GOP Primaries/Candidates thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Actually, we did. Repeatedly. The UNMOVIC team came back and said, in their words, it was "garbage after garbage after garbage." (The CBS article I linked there suggests that the source actually used the word Sh*t)

We didn't give all of it, was my point - I am sure we gave some. I recall US Defense Dept people saying, almost with pride, that they had intelligence that the UN did not.

 

Besides, what we did give them was garbage... so what does that say?

 

[StrangeSox]

We didn't give all of it, was my point - I am sure we gave some. I recall US Defense Dept people saying, almost with pride, that they had intelligence that the UN did not.

 

Besides, what we did give them was garbage... so what does that say?

 

Well, all we had was garbage...

[kapkomet]

And one other thing. Saddam was not the reason for the war - never was. He was an excuse, as were WMD and a myriad of other reasons given when WMD showed to be false.

 

The Iraq war was an attempt at a neo-con revolution in the Middle East. They saw the ongoing clash with Islamic Fundamentalists, and decided the best approach to wipiing them out was to set up an anchorhead in the region. This base of operations could be used, not just militarily, but even more so politically, to spread democracy and capitalism, leading to an eventual demise of extremism by way of immersion into an American political schema. Right or wrong, that was clearly their motivation. And Iraq was the perfect target - oil, educated population, bordering many of the key countries in the region, sea port access, lots of open space if needed, a weakened leader (because the UN sanctions and no-fly zones were WORKING), a military in tatters, and some nearby countries willing to help. WMD, Saddam's dicatorship, AQ linkage... those were simply marketing efforts.

Ok, now here is where I make a weird turn. You're exactly right with this post. And tell me something, why is this so wrong? They come over here, they kill 3,000 of our people on our own soil, and now everyone wants to just shrug it off and say, no big deal, we should have left them alone.

 

I struggle with this because I understand the need to let people live their own lives without forcing our way of life on people. I get that. But I also see the need to unlock the seed of "democracy", even if we don't like the outcome, as long as it gives ordinary people a chance to succeed where they may not have before. I also realize that we need to root out the extremeism, yet, no one wants to do the dirty work necessary to do that.

 

It's really a catch-22 in my mind.

[Controlled Chaos]

And one other thing. Saddam was not the reason for the war - never was. He was an excuse, as were WMD and a myriad of other reasons given when WMD showed to be false.

 

The Iraq war was an attempt at a neo-con revolution in the Middle East. They saw the ongoing clash with Islamic Fundamentalists, and decided the best approach to wipiing them out was to set up an anchorhead in the region. This base of operations could be used, not just militarily, but even more so politically, to spread democracy and capitalism, leading to an eventual demise of extremism by way of immersion into an American political schema. Right or wrong, that was clearly their motivation. And Iraq was the perfect target - oil, educated population, bordering many of the key countries in the region, sea port access, lots of open space if needed, a weakened leader (because the UN sanctions and no-fly zones were WORKING), a military in tatters, and some nearby countries willing to help. WMD, Saddam's dicatorship, AQ linkage... those were simply marketing efforts.

 

Alrighty then...Glad you have it all figured out.

 

I think you should continue your comments in the "For Dems only" thread...If I'm interested, I'll come for a looksie....

[NorthSideSox72]

Ok, now here is where I make a weird turn. You're exactly right with this post. And tell me something, why is this so wrong? They come over here, they kill 3,000 of our people on our own soil, and now everyone wants to just shrug it off and say, no big deal, we should have left them alone.

 

I struggle with this because I understand the need to let people live their own lives without forcing our way of life on people. I get that. But I also see the need to unlock the seed of "democracy", even if we don't like the outcome, as long as it gives ordinary people a chance to succeed where they may not have before. I also realize that we need to root out the extremeism, yet, no one wants to do the dirty work necessary to do that.

 

It's really a catch-22 in my mind.

You may have noted I said "right or wrong, that was their motivation", because I think some good arguments could be made in favor of what they did. But overall, I think the negatives far outweigh the positives. I don't think its entirely out of line to suggest something like it - in fact I think its much more reasonable than th B.S. we were fed. Its just not good enough, in my opinion, to justify the war. Part of the reason is that "they" is key in identification. None of the "they" involved in 9/11 have any connection to Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq was no real threat to us or the rest of the West.

 

So think about what was done. Let's assume we accept, as a nation, that we need to try to do this sort of neo-revolution in the Middle East as a method of protecting ourselves and our interests. And let's further assume it might actually, partially, work. Those are HUGE assumptions I don't necessarily agree with, but let's go with them for now. Even if that is all acceptable... how can you justify, morally, destroying a country and ending tens of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq to achieve it? These are not terrorists (those are killed too of course, but I could care less), I am talking about the tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who've died. Not only did they have nothing to do with 9/11, they were all-in-all innocent of anything against US interests at all. Can you say that killing 50,000 of them (and spending a trillion dollars, and losing thousands of US soldiers) is justified because of September 11th?

