NationStates Jolt Archive

On "Charlie Rose" PBS 1/11/07 Sen. Chuck Hagel Republican from Nebraska spent several minutes comparing Iraq to Vietnam. While he pointed out differences, he made a case that at the foundation the problem is vary much like the tar baby of Vietnam.

With Republicans abandoning the President, is there anything left but trying to figure out who's name will be the last on the wall---having died for a mistake.

Does it also emit a "giant sucking sound" to accompany it?

On "Charlie Rose" PBS 1/11/07 Sen. Chuck Hagel Republican from Nebraska spent several minutes comparing Iraq to Vietnam. While he pointed out differences, he made a case that at the foundation the problem is vary much like the tar baby of Vietnam.

With Republicans abandoning the President, is there anything left but trying to figure out who's name will be the last on the wall---having died for a mistake.

If there was any justice it would be GW Bush.

With Republicans abandoning the President, is there anything left but trying to figure out who's name will be the last on the wall---having died for a mistake.

Eh.. the President's approval rating hasn't moved in over a year by any poll I've seen. Not sure who's "abandoning" anyone. Not that 38-45% is outstanding, but it's been fairly stable. I'm optimistic of the '08 season. :)

What is a Tar Baby?

What is a Tar Baby?

A Br'er Rabbit reference. It's a mound of baby-shaped tar that Br'er Rabbit attacked and got stuck to. Also a racist slur.

A Br'er Rabbit reference. It's a mound of baby-shaped tar that Br'er Rabbit attacked and got stuck to. Also a racist slur.

ahh ok.

A Br'er Rabbit reference. It's a mound of baby-shaped tar that Br'er Rabbit attacked and got stuck to. Also a racist slur.

an it's all so this
http://www.answers.com/Tar%20Baby

which covers whats going on in Iraq

an it's all so this
http://www.answers.com/Tar%20Baby



I wouldn't say "also." As you can read under the definition you linked to, the reference is "after “Bre'r Rabbit and the Tar Baby,” an Uncle Remus story by Joel Chandler Harris." So sure, as a metaphor you can apply it to anything.

Hmm... Iraq and 'Nam. Well:

V'Nam - U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - approx. 57,690

Iraq - U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - Just over 3,000

V'Nam took place over (arguably) 13 or so years, while Iraq has taken almost 4, as the anniversary of Op. "Shock and Awe" nears. So... crunching the numbers:

Per Year Deaths- V'Nam: 4437, rounding down
Iraq: 750, on the dot considering recent reports

So now, which of course follows our new isolationist policies, we've once again compared 'Nam to Iraq, even though we were fighting Communists in both the North and the South, almost 6 times as many people died per year, and we never initiated any sort of full assault into North V'Nam.

By the way, if we really are comparing 'Nam and Iraq, after Ford and Congress passed a bill cutting off all US support to South V'Nam, it was invaded by the North - though one could make the argument that it was technically ousted by "insurgents" as violent Communist sects started popping up in 'Nam after Diem's anti-communism tactics...

Eh.. the President's approval rating hasn't moved in over a year by any poll I've seen. Not sure who's "abandoning" anyone. Not that 38-45% is outstanding, but it's been fairly stable. I'm optimistic of the '08 season. :)
Yes, let's hope the success story that has been the Republican governance of the US (and its foreign policy) continues unabated. :rolleyes:

Iraq - U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - Just over 3,000

Incorrect. 3,000 reported combat deaths. This does not include those who were wounded but died on the way back to base nor those who fell down a flight of stairs and broke their necks, etc, etc.

Also, deaths among privately contracted security firms based in the US are also not reported.

Eh.. the President's approval rating hasn't moved in over a year by any poll I've seen. Not sure who's "abandoning" anyone. Not that 38-45% is outstanding, but it's been fairly stable. I'm optimistic of the '08 season. :)
I don't know what polls you've been watching, but Bush would kill for that range lately. Try more in the 30-37% range (http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm).

