NationStates Jolt Archive

Come on usa, it's time to stop this madness in iraq and bring our troops home! Who's with me?!:sniper:

Come on usa, it's time to stop this madness in iraq and bring our troops home! Who's with me?!:sniper:
Not me.

*opens recliner... cracks open a beer and passes popcorn around for the show* :D

:sniper:
No matter how valid your post may have been, that smiley kills any credibility you might have ever had on this one.

Not me.

Well, the majority of Americans don't agree with you.

In fact neither does the new Iraqi government. They actually do 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)

It's time to let the Iraqis take care of their own problems, especially now that they're actually asking us to do just that?

(this is a repost from another thread)

A big no from me. Wouldnt be prudent..

Well, the majority of Americans don't agree with you.

In fact neither does the new Iraqi government. They actually do 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)

It's time to let the Iraqis take care of their own problems, especially now that they're actually asking us to do just that?

(this is a repost from another thread)

Since when does majority = correct ?

Or better yet, why do you insist that I have to agree with the "majority"?

Since when does majority = correct ?

Or better yet, why do you insist that I have to agree with the "majority"?


Umm, you clearly didn't read the article, or even the second half of that post. so I'll shout it at you...

THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WANTS TO KNOW WHEN THE TROOPS WILL BE GONE!

Why do we insist on NOT doing what even they are now asking us to do?

I'm reading your post where you said:
Well, the majority of Americans don't agree with you.

In fact neither does the new Iraqi government. They actually do want the US troops gone...

So tell me why it matters that they "don't agree with me"?

So tell me why it matters that they "don't agree with me"?

Because it's their country, not yours. A government's consensus about it's own nation is more relevant than some individual's opinion halfway across the world.

I'm reading your post where you said:


So tell me why it matters that they "don't agree with me"?

Because the only opinion that should count at all is that of the Iraqis. And they don't agree with you. That's why.

Let's bring them home. There's no point in staying in Iraq. The longer we stay, the more of our boys get killed, the more innocent Iraqis get killed, the more the world hates us, the more recruits Al Quaeda gets, the more tax dollars get flushed down the toilet, the more our debt increases. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't just pack up, leave immediately, and never come back.

Because the only opinion that should count at all is that of the Iraqis. And they don't agree with you. That's why.
By that measure, neither your opinion, nor mine, counts in this matter.

So why are we discussing it?

In fairness, I don't agree with what the Coalition of the Willing did, how they went about justifing it, or how it was executed- but leaving now without cleaning up the mess they created would be a BIG 'No no'. :mad:

They started it, they finish by gum!

By that measure, neither your opinion, nor mine, counts in this matter.

So why are we discussing it?

You posted to this thread before I did. And, even then I posted an article saying that the Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawl, which you obviously STILL haven't read.

In fairness, I don't agree with what the Coalition of the Willing did, how they went about justifing it, or how it was executed- but leaving now without cleaning up the mess they created would be a BIG 'No no'. :mad:

They started it, they finish by gum!

The longer we stay, the more people get killed. We should pull out immediately, and let the Iraqis work it out among themselves.

You posted to this thread before I did. And, even then I posted an article saying that the Iraqi government wants a timetable for withdrawl, which you obviously STILL haven't read.
You're the one who said my opinion doesn't matter - and by extension and your logic, neither does yours.

I suppose that if the Iraqis wanted us to stay, you would be OK with that?

I'm reading your post where you said:


So tell me why it matters that they "don't agree with me"?

I always held the belief that if the majority has trouble agreeing with your views, it might be a good idea to check for mistakes just once more.

Either that, or they're all a conspiracy!

The longer we stay, the more people get killed. We should pull out immediately, and let the Iraqis work it out among themselves.
Oh no you don't! You helped create that mess! You'll bloody well better stay and fix it. Too late for this "D'ah well, we tried... See ya" attitude. :mad:

I always held the belief that if the majority has trouble agreeing with your views, it might be a good idea to check for mistakes just once more.

Either that, or they're all a conspiracy!

Neither.

Oh no you don't! You helped create that mess! You'll bloody well better stay and fix it. Too late for this "D'ah well, we tried... See ya" attitude. :mad:

The longer we stay, the more innocent Iraqi people get killed.

