NationStates Jolt Archive

"A withdrawl of the troops will strengthen the terrorists" - Bush


What do you think about his answer?

IMO (In My Opinion), I think that the terrorists will not bother us or anyone else anymore.

Just THINK for a second! If any of you watched the beheading video of Daniel Pearl (I did, it was freaky), the terrorists CLEARLY stated that this shit will stop if we withdrew our troops from the Islamic nations (in which we have no buisness since we are not the World Police) and stop backing up Isreal so much. Even Osama said it in one of his videos!

If we withdraw our troops from where they don't NEED to be, then all this crap will stop. We need to stop fighting Isreal's wars, also. They can fight their own wars, they are strong enough. The United States of America is NOT the father of the world, so our government's foreign policies need to stop acting like we are.

I say put our noses back in and take our brown noses out of Isreal, and let them handel themselves (since they all CLEARLY stated that for the umpteenth time since Bush's administration).

What are your thoughts and opinions? Also, please kindly debate, and don't disagree with someone only saying "You ****ing idiot!". Thank you :D

I'm not touching this thread with a ten metre pole...

I know.

"A withdrawl of the troops will strengthen the terrorists" - Bush


What do you think about his answer?

IMO (In My Opinion), I think that the terrorists will not bother us or anyone else anymore.



Well since you asked. We were not in Iraq on sept 11. It doesnt matter what we do really. They want to expell all westren influence and spread a hardline Islamic republic from Morocco to Indonesia. I for one don't want this to happen. So I support the war in Iraq and any other nation we need to go and destroy these enemies of humanity.

I'm not touching this thread with a ten metre pole...



Seconded.

It's a catch 22. We stay, they're violent and strengthen. We leave, and they see it as a victory...and strengthen. Pretty simple.

Well since you asked. We were not in Iraq on sept 11. It doesnt matter what we do really. They want to expell all westren influence and spread a hardline islamic republic from Morocco to Indonesia. I for one don't want this to happen. So I support the war in Iraq and any other nation we need to go and destroy these enemies of humanity.


But does it really matter what you want? It's their countries, if they want it, they sould have it since we think everyone should be free.

The United States of America shouldn't do what they want to happen in Asia/Africa, they should let the people of those governments decide.

But still, why do we need troops in places other than Afganistan and Iraq? What are they doing there? We have absolutly no buisness there IMO.

It's a catch 22. We stay, they're violent and strengthen. We leave, and they see it as a victory...and strengthen. Pretty simple.


Well, if those are the options, I think we should let them see it as a victory since it will spare MANY lives.

Also, just because they see it as something doesn't mean it actually is it.

I don't trust terrorists. They say if we leave, they'll leave us alone. Well I don't remember any troops in Iraq on 9/11. You know, I'm sure there are more CIVILIZED ways to convince us to abandon Israel to be slaughtered than by killing thousands of civilian office workers. Personally, I think that if we leave Iraq, we will show the world that the United States does not have the stamina or the willpower to fight. Once we involve ourselves in a conflict and the going gets rough, we run away with out tail between our legs. Any enemy of ours will know that a gourilla conflict will be the end of us, so how will they fight us?

I don't support the war's purpose, but damn it we went into Iraq and mucked things up. Now we are obligated to stay and fix things. Unless Iraq formally asks us to leave through a goverment vote or direct vote from the population, we should stay. Don't give in to terrorist demands, that's how they win.

But does it really matter what you want? It's their countries, if they want it, they sould have it since we think everyone should be free.

The United States of America shouldn't do what they want to happen in Asia/Africa, they should let the people of those governments decide.

But still, why do we need troops in places other than Afganistan and Iraq? What are they doing there? We have absolutly no buisness there IMO.

Well here where the problem here lies in. When another nations policies and problems effect the US. Then it becomes our problem. There problems(Radical Islam) slammed into the world trade centers. Therefore 3000 dead Americans and foreigners. We obviously have to go and confront those problems before they come again. Do you see the point here?

You have to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to bolster those governments. You do not want hardline Islama-fascist taking over those governments.

It would stop some of the attacks but I think the damage has already been done since the illegal invasion of Iraq. Not sure about the Israel thing though.....:(

Well since you asked. We were not in Iraq on sept 11. It doesnt matter what we do really. They want to expell all westren influence and spread a hardline Islamic republic from Morocco to Indonesia. I for one don't want this to happen. So I support the war in Iraq and any other nation we need to go and destroy these enemies of humanity.
If the US administration truly thought that it should immediately bomb all terrorist nations that attack it (as it did with Afghanistan and later Iraq) then it should have bombed Montana after the Oklahoma bombing. :p

If the US administration truly thought that it should immediately bomb all terrorist nations that attack it (as it did with Afghanistan and later Iraq) then it should have bombed Montana after the Oklahoma bombing. :p

Uhh yeah ok. I think Iran should have been the target instead of Iraq anyway.

I don't trust terrorists. They say if we leave, they'll leave us alone. Well I don't remember any troops in Iraq on 9/11. You know, I'm sure there are more CIVILIZED ways to convince us to abandon Israel to be slaughtered than by killing thousands of civilian office workers. Personally, I think that if we leave Iraq, we will show the world that the United States does not have the stamina or the willpower to fight. Once we involve ourselves in a conflict and the going gets rough, we run away with out tail between our legs. Any enemy of ours will know that a gourilla conflict will be the end of us, so how will they fight us?
.

