# The 2016 Republican candidates **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 9, 2015, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444 "2015-01-09T22:38:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 46
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/902 "2015-02-28T01:10:55Z")
McCain did not actually every say anything about seriously attacking Iran. His official view is no different from the President’s. Nothing is off the table, but force is not imminent. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/903 "2015-02-28T01:37:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > McCain did not actually every say anything about seriously attacking Iran. His official view is no different from the President’s. Nothing is off the table, but force is not imminent. He certainly “joked” about attacking Iran, but considering his and Graham’s rhetoric over the past few years, nothing short of bombing Iran would have appeased them. Unless they just oppose Obama no matter what (no, couldn’t be!). Further, he would have kept us in Iraq much longer at the cost of thousands more dead Americans. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/904 "2015-02-28T02:20:09Z")
And ISIS wouldn’t have been able to gain a foothold in Iraq. American forces would not have thrown down their weapons and run away. I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, only that it’s a counterfactual that’s impossible to prove. Maybe McCain would have just bombed in every situation where it was remotely plausible, from Iran to Syria to Libya, but as a big fan of both of those men, McCain and Graham, I pay attention to what they advocate and it hasn’t been outright war, just a much tougher stance. I do agree that McCain would have stayed in Iraq longer, but I’m not so sure that’s a bad idea. Especially since despite your argument that more Americans would die, the American death toll had already been reduced a ton, from 961 pre-surge to 60 by 2010. ISIS only invaded Iraq because they saw an opportunity, which was provided by the decision the President made. From sanctions on Iran, which are supported bipartisanly but opposed by the President, to pulling out of Iraq too soon, to a response against ISIS that is ineffective, this President’s policy is not smart, it’s just weak. The good thing about the 2016 race is that it features no candidates other than Rand Paul who are likely to be more dovish. Clinton will wipe those bastards from the face of the Earth and any Republican will too. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/905 "2015-02-28T02:43:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > And ISIS wouldn’t have been able to gain a foothold in Iraq. How do you know? There were plenty of areas we didn’t control. They also could have gained power in another country in the region – Syria, Yemen, etc. And even if they did, the only way to prevent something like ISIS from taking control would be to commit decades or more (and probably tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives) to staying in Iraq. Not even close to worth it. > [@](#): > > I’m not trying to say you’re wrong, only that it’s a counterfactual that’s impossible to prove. Maybe McCain would have just bombed in every situation where it was remotely plausible, from Iran to Syria to Libya, but as a big fan of both of those men, McCain and Graham, I pay attention to what they advocate and it hasn’t been outright war, just a much tougher stance. I do agree that McCain would have stayed in Iraq longer, but I’m not so sure that’s a bad idea. Especially since despite your argument that more Americans would die, the American death toll had already been reduced a ton, from 961 pre-surge to 60 by 2010. ISIS only invaded Iraq because they saw an opportunity, which was provided by the decision the President made. This “decision” you speak of was Bush’s, not Obama’s (and I’m not just talking about the Status of Forces agreement – I’m talking about the _decision to invade Iraq_). Once Saddam is gone, ISIS or similar will take power as soon as they can – the only way to avoid it is to stay nearly forever. And that’s just not even close to worth it. Further, it’s nuts that you still pay attention to McCain and Graham. Their track record is _awful_. They still refuse to admit that Iraq was a massive blunder (and maybe the biggest strategic mistake in American history!). Anyone who thinks Iraq was a good idea has less than negative credibility. > [@](#): > > From sanctions on Iran, which are supported bipartisanly but opposed by the President, We already have sanctions on Iran. Further sanctions would be counterproductive to the ongoing negotiations. > [@](#): > > to pulling out of Iraq too soon, Too late, in my opinion – every month we stayed were more dead Americans for nothing good. > [@](#): > > to a response against ISIS that is ineffective, this President’s policy is not smart, it’s just weak. It’s much, much stronger than McCain/Graham’s policies. Fighting ISIS on the ground would strengthen ISIS (and similar fundamentalists) and weaken America. Any further, deeper involvement would weaken America. This is opinion, of course – but the fact that you’re sticking with McCain and Graham when they refuse to admit how massively wrong they were is telling. > [@](#): > > The good thing about the 2016 race is that it features no candidates other than Rand Paul who are likely to be more dovish. Clinton will wipe those bastards from the face of the Earth and any Republican will too. You can’t “wipe those bastards from the face of the Earth” (short of, perhaps, nuking all of the Middle East, most of Asia, and much of Europe). That’s not how the real world works. Graham, McCain, Palin, and Trump are just incredible fools on this. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/906 "2015-02-28T02:46:43Z")
