Iraq can NOT be compared to Vietnam.

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:24 PM

And why have the Democrats been keeping a running total of loss of lives in Iraq, and not Afghanistan, so to say one is important and the other is not?

Why do we not keep a running tally of terrorists or insurgents killed? Should we keep score, and would you like to see the score?

Also, how is it good for the democrats to be rooting for deaths of American soldiers, because the more deaths of American soldiers the better that their chances are..

More American Soldier deaths in Iraq = Democrats love it gives them power.

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Chakra Hammer

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam, in anyway, for any purpose is useless. Vietnam may as well have been on the moon. When it comes to not having a plan for victory, Kennedy/Johnson take the cake.

I get MB4’s position. He’s not a lefty retard. He just does not want to forget the cost. Unlike a liberal he constantly recalculates the situation. A liberal takes a view (terrorists are freedom fighters), and never sets a condition that if a jihadi makes his 1 year old swallow a grenade, then throws her into a crowd of pregnant women, it might change their opinion.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Why do we not keep a running tally of terrorists or insurgents killed?

Chakra Hammer

You got that right. But as I have said, that is part of the story, an element of success, but not a reason to stay.

For me, the HONOR, of our troops is reason enough. That they can reasonably give the Iraqis a chance (a fighting chance) to “see” a positive future.

Should they fail to achieve it, is not on us. But we leave when they are reasonably on their way.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Now a US base in Israel as tripwire would make more sense. Shut down Germany and S. Korea.

JiangxiDad

Amen. But that would take a STRONG President unlike we have EVER seen. If you assume that new Presidents receive a briefing on Israel/Pali, they probably get a paralyzing understanding of the situation.

Still they send the money.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 8:43 PM

Uh, uh, uh, um, what no teleprompter?

It is striking how different and unsure of himself he sounds here in comparison to his speeches. He totally KNOWS that he is distorting McCain’s statement. Leaving a small strike force somewhere in the region? What the hell is that going to do for us? This guy would be the worst president ever!

WisCon on March 31, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Iraq can NOT be compared to Vietnam.
Chakra Hammer

It seem that when you started quoting Vietnam losses you were making a comparison to Iraq. If NOT, then the losses do not address a “perspective”.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:01 PM

Why do we not keep a running tally of terrorists or insurgents killed?

Chakra Hammer on March 31, 2008 at 8:30 PM

Memories of doing that in Vietnam.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Is Iraq like California?!

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:03 PM

No habla espanol in Iraq.

MB4 on March 31, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Though I disagree with him, MB4 makes a level-headed case.

Now, if’n you’re in the mood to really lay into some actual batsh!t moonbattery, check out the comments on my “Today is Obama’s Surrender Day” post. The links it produced were magnets for quality paste-eating trolls.

Cuffy Meigs on March 31, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Though I disagree with him, MB4 makes a level-headed case.
Cuffy Meigs

MB4’s position has a particular theme. He is not a liberal apologist. He recognizes the evil of the enemy. He is suspicious that the “power” of Islam is not addressed in our strategy, and that it will eventually turn whatever we accomplish to ash.

My position is we do the best we can, and THEN drop them in the water. Sink or swim, it will be on the Iraqis. When we have done “enough” is what the debate is about.

Obama (unlike MB4) is a politician who has not thought about, and certainly does not mean a word that comes out of his mouth. He ignores every factor that informs MB4’s opinion.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:57 PM

This dolt is the epitome of a dumb ass. He has no idea what he is taking about and begins to stutter and obfuscate when pressured. If he truly doesn’t know what John McCain meant in his speech then he is even dumber than I initially thought he was. There is however one thing that is very clear . . . this poor Republic is in very serious trouble. The thought that this guy might be elected makes me cringe and shiver.

rplat on March 31, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 9:57 PM

The fates are with you, Watson

Holmes on March 31, 2008 at 10:05 PM

He takes questions at a PA gas station. Say no more.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 31, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Leaving a small strike force somewhere in the region? What the hell is that going to do for us?

WisCon: let him have his big leadership moment when the jihadists overrun our small force so he gets to play national healer?

funky chicken on March 31, 2008 at 10:15 PM

Obama has ZERO credibility with the military. McCain didn’t say we should stay in Iraq 100 years, he said we could and it wouldn’t be a first… troops in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Italy…..