Ever heard of Vietnam???? :rolleyes:

Well here where the problem here lies in. When another nations policies and problems effect the US. Then it becomes our problem. There problems(Radical Islam) slammed into the world trade centers. Therefore 3000 dead Americans and foreigners. We obviously have to go and confront those problems before they come again. Do you see the point here?

You have to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to bolster those governments. You do not want hardline Islama-fascist taking over those governments.


Osama Bin Laden clearly stated in his videos (as well as the rest of Al-Qaeda) that the reason for 9/11 was because of the reasons I stated in the OP (Helping Isreal so much, and our occupation of the Muslim lands throughout the world). It wasn't because they want a Muslim government all over the world, and then attack us, it is because we are interfering where we don't belong.

Make no mistake, I hate terrorists and I think it's stupid to negotiate using terror, but their reasons are clear, and we must comply if we want the world to be protected from so much terror (it won't completely stop, but it will DRASTICALLY lower).

If the US administration truly thought that it should immediately bomb all terrorist nations that attack it (as it did with Afghanistan and later Iraq) then it should have bombed Montana after the Oklahoma bombing. :p


Ummm, the entire mini-governent of Montana didn't plan out and acted on that plan.

Osama Bin Laden clearly stated in his videos (as well as the rest of Al-Qaeda) that the reason for 9/11 was because of the reasons I stated in the OP (Helping Isreal so much, and our occupation of the Muslim lands throughout the world). It wasn't because they want a Muslim government all over the world, and then attack us, it is because we are interfering where we don't belong.

Make no mistake, I hate terrorists and I think it's stupid to negotiate using terror, but their reasons are clear, and we must comply if we want the world to be protected from so much terror (it won't completely stop, but it will DRASTICALLY lower).

Thats fine and I understand what point of view your coming from. But the underlying goals of radical Islam is to throw out the west and return the caliphate with an expanded reach. Now you dont do this with peacful practices. This is going to take a war. Which we are now in, the US could totally withdrawl from the whole region and they would still hate us. There is no appeasing these people. The only sure fire way is to defeat them.

Also why should the west bow down to these radicals?

Ever heard of Vietnam???? :rolleyes:
The radical Islamic terrorists cutting off heads and car bombing buildings aren't communist revolutionaries. They hate the west, they've attacked the west in the past, they'll attack the west in the future, and they'll find a way to attack America once we're not in Iraq. The only difference is, if we stay we have a chance of keeping democracy in the nation instead of another despot taking the nation by force.

I think the best route is to bring more nations into Iraq to keep the peace and America can surrender some control. We should have went in under the U.N. in the first place.

Ummm, the entire mini-governent of Montana didn't plan out and acted on that plan.
Neither did the entire gov't of Afghanistan and Iraq, certainly, had nothing to do with it. And if you go by your theory than Nicaragua, Cuba and many, many others have the right to bomb the shit out of the US because the US has been carrying out terrorist acts there forever. The US won't even respect international law, unless it bodes well for them.

I don't trust terrorists. They say if we leave, they'll leave us alone. Well I don't remember any troops in Iraq on 9/11.

The troops were in Saudi Arabia, and other major Muslim lands. Iraq and Afganistan aren't the only Muslim lands out there.

You know, I'm sure there are more CIVILIZED ways to convince us to abandon Israel to be slaughtered than by killing thousands of civilian office workers.

Isreal is an idependant country, not one of our territories. Therefore, it is not our buisness OR our "right" to protect them when they clearly stated they can protect themselves.

Personally, I think that if we leave Iraq, we will show the world that the United States does not have the stamina or the willpower to fight. Once we involve ourselves in a conflict and the going gets rough, we run away with out tail between our legs.

Like JFK said: "If I had to choose between what looked right and what is right, I'd choose what is right". Looks can be decieving, just because we LOOK like we're cowards doesn't mean we are. And I think that our image to the world (which we can slaughter them now that they underestimate us) is FAR LESS important than the lives we are wasting in the Muslim lands where we don't belong.

Any enemy of ours will know that a gourilla conflict will be the end of us, so how will they fight us?

They will misunderestimate us, and we can come back to slaughter their asses. Like I said, looks can be decieving since our soldiers are being trained in guerilla combat as a priority.

I don't support the war's purpose, but damn it we went into Iraq and mucked things up. Now we are obligated to stay and fix things. Unless Iraq formally asks us to leave through a goverment vote or direct vote from the population, we should stay.

Agreed, but now that they are back on their feet, we can leave them alone and begin a very slow withdrawl of all our troops. The attacks will cease since the Coalition of the Willing's prescense no longer exists there (just like insurgent violence rates were low before we arrived, not counting Saddam's regime of course).
Don't give in to terrorist demands, that's how they win.

They don't win, we just both save a lot of lives that way. It doesn't matter what it looks like, lives are more important than world image.

