism. But what also helps the jihadist message is emotionalism -- a Western power having a permanent presence in an Islamic nation, or the sense of injustice at the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

I think even the Pentagon and/or the CIA admitted that our very presence
is helping to recruit terrorists, suicide bombers.

As Arab muslims rallied to the mujahadeen cause in the '80s, many naturalized muslims from Europe (often second generation immigrants) have traveled to Jordan, to enter Iraq. Many of these people aren't facing economically bleak futures.

[Brando70]

Domestic issues inside the middle east are what fuels jihad. Islamic fundamentalism existed prior to the US setting foot in the region, and in the absence of economic reform, will continue to exist even if we pulled out. The NeoCons have seriously flawed arguments at the core of many of their positions, but they have one thing right. If Iraq were made to be stable, prosperous and economically liberal (with the oil revenues reasonably distributed by market forces rather than pooling with entrenched elites as in other Mid East states) there would be a net decrease in the socio-economic forces which give fuel jihad.

It's easy for bin Laden and his ilk to use the madrasas to indoctrinate youth with little or no real prospect of prosperity in their future. But convincing young men with jobs and families to kick out the evil Americans simply because they're there will be another task altogether.

I'm not saying that it's going to happen, but in any event the roots of anti-Western sentiment and its calcification into jihad are well-known and essentially disconnected from any US presence in the region. Post Gulf War US presence on the Arabian peninsula was an irritant to be sure, but insignificant when compared to the domestic economic, social and political forces that shaped millenial fundamentalism.

I agree with you that the roots of Islamic fundamentalism go much deeper than anti-Western sentiment and that the lack of economic opportunity (and it's subsequent feeling of powerlessness) is what drives the popularity of jihad. But Western policies (British and in recent decades American) have inflamed that. For instance, the modern problems with Iran stem in part from the overthrow of the elected government of Mohammed Mossadeq and replaced him with the dictatorial Shah. Hussein was a monster we created and supported as long as he was killing Iranians. We support a corrupt and repressive Saudi regime because we're afraid of the alternative.

You can make an argument that the alternatives in all those cases were worse than what we supported. However, there is no question that our support of authoritarian regimes fans the flames of discontent, not just in the Middle East, but throughout the Third World.

I understand why many of those decisions were made, and even agree with some of them. From the point of view of one of those under the thumb of one our allies, though, it not only looks like America supports dictatorships, but is hypocritical about spreading "democracy" when supporting undemocratic regimes.

Iraq has been a different case in that we have toppled a dictator in favor of an elected government, and we have been trying to make that government fair and honest. The long history of American foreign manipulation has undermined that process and made it difficult to gain the trust of Iraqis or other Middle Easterners. Add into the mix our support or Israel, the rampant anti-Semitism in the Middle East, and the blatant dishonesty of the Bush Administration on a whole host of issues related to Iraq, and it's not at all surprising that we have had a rough time trying to nation-build in Iraq.

I do hope we're seeing a turn in events, because I agree with JackDog that the Iraqi people deserve to have stability and prosperity.

[RobVarak]

As Arab muslims rallied to the mujahadeen cause in the '80s, many naturalized muslims from Europe (often second generation immigrants) have traveled to Jordan, to enter Iraq. Many of these people aren't facing economically bleak futures.

Oh yes, second generation Arabs in Europe are so well integrated socially and economically. Why would they throw all that away to lash out at the West? Those Europeans are so progressive and welcoming to their Arab and African neighbors...yet another lesson that we bigoted, fat Americans can learn from them

Brando, of course Western behavior (particularly during the Cold War) is partly responsible for the problem. But I was specifically addressing WCO's point that our presence in Iraq engenders the jihadists.

[Brando70]

Brando, of course Western behavior (particularly during the Cold War) is partly responsible for the problem. But I was specifically addressing WCO's point that our presence in Iraq engenders the jihadists.

Gee, thanks for deflating my bloviated response

On an unrelated note, today's almost certain Obama clinching will dash one dream of mine: seeing Bill Clinton as First Husband. The White House would have been the new Playboy Mansion for the next 4-8 years.

[wco81]

Lot of European muslims do feel alienated. But not because they're relegated to ghettoes and are locked out of economic opportunities.

Sure a lot of first generation Arab immigrants were relegated to low or unskilled work but their children get education and have typical middle class career opportunities. Certainly there is discrimination but they're not all stewing with anger and resentment.

In fact, some of the London bombers had careers and families. So did some of the 9/11 bombers for that matter.

Poverty alone can't explain this.

[ScoopBrady]

On an unrelated note, today's almost certain Obama clinching will dash one dream of mine: seeing Bill Clinton as First Husband.

Where were you during his first stint?

[Jackdog]

On an unrelated note, today's almost certain Obama clinching will dash one dream of mine: seeing Bill Clinton as First Husband.

Where were you during his first stint?

That's funny!!!!!

[Inuyasha]

Obama better not pick hillary as vp.

[TheHiddenTrack]

Obama better not pick hillary as vp.

I'm not sure what he should do. If he doesn't pick her I think he loses some of Hillary's voters to McCain. If he picks her and he gets all the votes between both of them that's a pretty good start. And maybe if Clinton is vp Obama can avoid some attacks because they will still be focused on her.

But on the other hand, if he picks her then the republicans will have the person they love to hate the most and it might motivate their base to keep them out of the white house.

I think he should pick Edwards. I think he would help bring in some of the people who voted for Hillary and he had quite a bit of support himself.

[JRod]

I think he should pick Edwards. I think he would help bring in some of the people who voted for Hillary and he had quite a bit of support himself.

I think it's going to be Richardson. He has the "real" experience that a inexperienced Pres. needs. Think LBJ for Kennedy.

Plus it would help get all the Hispanics in line that were mostly for Clinton. I think it also gets the Blue Collar Dem vote. You might pick that up with Edwards but surely Edwards isn't going to get the VP nod twice.

If I was Obama, I wouldn't want Clinton on the ticket. It would solidify the ticket but then you will always have someone that could upstage you.

[Jared]

Starting a new thread (now that primary season is over, and this one is pretty long).