 

I cannot.

 

[kapkomet]

You may have noted I said "right or wrong, that was their motivation", because I think some good arguments could be made in favor of what they did. But overall, I think the negatives far outweigh the positives. I don't think its entirely out of line to suggest something like it - in fact I think its much more reasonable than th B.S. we were fed. Its just not good enough, in my opinion, to justify the war. Part of the reason is that "they" is key in identification. None of the "they" involved in 9/11 have any connection to Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq was no real threat to us or the rest of the West.

 

So think about what was done. Let's assume we accept, as a nation, that we need to try to do this sort of neo-revolution in the Middle East as a method of protecting ourselves and our interests. And let's further assume it might actually, partially, work. Those are HUGE assumptions I don't necessarily agree with, but let's go with them for now. Even if that is all acceptable... how can you justify, morally, destroying a country and ending tens of thousands of innocent lives in Iraq to achieve it? These are not terrorists (those are killed too of course, but I could care less), I am talking about the tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who've died. Not only did they have nothing to do with 9/11, they were all-in-all innocent of anything against US interests at all. Can you say that killing 50,000 of them (and spending a trillion dollars, and losing thousands of US soldiers) is justified because of September 11th?

 

I cannot.

Can you justify the American Revolution? The Civil War? WWII? They were all about certain idealogical factors as well.

 

Good conversation. I wish I had a bit more time!

 

[BigSqwert]

Enter your address on this page to obtain a sample ballot for Feb 5th (Illinois voters). I'm going to research some of the less prestigious positions beforehand to make sure I vote for the right people.

 

http://www.chicagoelections.com/voterinfo.php

Edited January 11, 2008 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

Can you justify the American Revolution? The Civil War? WWII? They were all about certain idealogical factors as well.

 

Good conversation. I wish I had a bit more time!

Yes, sort of, and yes.

 

I understand collateral damage. And I thought the Afghanistan invasion was a justified. Of course, then we walked out of there early and its been festering every since...

 

I'll tell you what else is a really great discussion in terms of justifying terrible consequences for great ends... what about the American march west? We destroyed a civilization for crying out loud. But without that, there is no U.S. in the modern sense. No event or series of events after founding of the nation (Constitution, Revolutionary War) has had as much of an effect on who and what the U.S. is as the westward expansion to the Pacific.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Back to the GOP candidates...

 

The Giuliani ship seems to be taking on water. Senior staffers have been asked to go without pay for a while.

 

[BigSqwert]

Back to the GOP candidates...

 

The Giuliani ship seems to be taking on water. Senior staffers have been asked to go without pay for a while.

dumbest.campaign.strategy.ever

[Balta1701]

Huckabee: Thompson needs to take his Metamucil.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Ok, now here is where I make a weird turn. You're exactly right with this post. And tell me something, why is this so wrong? They come over here, they kill 3,000 of our people on our own soil, and now everyone wants to just shrug it off and say, no big deal, we should have left them alone.

 

I struggle with this because I understand the need to let people live their own lives without forcing our way of life on people. I get that. But I also see the need to unlock the seed of "democracy", even if we don't like the outcome, as long as it gives ordinary people a chance to succeed where they may not have before. I also realize that we need to root out the extremeism, yet, no one wants to do the dirty work necessary to do that.

 

It's really a catch-22 in my mind.

 

Here's the problem, we aren't interested in "any" democracy. We're interested in democracy that stands with us. We are more interested in tryrants who align with us (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) then we are in democratically elected governments (Palestine).

 

And by including Iraq in a broad brush with the rest of the extremist muslim world, you kinda point out how bad of a choice that Iraq really was for the bulkhead of a new revolution. For all its annoyances, Iraq was relatively secular, and not at all an issue when it came to transglobal terror. The truth is, if we really wanted this neocon revolution, the place to have started it would have been Iran. I think IROI support within its own nation is fairly shallow and could have resulted in a lot better outcome. It also would have been strategically better by continuing to isolate Iraq, create a physical connection to Afghanistan.

 

However, it would have been harder to make happen... so not really an option.

[YASNY]

Here's the problem, we aren't interested in "any" democracy. We're interested in democracy that stands with us. We are more interested in tryrants who align with us (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) then we are in democratically elected governments (Palestine).

 

And by including Iraq in a broad brush with the rest of the extremist muslim world, you kinda point out how bad of a choice that Iraq really was for the bulkhead of a new revolution. For all its annoyances, Iraq was relatively secular, and not at all an issue when it came to transglobal terror. The truth is, if we really wanted this neocon revolution, the place to have started it would have been Iran. I think IROI support within its own nation is fairly shallow and could have resulted in a lot better outcome. It also would have been strategically better by continuing to isolate Iraq, create a physical connection to Afghanistan.

 

However, it would have been harder to make happen... so not really an option.