Neither did the entire gov't of Afghanistan and Iraq, certainly, had nothing to do with it. And if you go by your theory than Nicaragua, Cuba and many, many others have the right to bomb the shit out of the US because the US has been carrying out terrorist acts there forever. The US won't even respect international law, unless it bodes well for them.

Obviously they have the rights to bomb the hell out of us since we didn't have the rights to invade their land and commit those acts/tests of nuclear weapons. They don't bomb us, though. I'm glad for that.

Neither did the entire gov't of Afghanistan and Iraq, certainly, had nothing to do with it. And if you go by your theory than Nicaragua, Cuba and many, many others have the right to bomb the shit out of the US because the US has been carrying out terrorist acts there forever. The US won't even respect international law, unless it bodes well for them.

You talking about the Nicaraguan communists? And Cuban communist. Damn right we are taking action against them. It is in the US national interests to do something about communism spreading. The whole cold war was on this principle.

Obviously they have the rights to bomb the hell out of us since we didn't have the rights to invade their land and commit those acts/tests of nuclear weapons. .

Nuclear weapons? huh?

Nuclear weapons? huh?

Yep, we used (and maybe still cladestinely using today) nuclear weapons on Cuban soil for tests, which completely destoryed the enviroment over there.

Yep, we used (and maybe still cladestinely using today) nuclear weapons on Cuban soil for tests, which completely destoryed the enviroment over there.


Ok thought we were having a real discussion here. Well im done, have a good thanksgiving.

Ok thought we were having a real discussion here. Well im done, have a good thanksgiving.

Lol, alright. Same with you.

But does it really matter what you want? It's their countries, if they want it, they sould have it since we think everyone should be free.

The United States of America shouldn't do what they want to happen in Asia/Africa, they should let the people of those governments decide.

But still, why do we need troops in places other than Afganistan and Iraq? What are they doing there? We have absolutly no buisness there IMO.

What about Bosnia and other countries where genocide was occurring or may occur in the future. Somebody has to help those who can't defend themselves.

As to your comments about the terrorists claim that they will stop if we leave:
Do you really believe them?
Do you believe that people who kill innocent civilians can be trusted?
Even if they did stop, should we just forget about there murderous acts?

Just withdrawing our troops is not going to solve anything, things are not that simple.

You talking about the Nicaraguan communists? And Cuban communist. Damn right we are taking action against them. It is in the US national interests to do something about communism spreading. The whole cold war was on this principle.
Yeah, Iremember something about this stopping Communism syndrome. The US aided the Taliban which gave rise to Osama Bin Laden all in the name of getting the USSR out of Afghanistan. Good job. :rolleyes:

I think the best route is to bring more nations into Iraq to keep the peace and America can surrender some control. We should have went in under the U.N. in the first place.

Go in under the UN, Hah! We went to the UN, presented our intellegence (flawed or not) and told them repeatedly that unless military action was taken, this problem would not be solved. And what did the UN do? They casually tried to stall the United States, as certain nations on the Security Council (I will leave them unnamed) not only had significant arms contracts with Iraq (although the US was a large supplier of arms to the Iraqi Govt. before 1991), but were also being bribed through the Oil for Food program.

As for more nations, we already have been participants in NATO (Italy, UK, Denmark and yes, you can't forget Poland) along with other nations (Japan) aiding us during both Operation Iraqi Freedom and the Post-War occupation. Sure, their contributions are quite small, but you must realize that not every nation in the world has a 500 Billion USD defense budget.

The Cold war was merely a stupid competition on who would develop faster. I particularly think The Union was stupid to fall on the trap and keep on with the Americans, when they simply would have not won in any way.

The US gains many benefits from war, specially the uprising of it's gun industry... plus benefits such as oil. I believe the US is too egoist, and that doesn't really look good to any country in the world.

Recently, Bush came here to Panama for some Free Trade subject, which, if the government accepts, will totally destroy the internal production of this country and make us have to live eating from the hand of the Americans.

Then you'd say, why wouldn't we protest? Actually, we did, but the by direct order of the President, anyone who tried to protest during the time Mr. Bush was here would be sent to prison without question. Panama is full of people, but the places where Mr. Bush went were restricted completely from Panamanian civils... I guess Mr. Bush would have seen my country as a ghost town.

"A withdrawl of the troops will strengthen the terrorists" - Bush

What do you think about his answer?
How will it strengthen the terrorists? Is the US Army hogging all the gym equipment and not letting the insurgents use them?

The troops were in Saudi Arabia, and other major Muslim lands. Iraq and Afganistan aren't the only Muslim lands out there.



Isreal is an idependant country, not one of our territories. Therefore, it is not our buisness OR our "right" to protect them when they clearly stated they can protect themselves.



Like JFK said: "If I had to choose between what looked right and what is right, I'd choose what is right". Looks can be decieving, just because we LOOK like we're cowards doesn't mean we are. And I think that our image to the world (which we can slaughter them now that they underestimate us) is FAR LESS important than the lives we are wasting in the Muslim lands where we don't belong.



They will misunderestimate us, and we can come back to slaughter their asses. Like I said, looks can be decieving since our soldiers are being trained in guerilla combat as a priority.



