Obama, McCain & the waning American...

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have a homework assignment for you Cali. It's pleasant. Watch The Killing Fields.

Seen it. Not pleasant.

Waters hit on a great point, though. This election appears to be down to three candidates. 2 support withdrawal from Iraq, 1 supports staying, possibly forever. The 1 that supports staying has also indicated he may bomb Iran. He has pushed for kicking Russia out of the G-8. Are you really wanting to discuss "loss of American prestige" as an issue exclusive to Obama/Hillary?

McCain is a bully. Bush is a bully in foreign affairs, and that hasn't done much for American prestige overseas (or in the US, for that matter, where the overwhelming majority of Americans think America is not on a good path right now). I am not looking for a Bush clone in foreign affairs to take over for the next 4 years. We have huge problems in the Middle East right now. I don't know that our situation is improved by invading Iran next.

Withdrawing from Iraq may result in horrific consequences. It could also prompt Iraq to begin preparing now to take over its own affairs, something that has not happened to any great extent as of yet. If the latter, then withdrawing is a great idea. If the former, it will be a disaster. Nobody can know for certain how it will go. It is a calculated risk, no question.

Then again, staying is not without its risks either. Iraq has been on the brink of civil war during the US occupation, and it could still devolve into a civil war- one with US troops stuck in the middle. What would that do to US prestige? Our military presence tends to favor the Shia as opposed to the Sunni, despite the overt hostility expressed by the Shia towards the West. Is that desirable? Iraq is draining our resources, and leaving us exposed to other threats with our military fully engaged (and struggling to keep up) in Iraq already. As a result, we aren't doing what we should be doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan is devolving into chaos and we seem totally unprepared for the potential consequences (particularly given that they are a nuclear power).

We agree that these are all reasons we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place. But I absolutely disagree that you or anyone else out there can say with any certainty that staying in Iraq is better than withdrawing from Iraq, or that the consequences are any more predictable. We are stuck in a dangerous game in Iraq, and there are no good answers anymore.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Seen it. Not pleasant.

I meant in the sense of all good serious art being cathartic, in a sense.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

We are stuck in a dangerous game in Iraq, and there are no good answers anymore.

I agree.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Good post. Contrary to SU, I tend to think that engaging other countries in a positive fashion and being the preeminent global power aren't mutually exclusive. Rather, I think they compliment each other nicely if done appropriately. Just as there is a fine balance between diplomacy and appeasement, there is a fine balance between diplomacy and authoritarianism. Too much of appeasement and too much of authoritarianism contribute to the downfall of a superpower.

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.
I believe it is peace for our time...
Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Take notes, Waters, Cali and others. This would be a foreordained result of electing Obama. This in fact is what he stands for so far as I can tell. Personally, as quaint as that notion may seem, I continue to believe America represents really the only hope for a world that is mostly a sea of oppression, general misery, and premature death.

When is Obama going to address the fact that most of the homocides in Iraq aren't of Amreican soldiers, but innocent civilians, by Islamic terrorists? Is he really so callous and self-absorbed?

If it weren't for the prevalence of soft-headed PC nonsense like this I'd be a happy democrat.

As though either McCain, Obama or H. Clinton have the capacity to single-handedly change global reality, hold back the tide?

America does represent a set of ideals, represents hope, but do you really believe we're the *only* ones who do? Please don't tell me you're this self deluded. We're pretty cool, but we're not everything.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You haven't hurt my feelings but I think you are calling the wrong person in this thread a troll. To paraphrase goatnapper, GreatBasinUte's post hits more negative stereotypes of self-loathing paleo-liberals than any real person could possess.

LOL. I love the Goat's biting (and funny) cut-to-the-chase.

I would call it facing reality. We don't have the resources to rescue any & all people in the world from bad things... including our own mess in Iraq.

Moreover, I have noted that a consequence of sudden withdrawal from Iraq would be enormous loss of American prestige as well as leaving innocent Iraqi citizens to the wolves. We put them at risk, and democrats as well as Republicans were a party to it. I can respect someone's argment that forthrightly addresses those consequences and says he or she is willing to live by them. Not someone who ignores them.

Obama will elaborate if/when he becomes the nominee, but IMO if we were to try to rescue prestige for every foreign policy misstep made in the past century it would be catastrophically costly. Should we have fought the Iranian revolution? (That domino started with Operation Ajax). Should we have toppled Saddam *before* we made him a strongman?

It's time to maintain a strong defense but pull back our committment, stop baby-sitting and spoon feeding the lesser nations. They need to solve their problems on their own. Iraq dealt with our former friend Saddam, got through it. They can take the bull by the horns & fight Islamic terrorism themselves.

Resolving the Islamic terrorism problem is not something we can do for the Islamic world.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

As though either McCain, Obama or H. Clinton have the capacity to single-handedly change global reality, hold back the tide?

America does represent a set of ideals, represents hope, but do you really believe we're the *only* ones who do? Please don't tell me you're this self deluded. We're pretty cool, but we're not everything.

I don't think we're the only ones with those ideals. We didn't invent them, either. But I'm being pragmatic, maybe overstating somewhat.

Obama is the only one promising pull out come what may on a timetable.

[MikeWaters]

SU is the classic in-tweed-smoking-a-pipe-in-his-library bourgeois war-hawk. He is effete and privileged, and in between advocating further war, worries that someone might pull rank and get their kid into that ultra-selective private school over his.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I can respect someone's argment that forthrightly addresses those consequences and says he or she is willing to live by them. Not someone who ignores them.

Exactly, but you won't catch anyone who advocates withdrawal doing this. It HAS to be talked about.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

But I think that running for president on a categorical plank for withdrawal is foolish. Of course, Nixon did that and it took him six years to keep his promise. Maybe Obama will learn easier said than done.

... Obama is the only one promising pull out come what may on a timetable.

As much as I like Obama, his full-withdrawal by X/Y/2009 may turn out to be the "no new taxes" of his campaign. Though he has since dropped the date from his speeches, for the better part of last year he promised that he would have every soldier home by some specific day in 2009. Analysts have indicated that not only was his proposal imprudent, it was physically impossible. The fact that he constructed such a platform gives credence to his detractors' argument that he's naive and uninformed.

If he were to become president, and when 2009 passes and we're still mired in the war, it'll be awfully easy for the media to pull up these sound-bites, play them to the masses, and watch his approval plummet.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

SU is the classic in-tweed-smoking-a-pipe-in-his-library bourgeois war-hawk. He is effete and privileged, and in between advocating further war, worries that someone might pull rank and get their kid into that ultra-selective private school over his.

You're so sensitive always worrying about our soldiers dying. I wonder when you'll say something to recognize the many more civilians dying and the millions suffering intolerable living conditions because of actions taken by your country. I would like the peaceatallcostsnicks to talk about those folks. They never do. They pretend they don't exist. Do the peaceatallcostsnicks think they're subhuman because they're Muslims and not Americans?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

As much as I like Obama, his full-withdrawal by X/Y/2009 may turn out to be the "no new taxes" of his campaign. Though he has since dropped the date from his speeches, for the better part of last year he promised that he would have every soldier home by some specific day in 2009. Analysts have indicated that not only was his proposal imprudent, it was physically impossible. The fact that he constructed such a platform gives credence to his detractors' argument that he's naive and uninformed.

If he were to become president, and when 2009 passes and we're still mired in the war, it'll be awfully easy for the media to pull up these sound-bites, play them to the masses, and watch his approval plummet.

This is just what happened to Nixon.

Listen up, McCain, Barbara and I are feeding you your themes.