 

I don't say this often, but ... I agree with you.

[kapkomet]

Here's the problem, we aren't interested in "any" democracy. We're interested in democracy that stands with us. We are more interested in tryrants who align with us (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) then we are in democratically elected governments (Palestine).

 

And by including Iraq in a broad brush with the rest of the extremist muslim world, you kinda point out how bad of a choice that Iraq really was for the bulkhead of a new revolution. For all its annoyances, Iraq was relatively secular, and not at all an issue when it came to transglobal terror. The truth is, if we really wanted this neocon revolution, the place to have started it would have been Iran. I think IROI support within its own nation is fairly shallow and could have resulted in a lot better outcome. It also would have been strategically better by continuing to isolate Iraq, create a physical connection to Afghanistan.

 

However, it would have been harder to make happen... so not really an option.

 

 

I don't say this often, but ... I agree with you.

And so do I, largely. But I think the overlying factor of making the decision was that they needed an anchorhead faster rather then later. In my mind, I would trade 3-5 years and be taking care of Iran right now, which would have most likely made Iraq fall in line anyway.

 

The reason it didn't happen is because we already knew the corruption that was happening with Iraq and the UN and they wanted the slice of the pie that the European Union was getting. No, it wasn't directly about oil, but indirectly, it was to cut off the Europeans from the illegal funnels and get our interests back in there. I don't agree with it, but I think that was why the choice for Iraq, and so quickly. The other reality is war is good for the economy, and we all know there was a shallow recession in 2001. I think they wanted to push more money through the economy as well. Now what do they do now that everything's drying up? That's even scarier, IMO.

[Rex Kickass]

Iraq could have worked out btw, but it was done on the cheap... which led to four years plus of mess.

[kapkomet]

Iraq could have worked out btw, but it was done on the cheap... which led to four years plus of mess.

Now that I totally agree with.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

To borrow from Balta's post in the DEM candidates thread... someone finally did a Nevada poll. Here are the GOP results:

 

John McCain: 22 percent

Rudy Giuliani: 18 percent

Mike Huckabee: 16 percent

Mitt Romney: 15 percent

Fred Thompson: 11 percent

Ron Paul: 6 percent

Duncan Hunter: 1 percent

 

A state where Rudy is actually showing up on the radar. Interesting.

 

[Balta1701]

FWIW, there was also a bunch of Michigan primary polling done over the weekend. Overall, the result suggests there's no clear leader at all. The average of those polls winds up putting Romney and McCain at 27 and 26.3 respectively. What with the uncontested Dem primary, I think that all these pollsters are having major issues wagering on who's going to vote in the Republican primary, because none of the likely voter screens that worked in the past would be applicable if you get a lot of crossover.

[NorthSideSox72]

FWIW, there was also a bunch of Michigan primary polling done over the weekend. Overall, the result suggests there's no clear leader at all. The average of those polls winds up putting Romney and McCain at 27 and 26.3 respectively. What with the uncontested Dem primary, I think that all these pollsters are having major issues wagering on who's going to vote in the Republican primary, because none of the likely voter screens that worked in the past would be applicable if you get a lot of crossover.

And the crossover is unpredictable as well. Normally, you'd think McCain would get the biggest boost - and he probably will. But, there will also be some Dems trying to vote for some GOP candidate they think is most beatable in November.

 

I think it all comes down to... how organized is the effort to mess with the GOP primary? My guess is not very, so McCain will get the edge.

 

[southsider2k5]

Unless there is an organized effort to screw the Republicans, crossovers have to benefit John McCain more than Mitt Romney.

[NorthSideSox72]

Unless there is an organized effort to screw the Republicans, crossovers have to benefit John McCain more than Mitt Romney.

Yup. Its just a matter of how organized the effort is.

 

[southsider2k5]

Yup. Its just a matter of how organized the effort is.

 

That's just it, if it is organized enough to have someone's name attached to it, the backlash could be ugly. Think about how easy it would be to paint the leader of the effort as scared of the Republicans enough that they have to resort to sabatogueing their primaries.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That's just it, if it is organized enough to have someone's name attached to it, the backlash could be ugly. Think about how easy it would be to paint the leader of the effort as scared of the Republicans enough that they have to resort to sabatogueing their primaries.

Its been done before by the GOP to Dem candidates as well. I am sure there would be backlash of sorts, but I am also pretty confident it would be forgotten about by most people later on.

 

[Balta1701]

Given our other hot thread right now, somehow I found this amusing.

"Which candidate's daughter recently went on a date with an ardent Ron Paul supporter?" wonders gossip Ben Widdicombe today. "The date became all about him trying to convince her about Paul," laughs a friend. "Finally she said, 'You know my dad's running for president. You're not going to change my mind!'"

(Link with the answer)

[EvilMonkey]

While he didn't endorse a candidate on the Dem side, Kos was trying to organize the koskids to vote for Huckabee in Michigan.