And watch out for Hagel. I'm predicting early that the 2008 presidential winner will be the one who can most convincingly say that we'll be out of Iraq within 6 months of inauguration, and he's set himself up nicely to do just that.

Hmm... Iraq and 'Nam. Well:

V'Nam - U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - approx. 57,690

Iraq - U.S. killed in action, died of wounds, died of other causes, missing and declared dead - Just over 3,000

V'Nam took place over (arguably) 13 or so years, while Iraq has taken almost 4, as the anniversary of Op. "Shock and Awe" nears. So... crunching the numbers:

Per Year Deaths- V'Nam: 4437, rounding down
Iraq: 750, on the dot considering recent reports

So now, which of course follows our new isolationist policies, we've once again compared 'Nam to Iraq, even though we were fighting Communists in both the North and the South, almost 6 times as many people died per year, and we never initiated any sort of full assault into North V'Nam.

By the way, if we really are comparing 'Nam and Iraq, after Ford and Congress passed a bill cutting off all US support to South V'Nam, it was invaded by the North - though one could make the argument that it was technically ousted by "insurgents" as violent Communist sects started popping up in 'Nam after Diem's anti-communism tactics...
Two problems with your numbers--they don't factor in the size of the US forces in Vietnam, which at their height were around half a million I believe. The other problem has to do with the ratio of wounded to killed, which is at its greatest ever in Iraq. It's something like 8 to 1 in iraq, which puts the wounded at around 24K. I'd imagine that if you put the wounded and killed numbers together for both wars and then average them per year, you get a closer ratio than the nearly 6 to 1 difference you get currently. It won't be even, but it'll be closer.

And watch out for Hagel. I'm predicting early that the 2008 presidential winner will be the one who can most convincingly say that we'll be out of Iraq within 6 months of inauguration, and he's set himself up nicely to do just that.

So true. This is great campaign fodder.

Was interesting to see the reaction that the Administration reps received when they went to Capitol Hill to attempt to defend the plan (if you want to call it a plan).

Paraphrasing below.

Senator: So please explain the need for an escalation
Rice: It is not an escalation
Senator: If you send more troops what would you call it?

I feel bad for Bush and the Hawks because they just don't seem to realize that they are way out there and their support is dwindling.

And watch out for Hagel. I'm predicting early that the 2008 presidential winner will be the one who can most convincingly say that we'll be out of Iraq within 6 months of inauguration, and he's set himself up nicely to do just that.

He can't make that promise. No-one can, and he knows it.

He can't make that promise. No-one can, and he knows it.
You can promise anything--the question is whether or not you can come through, and frankly, I think that by 2008 it'll not only be a believable promise, it'll be a workable one as well.

You can promise anything--the question is whether or not you can come through, and frankly, I think that by 2008 it'll not only be a believable promise, it'll be a workable one as well.

Well okay, he can promise it. But frankly, unless he has some genius plan to fix things, or the situation is vastly different (I mean improved different), I think it'll turn out to be like Clinton promising to keep the US out of NAFTA.

This isn't just about the US and Iraq after all. Pulling out and letting the region descend into chaos would shit a lot of other people's lives up also. People who the US owes a great deal of money to.

That said, I expect Joe Biden to be the next president.

Well okay, he can promise it. But frankly, unless he has some genius plan to fix things, or the situation is vastly different (I mean improved different), I think it'll turn out to be like Clinton promising to keep the US out of NAFTA.

This isn't just about the US and Iraq after all. Pulling out and letting the region descend into chaos would shit a lot of other people's lives up also. People who the US owes a great deal of money to.

That said, I expect Joe Biden to be the next president.

