"PA's Ask a Candidate" Thread

[Texsox]

If the IPs fit, you mustn't aquit

 

[Balta1701]

So, I believe since I didn't have time to join the election, I'm going to use these "Ask a candidate" threads to respond to people's suggestions in the debate threads.

 

PA, I have several issues with your suggestions on Iraq. Specifically, I don't see how any of the positive options you offer really would lead anywhere.

 

First and foremost, you make the assumption that other nations are out there who would be willing to help us out in Iraq, and this is implicit in your request for a conference. I must ask, who exactly out there will help us, and more importantly, why have they not done so already?

 

The Iranians? They perhaps have the most to gain from the U.S. being totally tied down in Iraq, because it allows their nuclear program to procede, and it gives the Iranians a huge amount of diplomatic leveredge over the U.S. Furthermore, Iran would like nothing better for the U.S. to withdraw immediately, because they could essentially control the government.

 

Who else is out there? The Saudis? They have essentially no control over the Sunni part of the insurgency as far as I can tell. The insurgency has become financially self-sufficient according to the NYTimes, so Saudi money really isn't necessary. There are almost no foreign fighters in the country compared to the amount of native Iraqis in the conflict. And the Saudis really don't like the Iraqi government, as it is a strongly Shia/Iranian allied government as it is (Heck, the government issued a questionable arrest warrant for the top Sunni Cleric in Iraq just last week)

 

Beyond those 2 states, there really isn't anyone else with nearly enough influence. Syria has a border with Iraq that they could probably control better, but that can only do so much when things in Iraq get this bad. And heck, they're proving useful in taking in Iraqi refugees. As is Jordan.

 

I for one don't see the suggestion of bringing in other governments will actually do anything, when these governnments are already acting in ways which will best benefit themselves.

 

Furthermore, your last clause states that the U.S. should continue training Iraqi troops until a viable force is assembled. The U.S. has already had 3 years, and the situation in that country has grown rapidly worse for those 3 years. The police forces and army are heavily infultrated by the insurgents and militias, and by arming them, we've basically helped arm and train those militias. People in police uniforms routinely take part in kidnappings. That giant kidnapping a few weeks ago where 200+ people were emptied out of a building? The Kidnappers had roadblocks manned by people in police uniforms, and no other police responded until well after it was over.

 

So my question in reply is...how exactly can we take a "train the Iraqis" mentality when we've tried training them for 3 years while the situation has collapsed under our feet and the forces we've trained have proven to be as much a part of the problem as anything else?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Balta, thank you for reading my debate discussion, and as I posted before, I would like nothing better than to respond to non-candidate questions in this forum.

 

It should be understood that all of these discussions are happening in the vacuum of Soxtalk message boards, so I certainly do not assert that anything I've suggested to be anything more than suggestions. I do not possess the information available to the actual members of our government, so my thoughts are limited in their perspective at best.

 

What I think you missed and I feel ties all of your questions together are the ideas that the Bush Administration acted alone in their international pursuits and out of step with international attitudes. What my administration would seek to do is correct this problem. By meeting with world leaders we would attempt to build bridges to the countries at hand. As I said, all of these countries have to interact with the U.S. on one level or another and threatening those that do not follow every practice we do solves nothing. Many European countries have strong anti-immigrant laws that many would consider discrimination in the U.S. Likewise, there are vast cultural differences from ally to ally of the United States.

 

By working with the Saudis, the Egyptians, Palestinians and Israelis, we can show the world that peace can occur between nations that have otherwise tarnished histories.

 

Your final point about American troop withdrawal is a valid one. My first suggestion was to increase amounts and quality of troop supplies. This better prepares our troops to handle insurgent attacks. Secondly, by acquiring International support, the situation in Iraq becomes more controllable. To summarize, I believe the setbacks in Iraq have come because of our acting without total international support and acting defiantly and arrogantly so that other nations have acted against us rather than helping us or staying neutral.

 

Let me know if you need more clarifications.

 

Thanks again.

 

PA

[Balta1701]

Ok, so let me rephrase this slightly then...I don't think that the things you are suggesting are up to the task of fixing Iraq, and I'd like to hear better why you think they are.

 

Your key suggestion is that by reaching out to international partners, we will be better able to control the situation in Iraq. I do not see this. The Saudis just today decided to commit their money, oil, and possibly their military to prevent Iran from gaining further influence and having shia muslims in Iraq continue to massacre sunnis, which to my eyes just draws them further into the conflict lines.