What you can do is sweep them from the field, which the President’s air strikes are supposed to do but not actually doing. What’s unusual about our current strategy is that we are dictating the means to be used rather than the objective to be achieved. That’s malpractice. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/907 "2015-02-28T02:50:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Further, he would have kept us in Iraq much longer at the cost of thousands more dead Americans. Which was also the administration position as the end of 2011 approached. The withdrawal was remarkably apolitical one the 2008 election was complte. Obama basically followed what was the Bush administration’s conditions based strategy once he took office …after the professionals actually briefed him. OND ended when Iraq would not approve a SOFA that met US conditions to continue. I can’t see McCain ignoring the lack of SOFA protecting US troops from Iraqi civil prosecution. A theoretical third Bush term, McCain, or Obama seems like a non-issue with respect to the finishing of Iraq to me. Thousands more dead is hyperbole unless you’re assuming much higher rates of violence than existed during the Operation New Dawn phase or in the last year of OIF. In 15 months of OND the US lost 66 total dead including non-combat related deaths. It’s hard to judge what changes to the security conditions would have happened. Like it would have been somewhere between the slow rate of insurgent operations waiting for the US to leave and the higher rate after they did. It would have taken multiple Presidents in the chair to keep troops there long enough for “thousands” at the OND casualty rate. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/908 "2015-02-28T03:10:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What you can do is sweep them from the field, which the President’s air strikes are supposed to do but not actually doing. What’s unusual about our current strategy is that we are dictating the means to be used rather than the objective to be achieved. That’s malpractice. Except that that’s not the current strategy. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/909 "2015-02-28T03:12:32Z")
> [@DinoR](#): > > Which was also the administration position as the end of 2011 approached. The withdrawal was remarkably apolitical one the 2008 election was complte. Obama basically followed what was the Bush administration’s conditions based strategy once he took office …after the professionals actually briefed him. OND ended when Iraq would not approve a SOFA that met US conditions to continue. I can’t see McCain ignoring the lack of SOFA protecting US troops from Iraqi civil prosecution. A theoretical third Bush term, McCain, or Obama seems like a non-issue with respect to the finishing of Iraq to me. > > Thousands more dead is hyperbole unless you’re assuming much higher rates of violence than existed during the Operation New Dawn phase or in the last year of OIF. In 15 months of OND the US lost 66 total dead including non-combat related deaths. It’s hard to judge what changes to the security conditions would have happened. Like it would have been somewhere between the slow rate of insurgent operations waiting for the US to leave and the higher rate after they did. It would have taken multiple Presidents in the chair to keep troops there long enough for “thousands” at the OND casualty rate. I’m trying to imagine how we would have prevented an ISIS-like group from developing when we leave – and I can’t, unless perhaps we stay for decades. If we stayed for decades, insurgencies would dwindle and swell periodically, and we would periodically lose lots and less people. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/910 "2015-02-28T15:15:09Z")
It’s really simple: we can’t go into a country where we can’t tell friend from foe (and, hell, don’t even speak the language) and act as its internal security force. We couldn’t do it in Vietnam, we couldn’t do it in Iraq during the Bush years, and we can’t do it in Iraq now. Or in Syria, Libya, or Yemen. And similarly, we can create and prop up some pretend army for awhile, and give them lots of training and weapons, but if they’re largely our creation, they’ll be worthless when push comes to shove, and all those weapons will wind up in someone else’s hands - almost surely the hands of someone we don’t like. Remember when, back in early 2006, [Condi Rice said we had built up a force of 227,000 ‘quality’ Iraqi troops](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=359390&highlight=227%2C000)? We know how well that worked out. Is our GOPers learning? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/911 "2015-02-28T15:19:33Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > … Is our GOPers learning? Are, me hearties! Are! Are! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/912 "2015-02-28T15:19:59Z")
The difference is that the Viet Cong weren’t coming to our shores. ISIS will. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/913 "2015-02-28T15:21:57Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The difference is that the Viet Cong weren’t coming to our shores. ISIS will. How will a land war in the Middle East prevent that? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/914 "2015-02-28T15:29:21Z")