Well, here's the thing--Iraq won't be any better in 2008, and every presidential candidate will be lining up to offer his or her plan on how to get us out, no doubt with a heavy dose of "the Iraqis have shown they can't handle democracy" xenophobia thrown in for public consumption, despicable as that is. We've already seen the early rumblings of it. Personally, I think the area's going to descend further into chaos because of what we've done to it, and there's not much we can do to stop it from happening, but that's me.

As for Joe Biden, I don't see him finishing better than fourth or fifth in any primary. He's not Hillary, and he's not different enough from Hillary to get much in the way of traction as the anti-Hillary. Obama's tangling with John Edwards right now to be the anti-Hillary, and Biden's going to be wrangling with Richardson and Dodd and Vilsack and the rest just to try to get some oxygen. He's Joe-mentum part deux. About the only guy who could get in right now and really shake up the field is Gore.

Well, here's the thing--Iraq won't be any better in 2008, and every presidential candidate will be lining up to offer his or her plan on how to get us out, no doubt with a heavy dose of "the Iraqis have shown they can't handle democracy" xenophobia thrown in for public consumption, despicable as that is. We've already seen the early rumblings of it. Personally, I think the area's going to descend further into chaos because of what we've done to it, and there's not much we can do to stop it from happening, but that's me.

I don't disagree about your assesment of Iraq. I'm just not inclined to believe that public opinion is the overiding concern for policy setters anymore. (Which is why the current democratic congress will squawk a lot about Iraq, but in the end not really do anything about it). Eventually the US will have to leave, but not until some mechanism is in place to prevent Iraq engulfing the entire region in chaos. I imagine the key to the whole thing is a sea change in Iranian politics - which is likely at some point, just because of demographics.

As I said, it's not just a US only issue, unlike vietnam.

As for Joe Biden, I don't see him finishing better than fourth or fifth in any primary. He's not Hillary, and he's not different enough from Hillary to get much in the way of traction as the anti-Hillary. Obama's tangling with John Edwards right now to be the anti-Hillary, and Biden's going to be wrangling with Richardson and Dodd and Vilsack and the rest just to try to get some oxygen. He's Joe-mentum part deux. About the only guy who could get in right now and really shake up the field is Gore.

I get the feeling that Biden is very cleverly positioning himself to appeal to a broad range of interests at this point which cut across party lines. I expect he will run like hell to the popular democrat base this summer then emerge from the primaries with the goodwill he is building up in the bank right now.

Dodd, I feel, is DOA because of the mess he made over the extradition treaty with the UK. He's just not a suitable candidate for higher office.

I don't think Gore is going to make a serious run.

Of course, a week is a long time in politics. Anything could happen. Who would ever have picked Kerry as a presidential candidate?

I don't disagree about your assesment of Iraq. I'm just not inclined to believe that public opinion is the overiding concern for policy setters anymore. (Which is why the current democratic congress will squawk a lot about Iraq, but in the end not really do anything about it). Eventually the US will have to leave, but not until some mechanism is in place to prevent Iraq engulfing the entire region in chaos. I imagine the key to the whole thing is a sea change in Iranian politics - which is likely at some point, just because of demographics.

As I said, it's not just a US only issue, unlike vietnam.

Indeed. When we left Vietnam, it's not like the region devolved into violent chaos (well, unless you count Cambodia...)

And even if it had, it's not like the resulting chaos would be right on top of the world's central oil producing region.

The question I have is "what is victory?"

I mean, if you define it as a long term stable Iraq, you're not going to get that with the current Iraqi government (and I don't see it with a unified Iraq either). And allowing an independent Kurdistan, or a marginalized Sunni enclave isn't going to quiet things down, either.

This isn't something that is easily solved, and any party or candidate who says they have an easy solution to this problem is full of shit.

A Br'er Rabbit reference. It's a mound of baby-shaped tar that Br'er Rabbit attacked and got stuck to. Also a racist slur.

Where do people get this racial slur crap? Until Romney used the term I'd never heard or considered that, yet if you use it everyone says "OMG RACIST!". There's nothing racial about it.