When it comes to the cost of the war and if the U.S. can afford it, we’re the richest country on the face of the earth. The war in Iraq costs less than 1% of the Gross Domestic Product annually. Here are some facts about the cost of the Iraq war:

MONETARY COST OF THE WAR/GDP

*The liberation of Kuwait in 1991 cost the equivalent of 1% of the GDP of the time, or about $80 billion in today’s dollars.

*The Vietnam war cost between 1.5% and 2% of GDP each year during the eight years of major American commitment, or about $600 billion. At its peak we had more than 500,000 soldiers and other military in Vietnam.

*Iraq war costs of between 0.5% and 0.7% of GDP.

HUMAN COST OF THE WAR

*Iraq war: nearly 4,000 U.S. troops killed

*In the past century American military fatalities during wartime totaled about 620,000, or an average of 6,200 per year in a nation with an average population of about 165 million. In the century before that, American fatalities averaged about 3,800 per year in a country with a population that averaged only about 30 million.

THE COST OF NOT GOING TO WAR

TROOP LEVELS
*In late 2002 the U.S. had more than 60,000 troops stationed in the countries around Iraq to back up UN Security Council resolutions. Hans Blix, the UN’s weapons inspector, credited those forces as being the reason he was getting even limited co-operation from Saddam. In the congressional debate about authorizing the war, the opponents’ position was that we should continue with the UN inspection process, which required U.S. troops to stay on the scene. It was presumed that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), not just by President Bush, but by the National Intelligence Estimate and the spy agencies of many other countries. It would have taken a long time to convince a skeptical world that Saddam’s noncompliance with 17 UN resolutions was innocent. Under the alternative scenario of the time American forces would have been stationed around Iraq for years, many of them in harm’s way.

*We would have still stationed half to three-fourths as many troops as we now have in Iraq in neighboring countries. The cost of stationing them there would be lower than what we now pay but would still be substantial.

*The continuous use of air power would have been necessary to police the no-fly zones established in the ceasefire of the first Iraq war.

*Increased surveillance of the Iran-Iraq and Syria-Iraq borders would have been necessary to limit terrorist migration.

*Evidence suggests Saddam would have rebuilt his WMD capability. it isplausible that not invading Iraq would probably have cost at least a third as much as we ultimately spent on deposing Saddam.

COST IN BENEFITS

*While no WMDs were found in Iraq, the U.S. demonstrated its willingness to go to war over them.

*Shortly after Saddam fell, Libya’s ruler Muammar Qadaffi decided to reveal that he had a stockpile of WMDs-along with a nuclear weapons program-and that he would like to give them up voluntarily and abide by the norms of international law. The timing of his conversion made it clear that he had learned some lessons from Saddam’s defeat.

*Iran probably suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, around the same time as the Libya move.

*In Iraq the war toppled an outlaw regime that not only had been flouting international law but had been a systematic abuser of human rights. It’s fair to claim that America cannot afford to liberate all the people who live under oppressive regimes, but the causes of human freedom and dignity have certainly gained by his downfall.

*Assurance Saddam or his sons would never rebuild an WMD arsenal.

THE COST OF STAYING OR GOING

A number of significant countries in the region depend on the perception that America would block any threat to their peace and security. A precipitate American withdrawal suggesting a lack of American commitment to the region or, worse, the perception that America had been defeated, could lead to a major regional realignment. Most countries in the gulf would have to reconsider their security situation and choose either between rearmament (including the acquisition of nuclear weapons) or cooperation with Iran, which would be happy to fill the vacuum left by an American defeat or withdrawal. This would ultimately cost us in ways far beyond the ability of dollars to measure.

On the other hand, an American success in Iraq could also change the course of history in the Middle East, where the U.S. has made huge investments in security over many decades. A stable Iraqi government selected by its own people would be a first in the Arab world. It would suggest that there is a third alternative to the current choice between repressive regimes and Islamic fundamentalism. It may have been naive to think it would happen in one or two years, and the administration can probably be faulted for not changing its occupation strategy sooner, but the initial success of the U.S. surge in troop levels shows that the decision is not yet out of our hands.

Whether we win or lose will come down to our perseverance and our willingness to learn and adapt as a result of our mistakes. It was former Secretary of State Colin Powell who cited the so-called Pottery Barn rule in warning President Bush about America’s commitment after the invasion: “You break it, you own it.” Well, we own it. Whether or not we like the decision to have invaded in March 2003 is immaterial now. This is difficult for an economist who deals with figures all the time to admit, but when it comes to war, the dollar cost is hardly a major concern. I am not a military expert. It’s the military’s judgment that should determine whether to double our investment or take our losses and go home. If our military leaders think we can ultimately prevail, we should stay. If we ultimately cannot, we should leave. It’s as simple as that.