Agreed, but now that they are back on their feet, we can leave them alone and begin a very slow withdrawl of all our troops. The attacks will cease since the Coalition of the Willing's prescense no longer exists there (just like insurgent violence rates were low before we arrived, not counting Saddam's regime of course).


They don't win, we just both save a lot of lives that way. It doesn't matter what it looks like, lives are more important than world image.

I disagee that Iraq is back on its feet. I think that the country will be back on its feet when they have a solid constitution supported by its natural populace and has the power to defend that constitution from all the terrorists jumping in from ever corner of the world. But then, I could be wrong. Maybe they will just stop attacking. I'm sure they won't try to work in an Iraqi government sympathetic to them while the country is still weak. They're honorable people, afterall.

How will it strengthen the terrorists? Is the US Army hogging all the gym equipment and not letting the insurgents use them?

LMAO...

"A withdrawl of the troops will strengthen the terrorists" - Bush
Now, you people know I'm not a fan of the guy, but I reckon this one is probably true.

Right now Al Zarqawi is building his own AQ2 in Iraq. It's pretty clear now that he's told Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri to f*ck off. He's now exported his organisation to Jordan, and chances are that he's got branches all over the world by now. He's got the reputation of being an excellent organiser.

Leaving Iraq now would leave the country to collapse. And that would mean that Zarqawi could do whatever he wanted there - we'd have given him millions of recruits.

Not that the US being there is guaranteed to stop that, far from it. But the chances of Iraq getting through this are greater with the US there than without it.

Nonetheless, the US military really has to rethink the way it does business in Iraq.

get this fact straight, USA should be more concerned about its own nation problems then to sent their soldier dying in a senseless war...Bush got himself into a tough position, retreating there iwll be chaos and unrest in iraq, there is also a lost of national pride, i hate to say but bush is probably one of the worst political leaders in the 21st century, USA is drowning in debt and at the 1960s the national debt was up to 4 trillion, throwing tons of explosives into Iraq not only has not solved the "problems" in iraq, such as...removing those "dangerous weapons" saddam posses and instead of bringing peace to iraq..saving millions of lives from the inhuman dictatorship of saddam, innocent civilians die each day. Bush is a total moron.

Well, this should all be a moot point anyway, because the legit government of Iraq actually does want the US troops gone...

Iraqi Leaders Urge a Timetable for Eventual Troop Withdrawal (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDLgOBgqARvw&refer=top_world_news)

Why not let the Iraqis take care of their own problems, especially now that they're actually asking us to do just that?

It's called Israel not Isreal!!! Given that by far the majority of US foreign aid goes to Israel, you would think they would teach people how to spell it.

Seconded.


Thirded.

I am reading this thread and seeing alot of "useful idiots"-- people who do generally mean well, but are serving the terroristis' ends because well...they're idiots.

Just THINK for a second! If any of you watched the beheading video of Daniel Pearl (I did, it was freaky), the terrorists CLEARLY stated that this shit will stop if we withdrew our troops from the Islamic nations (in which we have no buisness since we are not the World Police) and stop backing up Isreal so much. Even Osama said it in one of his videos!

Terrorists think nothing of car-bombing a market full of children. Do you think they are incapable of lying? Besides, I don't recall us being in Iraq on 9/11.

The troops were in Saudi Arabia, and other major Muslim lands. Iraq and Afganistan aren't the only Muslim lands out there.

The troops were there with the permission of the Saudi government. If some whacko doesn't like it, that is ZERO excuse for a terrorist act. And if you advocate retreat because of this, you are in effect handing over our foreign policy to a bunch of people stuck in the 12th century.

Isreal is an idependant country, not one of our territories. Therefore, it is not our buisness OR our "right" to protect them when they clearly stated they can protect themselves.

1) I'm pretty sure nobody is forcing Isreal to buy our weapons.
2) How old are you? Have you taken a freshman level International Relations course? I would suggest it.

Agreed, but now that they are back on their feet, we can leave them alone and begin a very slow withdrawl of all our troops. The attacks will cease since the Coalition of the Willing's prescense no longer exists there (just like insurgent violence rates were low before we arrived, not counting Saddam's regime of course).

Now I actually felt myself get stupider after reading this one.

1) Iraq is very unstable, and as of right now its army is not up to the task of holding the country together.
2) Insurgent attacks were down during Saddam's regime because THEY ALREADY HAD THE BAATHIST DICTATORSHIP THEY SEEK.

They don't win, we just both save a lot of lives that way. It doesn't matter what it looks like, lives are more important than world image.

Precisely. Osama bin Laden himself has said numerous times that the US running like a scared dog from Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam, etc. all proved how weak we were, that all you had to do was inflict some casualties and the US would forget all about its goals and run back to his La-Z-Boy.

The lives we save by drawing a line in the sand an NOT running like craven cowards are well worth the hit we are taking to our national image.

For those who do not know... Here's my idea of terrorism...

It's not about religion. It's not about muslims. Anybody could be a terrorist. According to the dictionary, terrorism is what you do when you use way to spread fear across a country. White phosphore (Fallujah) and napalm (Viet-Nam, used by the Viets) are ways of terrorism.

