I dont think the war can be made over in one term by a democratic nor republican president. It will likely drag on for decades like Beirut or, hopefully not, Vietnam. Obviously, President Bush and his investors have had their hands caught in a cookie jar. Ironically, if this large special interest fail now, it could turn into economic diaster for many citizens living in United States due to the shear grip it has on many aspect of the country. Hate to think this way, but in addition to competitive pressure from China, and possibly E.U., things dont look bright for the forseeable future.

I think the U.S.-Japan coalition may have tough times ahead. And by that I mean a democratic president is the last thing we need at the moment. Please tell me I’m wrong.

A

I dont think the war can be made over in one term by a democratic nor republican president. It will likely drag on for decades like Beirut or, hopefully not, Vietnam.It depends on how you define “the war.” If you mean our involvement in it, a Democratic president with a Democratic Congress could end the war in a short matter of months. If you mean the fighting amongst Iraqis and involvement by those outside, then I think there is really nothing that can be done by anyone for that. Whether we leave now or ten years from now, there will be an immediate bloodletting and a good amount of chaos.

Imagine that if, in 1968, a true stop-the-war president were elected. By this time, it should have been clear that a major land war in Asia was not going to end well. Were the president and Congress in agreement on this, the war could have been ended easily. Yes, the North would have overwhelmed the South and bloodshed would have resulted–but as we saw, that happened anyway, regardless of how long we dug in and tried. The Vietnam War could have ended six years early, and in so doing prevented 20,000 of our soldiers from dying, and perhaps a few hundred thousand more from being wounded and permanently disabled. In fact, even more could have been saved; at this point, the Iraq War is kind of equivalent to the Vietnam War as it was in ’65 or early ’66, about 4 years into the war and with only a few thousand troops dead. Had we stopped soon after that, 40,000 to 50,000 US troops could have been spared a death that politicians of the time needlessly caused.

Should we stay in Iraq, things will only get worse, and more and more will die at an increasing pace as time goes on. The numbers so far support this. There will not be quite so dramatic an explosion in the casualty rates as we saw in the late 60’s in Vietnam (hopefully, though you never know), but the number of US war dead will continue to rise. Ironically, if this large special interest fail now, it could turn into economic diaster…in addition to competitive pressure from China, and possibly E.U., …the U.S.-Japan coalition may have tough times ahead. And by that I mean a democratic president is the last thing we need…Umm… I really don’t follow your reasoning here. I do not see how failure in Iraq would lead to a U.S./Japan economic collapse that would favor China and the E.U.

In fact, as far as the economy goes, Democrats have been a Godsend, far more than Republicans ever have been. There was a Reagan boom, but that was gained at the cost of huge deficits and a bloated debt, and only benefitted the rich, while the poor suffered and their numbers increased. Aside from that, Republicans have fumbled badly on the economy for the past several decades. This goes for job growth as well–over the past 80 years, the worst-performing Democratic president has created more jobs than the best-performing Republican president.

As for Democrats and the economy, while Carter was no great shakes, Clinton was fantastic, and JFK and Johnson performed pretty well themselves. All created not only well-performing economies, but economies that lifted all boats and created true productivity. Republican control, on the other hand, has almost uniformly been successful only for the wealthiest, giving them tax cuts at the expense of poorer Americans, stimulating business but not jobs nor the common standard of living–and that’s at their best. At their worst, we’ve seen it go pretty badly.

As far as the economy goes, I strongly believe that a Republican, particularly one that would continue Bush’s policies–and that’s the greatest likelihood–would be utterly disastrous for our country’s economy.

[i]Umm… I really don’t follow your reasoning here. I do not see how failure in Iraq would lead to a U.S./Japan economic collapse that would favor China and the E.U.[/i]

Interesting view points, Luis. It is commonly believed that one of the biggest reason Bush went to war in Iraq was to establish control over Iraq’s oil reserve as a pre-emptive tactic against the forming E.U. economic powerhouse. Iraq has been known to favor the euro and E.U. for that matter when it comes to oil trades. Bush and his apparent Saudi co-horts are not commonly known to benefit from this E.U. formation. By establishing control over Iraq and hence its oil reserves Bush coalition has not only a solid bargain chip when dealing with E.U. but also secured its foothold against a rapidly growing China who has increasing needs for gasoline to support its economic growth and standard of life.

Bush co-horts have a vast stranglehold on U.S. economy whether it is to provide jobs, trades goods, or energy etc. I’d like to think its the same as working for a normal company, if the Boss does well we do well economically. Now, I’m not saying any democratic president will ‘end’ iraq war immediately as to pull back all troops within months, but there will likely be a compromise to protect certain U.S. special interest that are now very entrenched in the country of Iraq. As we know dems and reps usually cooperate when it comes to mutual benefits.

Having that said, to put it short, I dont believe a dem president will end Iraq war and pull back all troops. And if he or she does, it will be at a compromise to send troops to Iran under the banner of ‘going where it counts.’

Hope, I dont sound too republican minded. I’m neutral when it comes to politics actually. Your thoughts?