 

Right now, we're having trouble getting Nato countries to commit forces to Afghanistan, let alone Iraq. Germany won't pony up any more, the Canadians are pissed that they're having to carry so much of the load, and so on.

 

Even if we reach out to these countries more, I don't see how any of our allies can be expected to help out in Iraq more. They are becoming uniformly of the opinion that if the U.S. can't fix it, then their small contributions won't make such a big difference as to justify the loss of their lives in the U.S.'s war. Even Britain has reached a point where theyr'e planning significant troop withdrawals in 2007.

 

So to my eyes, outside of the Middle East, I see nothing but apathy. At this point, they see no possible benefit to themselves of contributing more to the Iraq conflict, and unless we can offer them an obvious benefit, I can't see them helping out any more.

 

So, internationally, at least to my eyes, that leaves us with allies who won't help us in the Middle East, and in the Middle East, dividing lines being drawn up along the same lines as in Iraq - Sunnis on one side, Shia on the other. And the key players, specifically Iran, have shown no willingness to do anything other than let the U.S. hang itself and destroy its military in Iraq.

 

Your entire solution seems to be based around the premise that if we approach other nations with a more agreeable posture, they'll rapidly change their positions. I see no evidence that this will happen. Nations etiher see no benefit to themselves in aiding us, or actively want us to hurt our position by staying in Iraq.

 

So my questions in reply would be; what if your proposal fails? What if Iran stands to their demand that they will do nothing to aid the Iraqi government until we withdraw? What if additional forces or money from allies are not forthcoming? What if the nations of the Middle East are more concerned with controlling their own populations than they are with helping out the U.S., or what if those same nations realize that it is to their benefit to have the U.S. weakened and stuck in Iraq?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Anyone that could answer these questions deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I appreciate what you're asking and why you're asking it, but I think it is all too dependent upon things that are out of any of our grasps to effectively answer.

 

Most of what your arguments leans on is the reality that the Bush Administration has done a terrible job at navigating the delicate international diplomatic scene and the international response to their audacious ways.

 

My proposals address the two biggest issues I feel negatively affect us domestically and abroad: taking care of our troops in a way that show them we want them to be safer and not marginalizing international leaders by simply doing as we please.

 

I believe these are the first of many steps to get us back on the road to peace in the Middle East. Ultimately, we must remain flexible and adjust to each new crisis as they are presented.

 

Thanks again for your questions.

 

PA

[Texsox]

The best way to know if you should vote for PA:

 

If you download these songs and enjoy them as much as I do, then you should vote for me.

 

Hear Me Out - Frou Frou

Some Days - Wheat

Eyes - Rogue Wave

Magic - The Cars

Revolution - The Unbelievable Truth

Yesterday, Tomorrow - Denison Witmer

Telescope Eyes - Eisley

The Blues - Switchfoot

 

Are you advocating the unlawful downloading of pirated music?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Are you advocating the unlawful downloading of pirated music?

 

obviously

 

Free Music...for $.99 donation per song.

 

 

Tex, desperate for a scandal

[sox4lifeinPA]

 

I think that sums up the clarity of the 2nd Amendment and my position on it

[FlaSoxxJim]

 

I think that sums up the clarity of the 2nd Amendment and my position on it

I don't get it. What do a couple of bear arms have to do with the Second Amendment and the right to . . . oh, er wait. . .

 

 

PA – For those who like their candidates to be men of few words and fewer thoughts!

[sox4lifeinPA]

I don't get it. What do a couple of bear arms have to do with the Second Amendment and the right to . . . oh, er wait. . .

 

 

PA – For those who like their candidates to be men of few words and fewer thoughts!

 

 

you know you're laughing though

 

Here are some lawn signs that people can use.... if you want the really offensive one, drop me a PM... it's a goodin'

[sox4lifeinPA]

On the eve of this election, if anyone wants a personalized response to why they should vote for me, please PM me.

 

Thank you,

 

PA

[Texsox]

On the eve of this election, if anyone wants a personalized response to why they should vote for me, please PM me.

 

Thank you,

 

PA

 

Why should I?

[sox4lifeinPA]

Why should I?

 

because then you can be like the other two people that are going to vote for me

[Texsox]

because then you can be like the other two people that are going to vote for me

 

You will garner more than three, you have the "religious nutjob market cornered"

 

I have no clue who would be voting for me. I believe I have argued with just about everyone here with a post in the 'buster.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'd like to announce that I will be running as a third party in the upcoming election.... simply for principle.