Thing is, this war was never a holy war. US are in Irak. The thing is, they're not there to eliminate religion, their own country is getting more religious everyday. They were supposed to be there to free the people... Now, just a sec... You free the people by attacking them... I don't think that's the way it should've be done.

Actually, the American troops are in Irak to support the new Iraq's force. After two years now, I think it would be time for the soldiers to withdraw. The USA government's goal is not to eradicate muslims, they're human people.

My idea on terrorism is that it's based on ignorance. Since the attacks in Irak, the people have become poorer, more desperate, more ignorant. With ignorance, some guy can come in and say: "It's the American's fault. Look, they have money, they have TVs, beautiful houses in the suburbs, cinema, economy, everything. You are a child of Allah, and you are poorer than them. This is unfairness. You should fight them, and Allah will give you your reward."

I think that's more the way it works. The people don't know what's happening outside. They are ignorant, because they are poor. With Bush's attacks, this gave even more firepower to terrorists (remember the subway in London, and many attacks in Africa). They converted more people to terrorism, and more and more women are joining them. At first, terrorism was just a guy's thing. Now, it's gonna be even more dangerous.

If Bush wanted to stop terrorism in Irak, he'd withdraw half of his troops, 'cuz they aren't needed anymore, and would use that money to invest in the educational system, to help them be less ignorant of the whole world around them.

"A withdrawl of the troops will strengthen the terrorists" - Bush


What do you think about his answer?

IMO (In My Opinion), I think that the terrorists will not bother us or anyone else anymore.

Just THINK for a second! If any of you watched the beheading video of Daniel Pearl (I did, it was freaky), the terrorists CLEARLY stated that this shit will stop if we withdrew our troops from the Islamic nations (in which we have no buisness since we are not the World Police) and stop backing up Isreal so much. Even Osama said it in one of his videos!

If we withdraw our troops from where they don't NEED to be, then all this crap will stop. We need to stop fighting Isreal's wars, also. They can fight their own wars, they are strong enough. The United States of America is NOT the father of the world, so our government's foreign policies need to stop acting like we are.

I say put our noses back in and take our brown noses out of Isreal, and let them handel themselves (since they all CLEARLY stated that for the umpteenth time since Bush's administration).

What are your thoughts and opinions? Also, please kindly debate, and don't disagree with someone only saying "You ****ing idiot!". Thank you :D

On this issue, I have to agree with the President. It is a difficult question, and I have to mention that I don't agree with the war, but now that the soldiers are there they cannot just pack up and leave.

You must remember that the fanatical islamists that carry out terrorist acts are not a homogeneous group. While some may be satisfied by the US leaving Iraq, and thus might lay down their arms and celebrate their victory should the US leave now, others do not have the "liberation of Iraq" as a primary goal. I think that these groups, however, will see the tactic of terrorism as a viable option as it (in their minds) was integral to getting the US to pull out, and as such will go on to using terrorism as a tool in other situations and countries to reach whatever goal they might have. It might not be against american targets, but terrorism will continue to be used by many groups.

And another point, there is still the danger of civil war in Iraq, but that danger is significantly redused by the presence of american troops. I think that is important to remember.

Getting in is the easy part. Getting out is what might be tricky...

Mmmh... I think there's some point people are missing there. The Iraqis DO NOT want the Americans in their country. That leads to insatisfaction and violent acts, because it gives credit to the anti-american propaganda in the country.

I don't see a tricky part in getting out of there. You just pack up and leave. The US would not lose their face to the world, because almost everybody is still against that occupation, even in England.

Now, a question: why do you become a terrorist? Because you hate America, or that you hate other countries, etc. Why do you hate them? Because you are IGNORANT of what they truly are, and that you are desperate. MUSLIMS ARE HUMAN BEINGS. If you agress them, they'll feel agressed. Occupying Iraq makes them more angry, contributes to terrorism. As long as people are ignorant, they can be manipulated. Terrorism is manipulation of the poors to deadly means. You can't convince a guy to kill himself to destroy something if his hate is not fed up.

Terrorism can't be fought efficiently. However, it can be prevented. That's the most important issue: prevent terrorism by preventing ignorance.

I am reading this thread and seeing alot of "useful idiots"-- people who do generally mean well, but are serving the terroristis' ends because well...they're idiots.



Terrorists think nothing of car-bombing a market full of children. Do you think they are incapable of lying? Besides, I don't recall us being in Iraq on 9/11.


I don't remember Iraq having anything to do with 9/11. So what's the point?


The troops were there with the permission of the Saudi government. If some whacko doesn't like it, that is ZERO excuse for a terrorist act. And if you advocate retreat because of this, you are in effect handing over our foreign policy to a bunch of people stuck in the 12th century.


And that's opposed to have the Saudi Family have their will in Arabia how? The Saudi Family is reigning most of Arabia because it claims to be related to the late Prophete Muhammad. I call having the Saudi reign there 'handing over policy to a bunch of people stuck in the 12th century' too.


2) Insurgent attacks were down during Saddam's regime because THEY ALREADY HAD THE BAATHIST DICTATORSHIP THEY SEEK.


