No war vs. More war

[Blarch]

Does it even matter who is the nominee ? ...on either side ?

It seems the choice is a fundamental one. Americans will make a choice between ending the war, or waging more war.

How can this election even be close ?

[Toots]

1. I hope you don't really believe that

Democrats could have stopped this a long time ago if they truly wished..They do not need a super majority to cut off funding...They have kept the war funding and the Military ffunbding at an unprecedented high for as long as they have been in the Majority. We spend more on military than all other countries in the world combined and it just goes higher and higher under Democratic Control...

[Blarch]

2. The next dem president...

will ask for a time line, congress will deliver, the war will wind down.

What part of that do you think will not take place ? :shrug:

[zbdent]

3. filibuster ...

unless the Dems get a supermajority plus one (to compensate for Lieberman), or are able to count the "independents" in the vote in the Senate, then the Repukes would control the situation (too bad the Repukes cannot reap the "benefits" of their "nuclear option" of not long ago ...)

[Blarch]

4. Suppose..

The President simply orders the troops home ? in a timely manner.

Congress isn't needed to end the war.

[zbdent]

6. responded to what you put in #2

in this one, you changed the parameters ...

Of course, Faux will lead the charge, saying "The Democrat President surrendered!!!", and the "liberal media" will merrily follow behind ...

[Orsino]

5. "Wind down" = more war

It may only be a question of how much more war a Dem president will support, before ending it. Or how many troops will be committed to a semi-permanent American occupation, which is not so very different.

[dmallind]

8. So what's the alternative?

Any sensible person, and certainly any military expert, would never suggest an absolute and immediate Januray 21st 100% pull everyone out decision. These things need to be done in an ordely manner, and the security and safety of teh troops and support personnel requires that it be done over time. There's also the "we broke it" responsibility to consider. Do we owe the Iraqi gievrnment nothing? The Iraqis who assisted us under promise of protection nothing? You are setting up an unrealistic expectation that would make things worse. A "wind down" is the only option. And remember the idea that ANY us troops = war is patently absurd. there are US troops in dozens of countries from Korea to Japan to Germany and England. Should Iraq become one of thos esituations - even an occasionally tense one like Korea or the Balkans - it is hardly equal to the violenty and wholesale occupation we now face, and it would be dishonest to say that a Democratic administration that took over Iraq as is and left it as Korea now is did not accomplish something positive.

[Orsino]

10. I don't see an alternative.

We should only keep in mind that any delay, any plan that keeps our troops in Iraq, is an extension of an illegal war. We have already failed there--did from the moment of the invasion--and dragging out the war for the sake of being orderly is of necessity a compromise. An inescapable one, maybe. Judge your Democratic president in part by how willing s/he is to sacrifice more lives to protect corporate profits.

And we should engrave in stone the failures of */Cheney policies (and our own oversight thereof) that will make even an immediate withdrawal bloody. We can't even end their dirty little war without more people dying because of it.

There's no victory to be had, and never was.

[dmallind]

11. Can't argue there on the Iraq stuff anyway

There is no easy or nice or free way out. We should not then consider the inability to find one to be a failure in our next president whoever that may be.

I'm a utilitarian. Reducing harm is as good as increasing benefit to me. The plan that does the best job of that would, IMO (and I'm NOT a military expert) take several months to bring occupation troops home and still leave SOME presence, if not in Iraq itself then very close by if we can persuade any countries in the area to allow that, for quite some time later. Again - Korea (in betwen the various factions as a buffer) is about as optimistic as I can be and it'll take a while to get there even.

[The2ndWheel]

7. Ending this war will cause the next war

Even IF the US Government could win it. Every time a war has ended, the next war has come about from the previous war's results. They just build on themselves.

The only way to escape that cycle is for the whole world to be the same, no matter where you go. However, to accomplish that, it will require war(military, economic, whatever), since war is primarily about killing diversity.

[spanone]

9. you are assuming that it will be fair....i cannot assume that.