OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 2

[wco81]

Wanting to end the war is not the same as wanting to lose the war, no matter how much people who wanted to stay in the war wants to spin it.

A lot of Americans wanted to end the war last year and still do this year.

Of course to those who advocated the war from the beginning, this might as well be losing the war because of whatever objectives they had weren't met.

Or they didn't want to be linked to a failed policy.

A "stable, democratic" Iraq is a long ways off from spawning democracies throughout the region (one of their oft stated original goals) but it's certainly making the best of what could have been a lot worse.

PK, the people who want to accuse their opponents of wanting to lose the war aren't interested in historical definitions of winning or losing a war. They want to define it to fit their interests.

[JackB1]

Nice, easy how that accusation rolls off, isn't it?

What is your evidence for Obama wanting us to lose the war?

Withdraw equals losing the war? "Cut and run" wasn't strong enough, now it's wanting to lose the war?

It irks me how the Republican's are so focused on "winning" and "losing". Nobody "wins" in war. And what exactly constitutes a "win" at this point?
They don't explain that, they just want to "win" because it sounds a lot better.
Would a "win" at this point ever cancel out all the lives lost, money wasted and damage to our country's worldwide reputation?

The only "win" would be Bin Laden dead.

[Teal]

And Jared, I don't consider the NYT to be the most objective newspaper in the world.

Is there such thing as an objective daily paper in your eyes, Teal?

Take care,
PK

No, not really.

[Teal]

I just saw a great post. It said:

"Note to Sara Palin:
Jesus was a community organizer"

Cute, but not even close to being true.

[JackB1]

First off, whether the war in Iraq was "won" or "lost" won't be determined during Obama or McCain's administration, even if they are two-termers, because how are we defining victory there?

There won't be a rail car in Versailles. There won't be a mahogany desk on the deck of the Missouri. And I sure as hell hope there won't be a "Mission Accomplished" banner on a carrier.

Victory or defeat in Iraq will be determined by whether that country is stable, democratic and with a self-sufficient government and armed forces. That won't be determined for quite a while.

It's not a conventional war, and there aren't conventional standards of victory or defeat. So the whole topic is pretty moot other than Democrats accusing McCain of spreading treason rumors about Obama and Republicans spreading rumors that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

We're not going to be in Iraq for 100 years, but it will be quite a long time, regardless of who wins in November. We'll have an occupying force there just like we do in South Korea. As Tom Friedman wrote, we conquered it, now we own it.

Take care,
PK

Very good post Paul. You brought up some great points that many lose sight of when they speak of "winning or losing". Well said.

[RobVarak]

Wanting to end the war is not the same as wanting to lose the war

That is perhaps the ultimate example of a distinction without a difference.

Wanting is irrelevent. The relevent question is what are the consequences of the action that you recommend? If Lincoln had wanted to end the Civil War in 1863 that would have resulted in the Union losing the war, regardless of whether he just wanted to end it, wanted to lose it or just wanted to get back to figuring out why he married batshit crazy Mary Todd.

The state of Iraq in 2006-2007 was such that "redeploying" would have rendered the liklihood victory virtually impossible by any standards. long or short term. Ending the war then = losing.

[MACTEPsporta]

The only wars that can be won are civil wars that lead to government change or noticeable change of policy, and occupational wars where the country being invaded actually becomes a structural part of the occupant.

US-Iraq is neither. If Iraq is to become stable democracy, which is unlikely knowing the people and the region (if there is a democratic trend in the Middle East it will most certainly not start with Iraq) it will be due to the civil war within Iraq. I think that's decades away, if at all possible. US can then be credited with creating favourable environment, but that's pretty much all the credit they can hope for. US has determined for themselves that they will claim vitory in the war when Iraq has a functioning democratic government. This is the statement that will allow many interpretations. The truth remains, unless US plans to occupy Iraq and make it its colony British Expansion style (US was once one of those colonies, a prime example of how hard it is to fight another nation from distance), they will be considered losers in this war. I am sure there will be some people who will consider it won regardless of public opinion, but there are still people who think Vietnam war was won, and I am sure there are a few lunatics in Germany who believe Germany won in WWII. So, to revert back to the original point, if you are in the war you cannot win, why not end it and save lives?! Who cares if it will be considered lost?

[Teal]

The only wars that can be won are civil wars that lead to government change or noticeable change of policy, and occupational wars where the country being invaded actually becomes a structural part of the occupant.

Japan, Germany. Want to try again?

[XXXIV]

Japan, Germany. Want to try again?

The allies won?....HURRAY!!!!!!! Thats great news.

[RobVarak]

We interrupt this discussion about whether some wars have clear winners and losers to bring you an interesting little regression analysis of the impact of conventions on candidate favorability ratings.

http://jacera.blogspot.com/2008/08/how- ... idate.html

It's based on only one election cycle, but I found it interesting nonetheless.

[Brando70]

Wanting to end the war is not the same as wanting to lose the war

That is perhaps the ultimate example of a distinction without a difference.

Wanting is irrelevent. The relevent question is what are the consequences of the action that you recommend? If Lincoln had wanted to end the Civil War in 1863 that would have resulted in the Union losing the war, regardless of whether he just wanted to end it, wanted to lose it or just wanted to get back to figuring out why he married batshit crazy Mary Todd.

The state of Iraq in 2006-2007 was such that "redeploying" would have rendered the liklihood victory virtually impossible by any standards. long or short term. Ending the war then = losing.