You aren't even able to make a difference between islamic-fundamentalist fighters (e.g. al-Zarqawi's group) and baathist fighters. Baathism had nothing to do with Islam at the beginning. Baathism was the attempt to impose a new ideology in arab countries which was decidedly non-islamic in the wake and aftermath of the liberation of the arab world from the turkish rule after World War I. Baathism is a arabic-national ideology with socialist ideas. If you reshuffle the words, you get to a nacionalsocialist arab ideology, which really describes the foundations: a racist, anti-nonarabic ideology which doesn't care if the person is muslim or christian or atheist or whatever, as long the person is of arab origin. That's why Saddam had no problem of gasing the Kurds in northern Iraq or killing the persian or azarian soldiers from Iran. They were from the wrong race anyway. That's why Saddam had non islamic (christian) people in his cabinet (Mr. Aziz), they were of arab blood, so they were o.k.

How the U.S. administration could ever mess those up with the islamic fundamentalist of from either shiite (iranian) or sunni (north african, arabian) side is something I never understood. All I've ever seen in this war was an U.S. adminstration that showed with every public statement that it had no idea what was going on in the arab world anyway. Some of those claims have been proved false (WMD, 9/11-Iraq-connections), others are still looming and lurking and scaring gullible people.

I don't trust terrorists. They say if we leave, they'll leave us alone. Well I don't remember any troops in Iraq on 9/11.

There were quite a lot of troops in Saudi Arabia. If you're not sure of what country that is, just think of it as the place where almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from.

You know, I'm sure there are more CIVILIZED ways to convince us to abandon Israel to be slaughtered than by killing thousands of civilian office workers.

Possibly. But none of them work. We've usurped their governments and their national resources. If we were going to be civilized about it then they might have been induced to try civilized methods to begin with.

Personally, I think that if we leave Iraq, we will show the world that the United States does not have the stamina or the willpower to fight. Once we involve ourselves in a conflict and the going gets rough, we run away with out tail between our legs. Any enemy of ours will know that a gourilla conflict will be the end of us, so how will they fight us?

This line of logic was bullshit in Vietnam and it's bullshit now. You're arguing like an abusive husband who thinks that if he calms down and stops hitting his wife, then that proves that he's wrong for hitting his wife. Getting out of Iraq might send the message that we shouldn't have been there in the first place, but you know what? We shouldn't have been.

I don't support the war's purpose, but damn it we went into Iraq and mucked things up. Now we are obligated to stay and fix things. Unless Iraq formally asks us to leave through a goverment vote or direct vote from the population, we should stay. Don't give in to terrorist demands, that's how they win.

So if terrorists demand that you do the right thing, you must do the wrong thing just to stick it to them? That's juvinile. What we do shouldn't have anything to do with what terrorists will do. Murtha knows the score. A measured troop withdrawl that will light a fire under the asses of the Iraqi batallions to get themselves in gear and end in less fatalities than Bush's policy of waving around his metaphorical dick and getting the metaphorical clap. If you don't understand military strategy, then consider the sources. The professional opinion of a decorated marine with years of service in government, versus the opinion of a Champagne Unit deserter whose only experience for his job now was a single term as governor of a state in which the lieutenant governor holds the executive power.

I am reading this thread and seeing alot of "useful idiots"-- people who do generally mean well, but are serving the terroristis' ends because well...they're idiots.

Terrorists think nothing of car-bombing a market full of children. Do you think they are incapable of lying? Besides, I don't recall us being in Iraq on 9/11.

Minus the insults, agreed.

The troops were there with the permission of the Saudi government. If some whacko doesn't like it, that is ZERO excuse for a terrorist act. And if you advocate retreat because of this, you are in effect handing over our foreign policy to a bunch of people stuck in the 12th century.

Unfortunately, they aren't "stuck in the 12th century". If they were, they would pose very little threat. Actually, it is also EVERY excuse for a terrorist act, its just that most of the world won't believe it to be valid.

1) I'm pretty sure nobody is forcing Isreal to buy our weapons.
2) How old are you? Have you taken a freshman level International Relations course? I would suggest it.

Now I actually felt myself get stupider after reading this one.

1) Iraq is very unstable, and as of right now its army is not up to the task of holding the country together.
2) Insurgent attacks were down during Saddam's regime because THEY ALREADY HAD THE BAATHIST DICTATORSHIP THEY SEEK.

Again, minus the insults, agreed.

Precisely. Osama bin Laden himself has said numerous times that the US running like a scared dog from Somalia, Lebanon, Vietnam, etc. all proved how weak we were, that all you had to do was inflict some casualties and the US would forget all about its goals and run back to his La-Z-Boy.

The lives we save by drawing a line in the sand an NOT running like craven cowards are well worth the hit we are taking to our national image.

What line in the sand?!?!?!?!?!? Despite all the Americans' talk about equality and democracy, they evidently believe that the lives of some 50 000 arabs in Afghanistan and Iraq are worth less than those of 3000 Americans in a big tower.

"A withdrawl of the troops will strengthen the terrorists" - Bush


What do you think about his answer?

IMO (In My Opinion), I think that the terrorists will not bother us or anyone else anymore.

Just THINK for a second! If any of you watched the beheading video of Daniel Pearl (I did, it was freaky), the terrorists CLEARLY stated that this shit will stop if we withdrew our troops from the Islamic nations (in which we have no buisness since we are not the World Police) and stop backing up Isreal so much. Even Osama said it in one of his videos!