Indeed. When we left Vietnam, it's not like the region devolved into violent chaos (well, unless you count Cambodia...)

And even if it had, it's not like the resulting chaos would be right on top of the world's central oil producing region.

The question I have is "what is victory?"

I mean, if you define it as a long term stable Iraq, you're not going to get that with the current Iraqi government (and I don't see it with a unified Iraq either). And allowing an independent Kurdistan, or a marginalized Sunni enclave isn't going to quiet things down, either.

This isn't something that is easily solved, and any party or candidate who says they have an easy solution to this problem is full of shit.

Quite. And what people seem to forget is that while the US doesn't really need middle eastern oil so much - our supplies coming from our neck of the woods mostly - it really is rather important to the people who are the US's biggest creditors and who support the US dollar through the carry trade.

Obviously, crashing the dollar will hurt them too, but if it is a choice between taking a hit in their export markets or lowering the nominal cost of oil to make sure they get a bigger amount of a smaller pie, I'm fairly sure I know which one they'll pick. I'll bet our beloved leaders do too. (I'm sure they also realize that as much as americans want out of iraq, they probably love their big screen tv's and foreign cars more).

People will say I'm paranoid of course, but look at the chaos a quarter point interest raise by the bank of england caused at a TIPS auction yesterday. (Well okay, not chaos, but it did thow a bit of a monkey wrench into the whole deal).

Moral of the story: Live clean, eat healthy, spend less than you earn.

Quite. And what people seem to forget is that while the US doesn't really need middle eastern oil so much - our supplies coming from our neck of the woods mostly - it really is rather important to the people who are the US's biggest creditors and who support the US dollar through the carry trade.

We need it in the sense that we need it to stay on the market so others can buy it. If there were a major regional war that depleted supply from the Middle east as a whole, it would crash the global economy as everyone who gets oil from there would suddenly start bidding for our suppliers. We'd be lucky if the bidding stopped at $200 a barrel then.

We need it in the sense that we need it to stay on the market so others can buy it. If there were a major regional war that depleted supply from the Middle east as a whole, it would crash the global economy as everyone who gets oil from there would suddenly start bidding for our suppliers. We'd be lucky if the bidding stopped at $200 a barrel then.

Which is my point. Right now the dollar is around 120 yen, 1.30 Euro and 1.94 GBP. It would seem to me that if there was such a shortage, the dollar's value could easily be manipulated down to about 60 yen &c.

So while it would be $200 dollars a barrel, other people might not feel the pinch as much.

Of course if americans didn't look upon huge mortgages as 'saving' this might not be such an issue. But there it is.

A Br'er Rabbit reference. It's a mound of baby-shaped tar that Br'er Rabbit attacked and got stuck to. Also a racist slur.

I've never seen it used as a racist slur. It was used before Br'er Rabbit. A tar baby is something you get stuck in and the more you struggle the more you get stuck.

I feel bad for Bush and the Hawks because they just don't seem to realize that they are way out there and their support is dwindling.

Naw, they'll just call Chuck Hagel a liberal Al Qaeda operative and Toby Keith will show posters of him humping Bin Ladin at his concerts.

On "Charlie Rose" PBS 1/11/07 Sen. Chuck Hagel Republican from Nebraska spent several minutes comparing Iraq to Vietnam. While he pointed out differences, he made a case that at the foundation the problem is vary much like the tar baby of Vietnam.

With Republicans abandoning the President, is there anything left but trying to figure out who's name will be the last on the wall---having died for a mistake.
This criticism isn't new he's been doing it since around the 2004 election, it's teh Democrat Senator Nelson that's supported the war.

We need it in the sense that we need it to stay on the market so others can buy it. If there were a major regional war that depleted supply from the Middle east as a whole, it would crash the global economy as everyone who gets oil from there would suddenly start bidding for our suppliers. We'd be lucky if the bidding stopped at $200 a barrel then.

