Republican Debate

**bawbie** · 11-29-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

Giuliani would need Huckabee as his running mate since his stance on abortion turns off many conservative voters (such as myself). On second thought, I don't know how much good it would do to have a pro-life V.P. anyway...would his opinion on the issue really mean anything?

I'm trying to think back and I can't think of the last time a VP was more charismatic and better spoken than the President. Maybe Eisenhower/Nixon?

My point being, Giuliani/Huckabee seems kinda like Kerry/Edwards to me, where Edwards was eloquent, populist and made the candidate look much more dull and equivocating (Senatorial even) than he actually was.

Just a thought.

**alaskaguy** · 11-29-2007, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by mwitt

To my knowledge, him and Kuccinich are the only ones who are saying they would bring the troops home instantly. That should tell you something.

Quite simply, the Republican presidential candidates (other than Ron Paul) appear to be nothing more than cheerleaders for GWB's Iraq position. That should tell you something.

More than any presidential candidate, Bill Richardson is running on his Iraq position. Bill Richardson calls for an immediate and complete withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.

The candidates that are urging to bring the troops home immediately understand that Iraq is as much a political problem as a military problem.

**mwitt** · 11-29-2007, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

The candidates that are urging to bring the troops home immediately understand that Iraq is as much a political problem as a military problem.

And the rest of them understand that immediately bringing the troops home is not plausible. That's why you don't see any of the candidates that have a chance claiming they'll do that. They know that is a promise that they couldn't back up.

**wonkadog** · 11-29-2007, 11:34 AM

My opinion is that if a candidate wants to bring the troops home immediately then they have no business being our leader. Agree or disagree with what Bush has done, nothing justifies abandoning all we've accomplished in Iraq and leaving before a self-sufficient government can be set up.

**bawbie** · 11-29-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

My opinion is that if a candidate wants to bring the troops home immediately then they have no business being our leader. Agree or disagree with what Bush has done, nothing justifies abandoning all we've accomplished in Iraq and leaving before a self-sufficient government can be set up.

And if they refuse to set up a "self-sufficient government" because they are too interesting in making the Americans the bad guys and squabbling between religious sects?

How long do you propose we stay while we wait for them to get their **** together?

**brianhos** · 11-29-2007, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

See, that's the thing I don't like about Ron Paul - his view of the Constitution means that he as President and we as Americans aren't allowed to do anything. Every time I hear Ron Paul speak, with the exception of withdrawing the troops from everywhere around the world (the Middle East is one thing, bases in Germany is another), it's always about what he won't do and what the Constitution won't allow him to do. If Ron Paul somehow ends up in the Oval Office I imagine his presidency to be much like Zaphod's in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series, where his role is to draw attention away from the real decision makers so they can do their job (and if the "real" decision makers consist of Congress and the UN, we're in real trouble indeed).

Personally, I was impressed with Huckabee. His answer of "Jesus was smart enough not to get involved with politics" was the one-liner of the night and handled every other question well IMO.

With Paul, the real decision makers are the states, which is the way the constitution intended it to be.

**alaskaguy** · 11-29-2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by mwitt

And the rest of them understand that immediately bringing the troops home is not plausible. That's why you don't see any of the candidates that have a chance claiming they'll do that. They know that is a promise that they couldn't back up.

On what basis do you make your claim that a rapid withdrawal is not plausible? Retired Army Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghad is one of many that opins that it is plausible. Furthermore, Sanchez supports Democratic legislation to bring the troops home within a year.

**iceclone** · 11-29-2007, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

My opinion is that if a candidate wants to bring the troops home immediately then they have no business being our leader. Agree or disagree with what Bush has done, nothing justifies abandoning all we've accomplished in Iraq and leaving before a self-sufficient government can be set up.

What if leaving is actually a necessary requirement for a self-sufficient government to exist? Any government that is installed by a foreign government cannot really be considered self-sufficient, and is thus doomed to eventual failure. The present may be the best opportunity to leave under relatively stable conditions.

**alaskaguy** · 11-29-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by wonkadog

My opinion is that if a candidate wants to bring the troops home immediately then they have no business being our leader. Agree or disagree with what Bush has done, nothing justifies abandoning all we've accomplished in Iraq and leaving before a self-sufficient government can be set up.

Could you please tell me what all we have accomplished in Iraq?

And how many years do you believe we should wait for Iraq to establish a self-sufficient government?

**mwitt** · 11-29-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

On what basis do you make your claim that a rapid withdrawal is not plausible? Retired Army Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the top commander in Iraq shortly after the fall of Baghad is one of many that opins that it is plausible. Furthermore, Sanchez supports Democratic legislation to bring the troops home within a year.

Barack loves telling people that he voted against the war from the very beginning. Why wouldn't he bring them home the first day?

The only candidate with any experience in the military believe it would be very dangerous to bring the troops home right away. Do you trust Dennis Kucinich over him?

**cmoneyr** · 11-29-2007, 11:51 AM

Agree or disagree with what Bush has done

There are still people that agree?

What happens if Iraq never becomes self-sufficient as we hope while we are there? I agree with iceclone that any government we help to install in Iraq is by definition not going to be self-sufficient. A self-sufficient government must be set up by the people of Iraq, we could not, and should not be responsible for making that happen.

**wonkadog** · 11-29-2007, 11:51 AM

I think that ridding Iraq of Saddam was HUGE accomplishment in Iraq. I don't mind scaling back our forces in Iraq but to just up and leave would be flat out dumb. How can anyone believe that leaving Iraq right now to fend for itself is the best way for them to become self-sufficient? Maybe once they've actually got elected leaders and true law enforcement set up, then get the heck out of there.

**wonkadog** · 11-29-2007, 11:54 AM

So some of you believe that if the people of Iraq voted to install a communist/dictator-lead regime that we should just say, "o.k., that's what you want, go ahead"?? I think my problem with our foreign relations is that we either need to be like we are now (the world's "police") or we need to totally withdraw from everywhere and say "screw everyone else." It's when we're in between those 2 philosophies that we get in trouble.

**Incyte** · 11-29-2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Could you please tell me what all we have accomplished in Iraq?

And how many years do you believe we should wait for Iraq to establish a self-sufficient government?

(1) No Sadam. Sadam was brought to justice for his crimes against humanity.

(2) We've confirmed there is no WMD (there never was but at least knowledge of this is benefiicial)

(3) Libya is behaving

(4) Iran is preoccupied with the middle east

(5) Al queda groups focused on Iraq more than attacking US soil

(6) Free elections in Iraq

(7) We have a temporary ally in the Middle East

Possible future Benefits

(1) Cheaper oil

(2) Stable democratic Iraq

(3) Pressure on other mid-east counties to offer elections and democrat reforms.

How long should Iraq have to establish a self-sufficient government?

About 13 years, which is the time between the signing of the Dec. of Independence and when our government began operating under the Constitution.

**alaskaguy** · 11-29-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by mwitt

Barack loves telling people that he voted against the war from the very beginning. Why wouldn't he bring them home the first day?

The only candidate with any experience in the military believe it would be very dangerous to bring the troops home right away. Do you trust Dennis Kucinich over him?

Obama had not yet been elected to the U.S. Senate when the Iraq resolution was passes so he could not have voted on it.

I asssume that you are referring to John McCain as the candidate with military experience. Although I have the utmost respect for John McCain's military service I do not support much of his foreign policy views.

There are former military high ranking miliary staff that support a rapid troop withdrawal as well as those that would find it dangerous. Again I favor a rapid withdrawal.