If we withdraw our troops from where they don't NEED to be, then all this crap will stop. We need to stop fighting Isreal's wars, also. They can fight their own wars, they are strong enough. The United States of America is NOT the father of the world, so our government's foreign policies need to stop acting like we are.

I say put our noses back in and take our brown noses out of Isreal, and let them handel themselves (since they all CLEARLY stated that for the umpteenth time since Bush's administration).

What are your thoughts and opinions? Also, please kindly debate, and don't disagree with someone only saying "You ****ing idiot!". Thank you :D

he's right. If we left now, it would be the biggest mistake of the entire conflict.

You think the insurgency will die if the US leaves? Nope. Those people are bent on keeping the power in the hands of the Sunnis and will stop at nothing to keep it there. They don't want to vote, they want to murder their fellow countrymen.

They are a threat that must be dealt with.

Don't worry, Rest of the World, when Iraqi security forces are ready to defend the peaceful from the terrorists/insurgents, and after the new Iraqi government has had a little time to get its feet wet, we'll leave. Ours force is there to defend the process of implementation of a democratically elected Iraqi government and the procurement and training of Iraqi security forces (police and armed forces, maybe some intelligence -- who knows?).

Madmen don't stop attacking when you stop defending.

Two Points: One: Yes, The west needs to stop telling the rest of the world what to do, and finally pull out of areas they have no business being in. Two: no, it's not going to make it stop.

We all know why the United States is so fanatically in the middle east (including Afghanistan, etc). if not: OIL! they're desperate for it. It's the easiest and fastest way to get a lot of people really really rich. It's the American way. Get out of there and get into alternative energy on a realistic scale already!

Well, i personnaly think that the root of the problem has ever been in the nature of (inter)national politics : ALL the conflicts in human history always had both real reasons and pretenses. When you begin mixing pretenses and real reasons (real politik anyone?), you cannot analyse the real causes of a conflict.

I'll cite some quick and simplified examples supporting my point which are in no way the only ones : during the Peloponesian war, both Sparta and Athens pretended they wanted to free the Greek cities, both of them wanted dominance/rulership over Hellas. Romans waged the third punic war under the pretense of imminent danger to Rome ; what they mainly wanted was the end of a commercial rival. France and England fought during the hundred year war under the pretense of dynastic rights to both trones ; in fact, the kings/nobles mainly wanted more lands/money/influence for themselves.

The whole Republican/Napoleonic wars were "liberation" wars but then why were puppet states instituted and most of the industry of conquered lands transfered to France? The American civil war was fought pretensly because of the slavery question, mainly because Lincoln couldn't accept loosing lands in the south (and the apparition of a rival) when the American politics was one of supremacy in north America. The first world war was fought pretensly because of the assasination of the Archiduke of Austria, mainly because the various governments of Europe wanted to draw the sheet to them (eg : Austria in the Balkans, Germany to get colonies, France to get revenge, etc). Examples go forth of course (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuweit, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc).

Sadly, the truth in politics is not that people gather round a table to find the best solution for everyone but exert their strength to make THEIR vision pass (or a compromise if they are FORCED to). By strength, I don't necessarily imply military one (could be economic, moral and so forth) but the awful tendency of human beings at large (and even more so for power hungry ones) is to resort to brute strength when it's in their interest even when a negociation is/was possible.

In this context, the American international policy has always been consistent with this model ; America uses its power in the SAME way as all powerful countries/entities ever acted -sadly- : by imposing to others what they deem right for them (mainly acting as markets for the dominant country's industry or supplier of raw materials (oil anyone?)). The philosophical reasons given (freedom, democracy, etc) are of course beautiful : what do you expect from the pretense of a war? The real ones are a touch darker knowing that the USA created in the 20th century more dictatorships and banana states than any other state in the world (a short head ahead of USSR ; before that England had that doubtful privilege, even if they took the form of colonies rather than "independant" states : names change, realities stay).

The present conflicts in which the USA engage are not fights between freedom and extremism, they are motivated by economic reasons (one of them being to guarantee the influx of oil to America). Don't forget that Ben Laden as well as many other terrorist movements were trained and funded by the CIA at a time where the most pressing danger to the USA appeared to be communism (which also developed the drug trade as these terrorist movements often resorted to that mean of making money). At that time, religious fundamentalism seemed the perfect defense against communism (it's well known that religions and communism usually don't go well together;)).

The "war" didn't begin on the 11th, war has always existed and brutal solutions to contemporary problems always resulted in new problems calling seemingly for a brutal solution. If democracy is anything else than a word, it's value should be universal which means that anyone/everyone should/could decide by himself what HE wants. Invading a country to establish a government never was viewed as establishing democracy but as a coup. Even if the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't democracies (and certainly were responsible for numerous horrors!), if this reason alone is enough to justify an intervention, than why are Korea, China, etc treated any different? It is because they are interesting markets, have military strength (or supporting countries with military strength) or because they have no interesting natural ressources ?