I still don't see any viable ideas about how to prevent a regional war. Only a few methods of delaying one.

The Iraq Study Group ideas are also crap, and will not prevent a regional war.

Nothing anyone is thinking of is addressing, say, the Sunni/Shia thing in any real fashion. Either it's ignored, or it gets lip service.

I still don't see any viable ideas about how to prevent a regional war. Only a few methods of delaying one.

The Iraq Study Group ideas are also crap, and will not prevent a regional war.

Nothing anyone is thinking of is addressing, say, the Sunni/Shia thing in any real fashion. Either it's ignored, or it gets lip service.

Well, considering it has been around for several hundred years I think it's understandable that people are warry of it.

I still don't see any viable ideas about how to prevent a regional war. Only a few methods of delaying one.

The Iraq Study Group ideas are also crap, and will not prevent a regional war.

Nothing anyone is thinking of is addressing, say, the Sunni/Shia thing in any real fashion. Either it's ignored, or it gets lip service.

The only real one I've seen involves getting energy independent and telling the region to go fuck off, but that's a long term solution, not a short term one. That doesn't prevent a regional war, but it does make the region's stability less important to the rest of the world.

Which is my point. Right now the dollar is around 120 yen, 1.30 Euro and 1.94 GBP. It would seem to me that if there was such a shortage, the dollar's value could easily be manipulated down to about 60 yen &c. So while it would be $200 dollars a barrel, other people might not feel the pinch as much.

Perhaps I didn't correctly understand what you said. Are you claiming that when there is a shortage of an extremely scarce commodity you should lower its price to alleviate the burden on consumers? The only effect that will have is to increase the foreign demand for the product; that is the opposite of a desirable result and will simply compound the problems.

Perhaps I didn't correctly understand what you said. Are you claiming that when there is a shortage of an extremely scarce commodity you should lower its price to alleviate the burden on consumers? The only effect that will have is to increase the foreign demand for the product; that is the opposite of a desirable result and will simply compound the problems.
I think what he's saying is that the US could (not necessarily should) weaken the dollar deliberately in order to lessen the impact of overwhelming oil prices. I don't think that would be a good idea economically, as it could also lead to inflation and it assumes that oil continues to be sold in dollars as opposed to Euros. A move like that would probably hasten the transition to Euros that a lot of oil countries are already making.

I don't think that would be a good idea economically, as it could also lead to inflation

That's not even the most pressing concern. Deliberately devaluing the dollar would be like taking an item that's out of stock because of too much demand and putting it on sale for half off. Inflation would most likely spiral out of control and the already scarce supply of oil would quickly dwindle as everybody would seek to take advantage of the bargain. Eventually, the price of oil will skyrocket uncontrollably upwards and the weakening of the dollar would have been for naught.

and it assumes that oil continues to be sold in dollars as opposed to Euros. A move like that would probably hasten the transition to Euros that a lot of oil countries are already making.

That's a big worry, too. Since that process is currently in motion, as you stated, it could only be exacerbated by aggressive US exchange rate policy. To attempt to tamper with the market price of oil through such mechanisms seems quite foolhardy; the risk of the ploy backfiring and plunging the US economy into a dire situation is tangible.

I still don't see any viable ideas about how to prevent a regional war. Only a few methods of delaying one.

The Iraq Study Group ideas are also crap, and will not prevent a regional war.

Nothing anyone is thinking of is addressing, say, the Sunni/Shia thing in

any real fashion. Either it's ignored, or it gets lip service.

Here's an idea,, how about we apologize to the world. Then we TALK to Jordon, Syria and Iran. Maybe we could tell them they don't need WMD's and chaos because we will pledge not to interfere with them.

Just a place to start.

If there was any justice it would be GW Bush.

Amen. He wants to send more troops to Iraq. Also, if he's gonna fight a war, he should at least be able to pronounce the name of the country.