Obama went on O'Reilly last night and said the surge has worked "beyond our wildest dreams." So you can now state that he is devilishly using victory in Iraq to advance his political career.

[RobVarak]

Obama went on O'Reilly last night and said the surge has worked "beyond our wildest dreams." So you can now state that he is devilishly using victory in Iraq to advance his political career.

LMAO I might if he hadn't so foolishly said on his tour of the MidEast that despite its success he would still oppose it.

The Chicago Way of never admitting a mistake is strong in this one.

[Brando70]

Obama went on O'Reilly last night and said the surge has worked "beyond our wildest dreams." So you can now state that he is devilishly using victory in Iraq to advance his political career.

LMAO I might if he hadn't so foolishly said on his tour of the MidEast that despite its success he would still oppose it.

The Chicago Way of never admitting a mistake is strong in this one.

Wait, is Bush from Chicago too?

[MACTEPsporta]

That's very diplomatic internvention, Rob. I will be happy to regress, as soon as I set the record straight. Germany and Japan were allies in WWII so if you wish to claim victory, you only get to claim one, not too. Otherwise don't forget to include Bulgaria, Spain and Italy in your list of US military conquests.

WWII was won by Allied forces and was won according to the facts I stated earlier. USSR turned back the invasion and invaded (freed) Poland, Baltic countries Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria etc.. on the way to Germany. US and GB turned back invasion on the western front and themselves invaded Germany from the west. That's how Europe was split into western and eastern camps, btw.

Japan conceded only after China and USSR joined the party and invaded it by land (I am sure the two nukes didn't hurt either), as was the case with Europe countries were freed (invaded) on the way. Namely Korea, Philippines, Burma etc...

[Teal]

Japan, Germany. Want to try again?

The allies won?....HURRAY!!!!!!! Thats great news.

You know damn well what I meant...

[RobVarak]

Wait, is Bush from Chicago too?

Good point, although no Chicago pol would every go through the process of mea culpas that he did prior to running in '00. Whether it was genuine or not, apologizing for being a drinker etc. is not how things are done around here. We just set the wife up in a nice no-show parks job, pay off any cops who might have troubling information and get back to business.

[wco81]

Leaving Iraq in 2006-2007 would not have caused the US to be taken over by another country or required us to sue for peace. None of the classic definitions of losing a war.

It simply would have ended our involvement in the war and it would have meant we wouldn't have achieved the objective of a stable, democratic Iraq.

But that objective is not something which most Americans were interested in.

It was only those who pushed for the war who wanted that objective, as a way of salvaging the other goals which failed to materialize.

Most Americans wanted to end our involvement in Iraq then and still did as of earlier this year -- I don't know what the latest polls show.

We could leave Iraq under any terms we choose. Obviously some people would characterize it as losing the war if we left under terms they didn't like and want to smear those who don't agree with them.

[MACTEPsporta]

Leaving Iraq in 2006-2007 would not have caused the US to be taken over by another country or required us to sue for peace. None of the classic definitions of losing a war.

Failed invasion constitutes defeat in the war.

[XXXIV]

Japan, Germany. Want to try again?

The allies won?....HURRAY!!!!!!! Thats great news.

You know damn well what I meant...

Damn straight I did

[wco81]

Leaving Iraq in 2006-2007 would not have caused the US to be taken over by another country or required us to sue for peace. None of the classic definitions of losing a war.

Failed invasion constitutes defeat in the war.

In what way did the invasion fail? We did take military control over the regions we wanted.

It's the political settlement and endgame for the US which are murky.

Of course when the objectives and justification for war change because facts didn't conform to certain theories before the war, you're not going to have a clear definition of how it ends.

[JackB1]

I just saw a great post. It said:

"Note to Sara Palin:
Jesus was a community organizer"

Cute, but not even close to being true.

Her demeaning and ridiculing of Obama's community work was very ugly and not becoming at all, for a possible future VP of the USA. Obama had graduated from Columbia with a political science degree and choose a grass roots path in Chicago, instead of the usual, more profitable route. There are over 5,000 less fortunate individuals who benefited tremendously from the public housing project he led, that might have issue with Palin's snide comments. I can't think of a better way of getting "in touch" with the plight of the poor, than experiencing it first hand for yourself. You would think a woman that claims to have high Christian values would appreciate such good deeds.

[Teal]

Humility is a funny thing, Jack. Once you realize you have it, you've lost it.


...Obama has lost it...

[MACTEPsporta]

Leaving Iraq in 2006-2007 would not have caused the US to be taken over by another country or required us to sue for peace. None of the classic definitions of losing a war.

Failed invasion constitutes defeat in the war.

In what way did the invasion fail? We did take military control over the regions we wanted.

It's the political settlement and endgame for the US which are murky.

Of course when the objectives and justification for war change because facts didn't conform to certain theories before the war, you're not going to have a clear definition of how it ends.

I just addressed the notion that if the country is not taken over or "required to sue for peace", latter statement I still don't fully understand, it cannot lose the war. I've brought to your attention that failed invasion is a loss in the war.

As for whether the invasion succeded as of now, or would have been considered successfull as of 2006-2007 (as originally stated) -- that's pure speculation. I would argue it didn't, but that's not the subject I responded to, nor the one I wish to continue debating.

[Teal]

And those are good things, Jack...but not anywhere in the arena of qualifiers for the presidency, as he says they are.

[matthewk]

Her demeaning and ridiculing of Obama's community work was very ugly and not becoming at all, for a possible future VP of the USA.

I thought it was pretty funny