Republican Debate in NH-1/7

[BrainGlutton]

@Frank

Why didn’t any of you tell that to Bush the Younger?

Oh, I’m sure someone did; but he was listening to neocons dreaming of empire.

[RickJay]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

…Afghanistan is a war that deserves to be won.

Could you recast this in a way that makes some sort of coherent point?

Obviously a war cannot “deserve” something. A war is an event.

[Fear_Itself]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Afghanistan is not Iraq, and Afghanistan is a war that deserves to be won.

How would we know?

[kaylasdad99]

@BrainGlutton

When was the last time either major party had a real convention floor-fight? 1968?

I thought that was mostly outside…

[BrainGlutton]

@kaylasdad99

I thought that was mostly outside…

Only because of the floor-fight inside.

[Jas09]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Afghanistan is the main area I disagree with Governor Huntsman. Afghanistan is not Iraq, and Afghanistan is a war that deserves to be won.

In addition to the other poster’s objections, could you please describe what a “won” war in Afghanistan looks like? How will we know when it’s over?

[John_Mace]

@Jas09

In addition to the other poster’s objections, could you please describe what a “won” war in Afghanistan looks like? How will we know when it’s over?

When the fat lady in the burqa sings, and is killed because music is unIslamic?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Chefguy

They’re sure showing their true colors of bigotry, fear and hate. Keep them wimminfolk and homoseckshuls in their place, dadgummit. The states should decide on gay benefits, but the fed should pass laws that make it nearly impossible for those rights to be acted upon. One man and one woman has been the way it’s done for 3,000 years; just because we as humans have been fucking things up for that long doesn’t mean we should continue to do so. A constitutional amendment to take away rights rather than grant them: nice. The face of the Republican Party has never been as ugly as it is now.

You should have seen the Democratic party back in the 1950’s and frankly the Republican aprty was pretty ugly with the southern strategy.

@John_Mace

It’s not a huge deal to me, but I just don’t like the media (and it’s usually they who are hosting the event) to stack the deck. There are tons of these debates, so a random selection would treat everyone fairly. Or, rotate based on the last debate.

OTOH, it’s soooooooo nice not to have to listen to Michelle Bachman anymore!!

I remember when these debates were conducted by the league of women voters. WTF happened to those debates?

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Afghanistan is the main area I disagree with Governor Huntsman. Afghanistan is not Iraq, and Afghanistan is a war that deserves to be won.

“Deserves to be won?” Didn’t we win it when we drove out the Taliban (subject to elections that might bring them right back but those are the hazards of democracy) and shot Osama bin Laden in the face? Do we have to beat them down to the point that noone will point a gun as foreign soldiers in Afghanistan anymore because that’s not going to happen.

@Fear_Itself

How would we know?

Whatever “win” we were going to have in Afghanistan was 90% achieved when we drove the Taliban out of power and was 99% achieved when we shot OBL in the face.

[John_Mace]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I remember when these debates were conducted by the league of women voters. WTF happened to those debates?

Are you sure those were primary debates? Maybe just the real debates during the actual election…?

[BrainGlutton]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I remember when these debates were conducted by the league of women voters. WTF happened to those debates?

Stuff.

Debate sponsorship

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV’s 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a dramatic press release:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates…because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

The same year the two major political parties assumed control of organizing presidential debates through the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The commission has been headed since its inception by former chairs of the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee.

Some have criticized the exclusion of third party and independent candidates as well as the parallel interview format as a minimum of getting 15% in opinion polls is required to be invited. In 2004, the Citizens’ Debate Commission (CDC) was formed with the stated mission of returning control of the debates to an independent nonpartisan body rather than a bipartisan body. Nevertheless, the CPD retained control of the debates that year and in 2008.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Jas09

In addition to the other poster’s objections, could you please describe what a “won” war in Afghanistan looks like? How will we know when it’s over?

@Damuri_Ajashi

“Deserves to be won?” Didn’t we win it when we drove out the Taliban (subject to elections that might bring them right back but those are the hazards of democracy) and shot Osama bin Laden in the face? Do we have to beat them down to the point that noone will point a gun as foreign soldiers in Afghanistan anymore because that’s not going to happen.

By victory I mean when the Afghan government can stand on it own enough to make sure Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorism. And hopefully we are going to have a few thousand troops there permanently because its convenient to look out for China and Pakistan there.

[Jas09]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

By victory I mean when the Afghan government can stand on it own enough to make sure Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorism.

And how do we measure that? Leave for a while and see what happens? Sit on our hands and see if the Afghanis can handle it? And what if they never can (because the Taliban actually is more popular with the people)? Do we stay and prop up this government perpetually?