It doesn’t totally prevent, but it does deny them sanctuary and a government funding them. If we’re attacked, we invade anyway. Might as well do it before they can get dug in. We don’t even need large numbers of ground troops for this. Just enough special forces to stiffen the Iraqis’ spine and call in airstrikes. Worked great with the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/915 "2015-02-28T15:38:59Z")
> [@](#): > > The difference is that the Viet Cong weren’t coming to our shores. ISIS will Well, then, where are they? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/916 "2015-02-28T15:48:02Z")
So let’s fight them here so we don’t have to fight them there. Seriously, if they come to our shores, it’ll make it a heck of a lot easier to fight them, and probably for lower cost in both money and lives. Plus, if it should turn out that they don’t actually come to us, then that’s even better, right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/917 "2015-02-28T16:15:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The difference is that the Viet Cong weren’t coming to our shores. ISIS will. There’s no chance ISIS could ever kill more people and cost us more money attacking us here than if we had forces there. ISIS is not WWII Japan or Germany. They’re not even North Korea or Iran. They’re a few tens of thousands of uneducated, belligerent assholes. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/918 "2015-02-28T17:20:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The difference is that the Viet Cong weren’t coming to our shores. ISIS will. [Graeme Wood writes:](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) > [@](#): > > The humanitarian cost of the Islamic State’s existence is high. But its threat to the United States is smaller than its all too frequent conflation with al-Qaeda would suggest. Al-Qaeda’s core is rare among jihadist groups for its focus on the “far enemy” (the West); most jihadist groups’ main concerns lie closer to home. That’s especially true of the Islamic State, precisely because of its ideology. It sees enemies everywhere around it, and while its leadership wishes ill on the United States, the application of Sharia in the caliphate and the expansion to contiguous lands are paramount. Baghdadi has said as much directly: in November he told his Saudi agents to “deal with the _rafida_ [Shia] first … then _al-Sulul_ [Sunni supporters of the Saudi monarchy] … before the crusaders and their bases.” > > The foreign fighters (and their wives and children) have been traveling to the caliphate on one-way tickets: they want to live under true Sharia, and many want martyrdom. Doctrine, recall, requires believers to reside in the caliphate if it is at all possible for them to do so. One of the Islamic State’s less bloody videos shows a group of jihadists burning their French, British, and Australian passports. This would be an eccentric act for someone intending to return to blow himself up in line at the Louvre or to hold another chocolate shop hostage in Sydney. > > A few “lone wolf” supporters of the Islamic State have attacked Western targets, and more attacks will come. But most of the attackers have been frustrated amateurs, unable to immigrate to the caliphate because of confiscated passports or other problems. Even if the Islamic State cheers these attacks—and it does in its propaganda—it hasn’t yet planned and financed one. (The _Charlie Hebdo_ attack in Paris in January was principally an al‑Qaeda operation.) During his visit to Mosul in December, Jürgen Todenhöfer interviewed a portly German jihadist and asked whether any of his comrades had returned to Europe to carry out attacks. The jihadist seemed to regard returnees not as soldiers but as dropouts. “The fact is that the returnees from the Islamic State should repent from their return,” he said. “I hope they review their religion.” > > Properly contained, the Islamic State is likely to be its own undoing. No country is its ally, and its ideology ensures that this will remain the case. The land it controls, while expansive, is mostly uninhabited and poor. As it stagnates or slowly shrinks, its claim that it is the engine of God’s will and the agent of apocalypse will weaken, and fewer believers will arrive. And as more reports of misery within it leak out, radical Islamist movements elsewhere will be discredited: _No one has tried harder to implement strict Sharia by violence. This is what it looks like._ ---
**Author:** ![CGav8r](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@CGav8r](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CGav8r)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/919 "2015-02-28T18:38:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Are, me hearties! Are! Are! Play on Bushism- “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?”[4] — Florence, South Carolina; January 11, 2000 ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/920 "2015-02-28T22:28:33Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > It’s incredibly fucking lazy, took no effort, and echoes the vast majority of BrainGlutton’s posts, which require no thought and insight only a cut and paste frenzy. This walks right up to the line between attacking a post and attacking poster and then sticks one foot over it. Let’s back off on the personal attacks. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2015, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444/921 "2015-03-01T00:31:47Z")
[Elizabeth Warren:](https://twitter.com/elizabethforma/status/571716263963201538) “If Scott Walker sees 100,000 teachers & firefighters as his enemies, maybe it’s time we take a closer look at his friends.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444.md?page=45) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-2016-republican-candidates/709444.md?page=47)