As a closure (sorry it was longer than expected even with the cuts I did;)), I'll cite Thucydide in his Peloponesian War ; to the soon to be defeated Melians who begged for their freedom and presented the Athenians all sorts of reasons for that (right to be free, joined willingly the league, etc) the Athenians repeated again and again in opposition : "But we are the strongest". Sad to see that nothing really changed over 2000 years.

Yves

Mmmh... I think there's some point people are missing there. The Iraqis DO NOT want the Americans in their country. That leads to insatisfaction and violent acts, because it gives credit to the anti-american propaganda in the country.

I don't see a tricky part in getting out of there. You just pack up and leave. The US would not lose their face to the world, because almost everybody is still against that occupation, even in England.

Now, a question: why do you become a terrorist? Because you hate America, or that you hate other countries, etc. Why do you hate them? Because you are IGNORANT of what they truly are, and that you are desperate. MUSLIMS ARE HUMAN BEINGS. If you agress them, they'll feel agressed. Occupying Iraq makes them more angry, contributes to terrorism. As long as people are ignorant, they can be manipulated. Terrorism is manipulation of the poors to deadly means. You can't convince a guy to kill himself to destroy something if his hate is not fed up.

Terrorism can't be fought efficiently. However, it can be prevented. That's the most important issue: prevent terrorism by preventing ignorance.

I do not agree with everything you've said.
I think that the US indeed will loose face if they just left now, due to what I think the consequences would be (like a possible full-scale civil war). I do believe that many people are against the occupation, but also that many people feel that since the troops are there they should stay there until Iraq is ready for them to leave.

all you people who point to sept. 11 conserning s in iraq and stuff have obviously forgoten that there is more then just Iraq that they hate us for. For one thing there is our support of isrial. The opresiveness of isriel upon the gaza strip and west bank. The exorbent amount of lands israil has taken which was against the 1948 treaty that the peoples of palistine and isriale origionaly agread upon (Cough cough jerusilim). there was our sanctions over iraq. our troups and many other european nations held northern afganestan were opium was grown. So what exactly is it that all the arab people are upset at america about. all of this stuff that we keep shoving down their colective throughts

Well, i personnaly think that the root of the problem has ever been in the nature of (inter)national politics : ALL the conflicts in human history always had both real reasons and pretenses. When you begin mixing pretenses and real reasons (real politik anyone?), you cannot analyse the real causes of a conflict.

...snip...

As a closure (sorry it was longer than expected even with the cuts I did;)), I'll cite Thucydide in his Peloponesian War ; to the soon to be defeated Melians who begged for their freedom and presented the Athenians all sorts of reasons for that (right to be free, joined willingly the league, etc) the Athenians repeated again and again in opposition : "But we are the strongest". Sad to see that nothing really changed over 2000 years.

Yves

I agree.

Mmmh... I think there's some point people are missing there. The Iraqis DO NOT want the Americans in their country. That leads to insatisfaction and violent acts, because it gives credit to the anti-american propaganda in the country.

I don't see a tricky part in getting out of there. You just pack up and leave. The US would not lose their face to the world, because almost everybody is still against that occupation, even in England.

Now, a question: why do you become a terrorist? Because you hate America, or that you hate other countries, etc. Why do you hate them? Because you are IGNORANT of what they truly are, and that you are desperate. MUSLIMS ARE HUMAN BEINGS. If you agress them, they'll feel agressed. Occupying Iraq makes them more angry, contributes to terrorism. As long as people are ignorant, they can be manipulated. Terrorism is manipulation of the poors to deadly means. You can't convince a guy to kill himself to destroy something if his hate is not fed up.

Terrorism can't be fought efficiently. However, it can be prevented. That's the most important issue: prevent terrorism by preventing ignorance.

I agree with this too.

Coalition troops are just bystanders in an Iraqi civil war and theres no way they can stop it so I think there best of leaving as soon as possible.

Well, this should all be a moot point anyway, because the legit government of Iraq actually does want the US troops gone...

Iraqi Leaders Urge a Timetable for Eventual Troop Withdrawal (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aDLgOBgqARvw&refer=top_world_news)

Why not let the Iraqis take care of their own problems, especially now that they're actually asking us to do just that?

This is a simple repost.

Coalition troops are just bystanders in an Iraqi civil war and theres no way they can stop it so I think there best of leaving as soon as possible.
There was a news editorial about that in Virginian Pilot:
"We can lose in Iraq and destroy our Army or we can just lose."

The insurgency after all draws most of its support from the perception that it is resisting a foreign occupier. Once we are gone, the odds are that Iraqis, qho don'r have a tradition of religious extremism, will turn on fantical foriengers like al-Zarqawi.

The only wat to justify staying in Iraq is to make the case that stetchig the U.S. Army to its breaking point will will buy time for something good to happen. I don't think one can make that case convincingly. So Muthra is right: It is time to leave.

Some pessimists think that Iraq will fll into chaos whenever we leave. If so, beter we leave sooner than later, because we will have better chance of stopping a civil war if we leave so we can refresh our troops strength.

Even if it is only a month or two before we must return because Iraqi Govt needs help stopping a Civil war: will will have the neccessry rest for the soldiers they need to finish the job.

Plus if it is a civil war: than less support for terrorists.