This has been the case in all our wars. World War II ultimately cost about 140% of GDP. Would FDR have thought, “Well, the war is worth it at 130% of GDP, but not at 170%”? In terms of the damage it did to the American economy and the American heartland, or simply in terms of the number of dead, the Civil War dwarfed all the others. But Lincoln certainly never took a pencil to do a cost-benefit test. Nor did John F. Kennedy when he said, “We will pay any price, bear any burden … to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Had any of these leaders done that, they would have fallen into the trap that the economics profession is so often accused of: They would know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Obama’s insistance that this is a U.S. occupation shows he’s not fit to be commander in chief. We’re a guest in a host country offering security and monetary help. We’re under a U.N. mandate at the request of Iraq to be there. The mandates run for a year at a time and are renewed only at Iraq’s written request to the U.N.

Amy Proctor on March 31, 2008 at 10:25 PM

We need to stop making comparisons to other situations. Either you are trying to convince someone else or yourself.

Some things are facts not in dispute. Iraq has been TOO EXPENSIVE on every level. That is not a complaint or criticism. Other options would/could have be more expensive. Bad choices.

President Bush has defined the word Strategery. Pursuing certain goals, and achieving harder ones in the process. Brilliant (by mistake?).

What matters now more than anything is managing one thought in the minds of our people, friends, allies, and enemies. That thought - “They will never do that again”.

Victory may be a slimmer goal than people want to admit. But if we can honorably claim it, we establish that a similar action could be taken in support of other nations. The Sudan, or even (gasp) Israel. That is what our friends and enemies fear.

Their hope is that we fail, and/or elect weak leadership that would never put this on the table.

Agrippa2k on March 31, 2008 at 10:52 PM

funky chicken on March 31, 2008 at 10:15 PM

For all we know he wants them there to protect against Israeli aggression.

WisCon on March 31, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Yes, he’s misquoting McCain. A fair thing would be to say that McCain is delusional and seriously argues by implication that Iraq can be Germany in the observable future, at which point the main concern for the US forces will be to find a way back home to the base having drunk too much of Iraqi beer.

Yes, I am antiwar. I still support McCain over Obama for a whole list of reasons. However, McCain has no clear and defensible position on Iraq. His “answer” to questions about criteria for troop withdrawal is that troop withdrawal isn’t really a concern in Iraq seeing as how it isn’t a concern in Germany. Equating Iraq to Germany is simply insane.

Obama absolutely correctly argues that staying in Iraq will always be at a huge cost. Whether or not it’s a cost we as a country should pay is a legitimate thing to argue about. McCain is being dishonest by remaining unwilling to acknowledge the costs. He has no business crying foul.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 12:44 AM

we are there at the request of the Iraqi Government.

Chakra Hammer on April 1, 2008 at 1:01 AM

Well a majority of Americans request that we bring the American troops home to America.

Like maybe sometime before Press One for English, Press Two for Spanish becomes Press One for Spanish, Press Two for Espanol.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 1:27 AM

Iraq war costs of between 0.5% and 0.7% of GDP.

Iraq war: nearly 4,000 U.S. troops killed

You make the war sound like such a real bargain. Maybe we should have a bunch more? Such a deal, how can we not want a few more at such a great price?

It was former Secretary of State Colin Powell who cited the so-called Pottery Barn rule in warning President Bush about America’s commitment after the invasion: “You break it, you own it.” Well, we own it.

Amy Proctor on March 31, 2008 at 10:25 PM

We don’t own it despite what the Perfumed Prince says, and it was broke before we got there in any case. We liberated them from Saddam, so they owe us. Besides President Bush has said that Iraq is an independent country, not one we own.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 1:55 AM

So the majority of Americans want genocide, in Iraq?

Chakra Hammer on April 1, 2008 at 2:05 AM

Where did you come up with that canard? I know it’s late, unless you are on the west coast, but not that late.

In any case, why do you think that Iraq would have a genocide?

And don’t say that AQI would do it as they are estimated to be between several hundred and a thousand or two, not nearly enough to do a genocide. And that was as of a few months ago, reports are that many/most have been wiped out. If the IA can’t take care of them, then they are beyond hope.

Sunnis genocide Shiites?

Shiites genocide Sunnis?

Shiites genocide Shiites?

Even I don’t think that they hate each other that much.