And hopefully we are going to have a few thousand troops there permanently because its convenient to look out for China and Pakistan there.

How many lives are you willing to lose per year perpetually to “look out for” China and Pakistan? Can these missions not be accomplished from more hospitable terrain?

[Onomatopoeia]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

By victory I mean when the Afghan government can stand on it own enough to make sure Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorism. And hopefully we are going to have a few thousand troops there permanently because its convenient to look out for China and Pakistan there.

Our mission was to get ObL. We’ve done that. We’re done. There is no other mission. There will be no other victory.

We really need to step away from the idea that part of our role in any conflict is nation-building. We’re not good at it and have a terrible track record. It is not our responsibility to ensure the Afghan government can stand on its own, and it never was. Once again, we’ve stuck our nose where it doesn’t belong.

Do you honestly believe our remaining in Afghanistan lessens the potential for terrorists to set up camps and recruit there?

Keeping a few thousand troops in Afghanistan is not only a ridiculously stupid waste of American lives, but an absolute waste of time and money as well. I’d wager that whenever we finally leave Afghanistan, whether it is 6 months from now, or 6 years, the only thing that will have changed are the players. Karzai may or may not be in charge, but the country will be just as factionalized by Taliban and other warlords as it is today.

Another thing to bear in mind is that while we are continuing to prosecute this war in a conventional manner, the Afghanis are not. The Russians learned this and, unable to adapt, and victory out of the question, wisely left. It’s time for us, at long last, to have the same epiphany.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Jas09

And how do we measure that? Leave for a while and see what happens? Sit on our hands and see if the Afghanis can handle it? And what if they never can (because the Taliban actually is more popular with the people)?

That is nonsense. The Taliban collapsed within months without any land invasion by the US.

Do we stay and prop up this government perpetually?How many lives are you willing to lose per year perpetually to “look out for” China and Pakistan? Can these missions not be accomplished from more hospitable terrain?

Preferably. Violence is going down anyways, and Taliban may already be begging for peace.

@Onomatopoeia

Our mission was to get ObL. We’ve done that. We’re done. There is no other mission. There will be no other victory.

Al Qaeda hasn’t been destroyed just by killing Bin Laden.

We really need to step away from the idea that part of our role in any conflict is nation-building. We’re not good at it and have a terrible track record. It is not our responsibility to ensure the Afghan government can stand on its own, and it never was. Once again, we’ve stuck our nose where it doesn’t belong.

Not so much nation building, as de-Islamizing (in the Islamist sense not in the religion of Islam) much as we de-Nazified Germany or de-Bushidoized Japan. And what I was trying to say here is that a few bases for drones and special forces will be useful.

Do you honestly believe our remaining in Afghanistan lessens the potential for terrorists to set up camps and recruit there?

Considering we can drop in a few hours or bomb then, why yes.

Keeping a few thousand troops in Afghanistan is not only a ridiculously stupid waste of American lives, but an absolute waste of time and money as well. I’d wager that whenever we finally leave Afghanistan, whether it is 6 months from now, or 6 years, the only thing that will have changed are the players. Karzai may or may not be in charge, but the country will be just as factionalized by Taliban and other warlords as it is today.

Not if the Afghan becomes reasonably competent with our financial support. After all people are going to in general take a liking to a government that builds them roads and schools.

Another thing to bear in mind is that while we are continuing to prosecute this war in a conventional manner, the Afghanis are not. The Russians learned this and, unable to adapt, and victory out of the question, wisely left. It’s time for us, at long last, to have the same epiphany.

That is why I’m advocating largely retaining special forces and drones here not a huge army.

[Fear_Itself]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Al Qaeda hasn’t been destroyed just by killing Bin Laden.

So, now our mission is to destroy Al Qaeda?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Fear_Itself

So, now our mission is to destroy Al Qaeda?

It always has been.

[Fear_Itself]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

It always has been.

Then we are doomed to perpetual war and financial ruin. Do you know what Al Qaeda is?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Fear_Itself

Then we are doomed to perpetual war and financial ruin. Do you know what Al Qaeda is?

Yes, an Islamist terror group. And the war is going to be one of drones and raids not of mass armies so I don’t see how it will cost disastrously high.

[Fear_Itself]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Yes, an Islamist terror group.

You are wrong.

[Onomatopoeia]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

Not so much nation building, as de-Islamizing (in the Islamist sense not in the religion of Islam) much as we de-Nazified Germany or de-Bushidoized Japan.

So, now you’re equating Islamism to Nazism. And you don’t see anything wrong with that. Wow.