If you do think that they hate each other that much, then how on earth, at the same time, can you think that they can form anything like that democratic, rule-of-law, respect for human rights, example to the rest of the middle east nation that Bush and McCain yammer about?

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 2:33 AM

Yes he distorts it if he doesn’t tell the whole truth. There needs to be a huge tally board to show how many times he distorts the 100 year story, like the ones on the freeway that show the lottery total.

oakpack on April 1, 2008 at 7:25 AM

This idiot Obama is just a garden variety, corrupt and incompetent Democrat politician.

Absolutely worthless. Get to polls this fall, if for nothing else than to vote against THIS.

NoDonkey on April 1, 2008 at 8:28 AM

The initial responses to the exit question is exactly why Obama is right. Could HA poster please tell us (the ones want us to leave Iraq) exactly how many years you would be willing to stay over there assuming the situation stays the same? Will you stay there until we achieve ‘victory’?

McCain’s position seems to be to stay there no matter what. This could last 1 year or 100 years, who knows. Taken as a whole, I don’t think Obama is distorting McCain’s approach to how long to stay in Iraq.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Oh how I love revisionist history. The American troops did not lose in Viet Nam. MSM lost the war, with the likes of Cronkite on air every night beating up on the troops and officers running the war. Weak pols than followed like lemmings. This is exactly what MSM is trying right now. And the weak pols are following like good little lemmings. Look at today, the progress is there, in MSM no stories. When things are in the crapper, front page. One of the best results of WW II, troops in Asia and Europe for defense. This would also be a side benefit of victory in Iraq. Troops placed in the Mid-east for long term protection in the area.

pueblo1032 on April 1, 2008 at 9:48 AM

The initial responses to the exit question is exactly why Obama is right. Could HA poster please tell us (the ones want us to leave Iraq) exactly how many years you would be willing to stay over there assuming the situation stays the same? Will you stay there until we achieve ‘victory’?

McCain’s position seems to be to stay there no matter what. This could last 1 year or 100 years, who knows. Taken as a whole, I don’t think Obama is distorting McCain’s approach to how long to stay in Iraq.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Do you remember after 9/11 when President Bush told us the fight against Islamfacism was going to be a long war? That it was going to take military, diplomatic, and political will? Part of that war is having a military presence in Iraq. No one knows how long it will take. I suspect it will go on thru both our lifetimes and beyond. You need to be a bit more realistic about what we are facing.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM

I just found out today that my nephew is scheduled to go back to Iraq for his second tour sometime this summer.

None of those yahoos in Washington have any intentions on pulling out our troops to “end this war.” They know that to do so, would cause chaos in the middle east and then THAT political burden would be on their shoulders.

Obama and the likes are all rhetoric and no action. Mark my words.

pullingmyhairout on April 1, 2008 at 10:36 AM

I think Obama is more flexible in his definition of victory. That’s how it is different. I am not sure how we defined victory in Germany or Japan, but right now the right wing is setting the goal post so high, imho, that we will be forced to stay and that our presence will prevent the Iraqis from finding their own solution. As far as I understand, the presence Obama wants to have in Iraq is very light.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 10:56 AM

That’s my point. HA is accusing Obama of distorting what McCain said, but at the end of the day, it seems to me McCain and his supporter would stay there for our lifetimes and beyond. Hence the 100 years.

And no, I don’t recall Bush ever talking about Islamofacism.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Obama is distorting it because he is not differentiating between being a military presence as opposed to being the major participant in the fighting. Bush didn’t use the actual term, Islamfacism, but if you want to play that nitpicky game, do you also disagree Islam is driving the terrorism? Our presence in Iraq is a good thing, it has required sacrifice and will require more. I’m not convinced democracy, at least as we know it, is the answer, but I am convinced our military will be fighting against Islamic driven terror for decades. We need to consolidate our gains, not throw them away.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM

If he does win the primary, I will look forward to his debates with McCain. Without his teleprompter, he’s almost unintelligable.

4shoes on March 31, 2008 at 11:01 PM

Has any of the Superdelegates heard him talk in pressers?
The guy makes no sense and you can actually see the wheels turning in his head when he is making something up.
How the libtards get teary eyed over his speaking ability is beyond me.
He is painful to watch, appears uneducated and completely uninformed.

ArmyAunt on April 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Ah well crap, Rice said the same thing in 2006:

It is clear today that America must begin to reposition our diplomatic forces around the world, so over the next few years the United States will begin to shift several hundred of our diplomatic positions to new critical posts for the 21st century.

Is it just me, or is the idea of “diplomatic forces” a bit odd? I mean, it’s not referring to forces as in pressure, but forces as in personnel. The militarization of the US language, vote for Obama! ;)

Seixon on April 1, 2008 at 11:34 AM

Now a US base in Israel as tripwire would make more sense. Shut down Germany and S. Korea.

JiangxiDad on March 31, 2008 at 8:32 PM

I am not a big fan of the empire or our welfare checks to Israel but I do not think painting a bigger target on them, that a US base would create, would help their security. In fact I see it as an exploitation of Israel to get involved in future wars at their expense. Israel has the finest military in the Middle East, but they don’t need to be forced into using it more than they have to and a US base would do that.

LevStrauss on April 1, 2008 at 12:26 PM

people who are drafted into a war are not much different than civilians.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 9:57 AM

I just fell over.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 12:40 PM

I don’t recall ever having heard Obama’s definition of victory.

Esthier on April 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Exactly. Instead of setting the bar to ‘no date certain’ or we have to finish the job, Obama’s websites states that:

Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year. He would call for a new constitutional convention in Iraq, convened with the United Nations, which would not adjourn until Iraq’s leaders reach a new accord on reconciliation. He would use presidential leadership to surge our diplomacy with all of the nations of the region on behalf of a new regional security compact. And he would take immediate steps to confront the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Iraq.

The implication is that success is already achieved (aka mission accomplished), and the rest will be mostly balls dropped in other people’s court.

Obama is distorting it because he is not differentiating between being a military presence as opposed to being the major participant in the fighting. Bush didn’t use the actual term, Islamfacism, but if you want to play that nitpicky game, do you also disagree Islam is driving the terrorism? Our presence in Iraq is a good thing, it has required sacrifice and will require more. I’m not convinced democracy, at least as we know it, is the answer, but I am convinced our military will be fighting against Islamic driven terror for decades. We need to consolidate our gains, not throw them away.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Again, I believe you are not directly addressing the global point. Imagine nothing gets better or worse in Iraq. Would McCain leave in 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, 100 years. Is there a maximum number of years for spending at the current pace?

His public statements lead me to conclude he would stay there for a while, a long while. If you take the 100 years statement plus everything else McCain said, I don’t see how what Obama said is a distortion. I think it would be a fair conclusion to reach from all that McCain has said.

And yes, I disagree that Islam is driving the terrorism. I think Islam is a great tool to be used by terrorists, but I don’t think Islam is in the driver seat, I think it’s the other way around.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM

I think Islam is a great tool to be used by terrorists, but I don’t think Islam is in the driver seat, I think it’s the other way around.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM

They have become so intertwined, as if at a molecular level, that it be hard to separate them.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM

They have become so intertwined, as if at a molecular level, that it be hard to separate them.

MB4 on April 1, 2008 at 2:06 PM

If that were true, considering the amount of Muslims on earth, you would see WAY WAY more terrorists attacks.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 2:32 PM

“He wants to know how Bush and McCain define victory.”

Well yes, I’m certain he does, for then he would have a clue.

What I want to know is what method do the Democrats think John McCain is using to not only live another hundred years, but remain President for the entire time.

Sasnak on April 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM

What I want to know is what method do the Democrats think John McCain is using to not only live another hundred years, but remain President for the entire time.

I think it’s fairly well established that you can be brain dead and be elected President. Twice.

freevillage on April 1, 2008 at 3:40 PM

It has become all to clear that Obama will not be held to account for anything he says/does/is by both the press and the public! He has already cleared the Rev. Wright turbulence and in fact gained support. The Messiah will be able to lie, twist and distort facts without fear of repercussions. Just as some on this site that harbor absolutely clueless perspectives on Islam and terrorism and cannot stay focused on a topic, instead they continually hijacking comments to push their pathetic agendas! Its all about hearing ones inner voice and feeling your opinion is correct regardless of undeniable facts and irrefutable truths! Well good F’in luck to one and all and may God help us survive the next decade!

dmann on April 1, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Second, knowing our government, any reduction in cost won’t be saved,..it will be diverted, probably into social programs or even something like Obama’s bill for contributing a trillion dollars to the U.N.

a capella on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM

You know what, it seems you don’t mind spending all those dollars in Iraq, but I would rather spend those dollars on social programs to help fellow americans. I don’t mind helping out others, but between something I perceive to be wasteful spending in Iraq and domestic social programs, I will pick the latter.

mycowardice on April 1, 2008 at 5:17 PM