You're the one who said my opinion doesn't matter - and by extension and your logic, neither does yours.

I suppose that if the Iraqis wanted us to stay, you would be OK with that?

No, I wouldn't be "OK" with it, but I also know that it's not my opinion that counts in these matters. Besides, hypotheticals aren't at issue here. The FACT remains, they want the troops gone. Why do you have a problem with respecting their wishes? Are you living in Iraq currently? No, no you're not. It's time to finish training their own security forces and get the hell out.

The longer we stay, the more innocent Iraqi people get killed.
Tough! You can't quit now that the going gets too hard for the publics palate.

Iraqis are going to get killed if you stay and in a pisser of a civil war if you drop everything and run now. Finish the job you started damn you! No one else wants to clean up the Coalition's mess.

Tough! You can't quit now that the going gets too hard for the publics palate.

Iraqis are going to get killed if you stay and in a pisser of a civil war if you drop everything and run now. Finish the job you started damn you! No one else wants to clean up the Coalition's mess.

Iraq's heading for civil war anyway. I don't think it really matters whether we stay or leave. Either way, they're pretty much fucked. :(

The longer we stay, the more innocent Iraqi people get killed.

It doesn't matter whether we stay or go, terrorists against a democratic government in Iraq will continue to destroy and kill. Wouldn't it be better to have a trained army there to keep it as well-protected as possible until the home team is just as well trained? I'm not so sure that they're at that point just yet.

Oh no you don't! You helped create that mess! You'll bloody well better stay and fix it. Too late for this "D'ah well, we tried... See ya" attitude. :mad:


We didn't try. We DID! We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of his whole government.

And I'm so sick of this "you better stay and clean up that mess" attitude. Nations are not children you can scold and guilt-trip into "cleaning up" a "mess." If I get into a car crash is it my job to stay and clear the debris off the highway? No, no it isn't. That is because the rule that applies to children spilling milk is not the same rule that applies to adults - or nations - in the real world.

Iraq's heading for civil war anyway. I don't think it really matters whether we stay or leave. Either way, they're pretty much fucked. :(

It does matter! You can't quit now that the bodie bag total begins to mount. You said you'd help them- if you quit now, you'll be leaving them to the wolves. They'll remember that. So will the rest of the world.

It'll be shooting yourself in the foot if you break such a promise.

Next time, instead of invading a country, we should just nuke it.

No insurgency, no rebuilding, no trial of former dictators. No US troops overseas, no Cindy Sheehans.

Over in 20 minutes.

We didn't try. We DID! We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of his whole government.

And I'm so sick of this "you better stay and clean up that mess" attitude. Nations are not children you can scold and guilt-trip into "cleaning up" a "mess." If I get into a car crash is it my job to stay and clear the debris off the highway? No, no it isn't. That is because the rule that applies to children spilling milk is not the same rule that applies to adults - or nations - in the real world.

No, but it is your responsibility to leave your insurance details to make sure the other party is ok- ESPECIALLY IF YOU CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.

Yay, we got rid of a Third World leader. High five! Whoo hoo!

Now its time to do what you promised- give them freedom and democracy. At the moment it doesn't look like the perfect picture of either does it?

You stay and finish the job you said you'd do. War is shitty, people die. Get on with the job.

By that measure, neither your opinion, nor mine, counts in this matter.

So why are we discussing it?

the discussion arises because people wish to talk about it. To be quite honest and frank about it, your opinion at this time doesn't matter. This thread will never see its way into a room of officals wishing to vote on the matter of taking them home and saying, "look, deep kimchi says this...."

The long and short of it all is this, the opinions of any single person don't matter, but the opinion of a united people are listened to. Would I be afraid of one person coming up to me, dressed as I am, armed as I am, and saying, you are wrong, and you need to stop." not really. If a hundred people walked up to me and said the same thing, I would probally reconsider what ever it was that I was doing. Doesn't mean I'll just stop and give up, but at the same time, I doubt it would be something that I would risk 100 people coming at me.

Not to say it only matters about the threat, because its not that way, it was just an object lesson.

onto my opinion about the question at hand.

Should we pull out? I think yes. Should we pull out asap? I think yes. What is as soon as possible? Well, thats the question that needs to be addressed. Its not overnight, its not a couple of days, and its not a matter of weeks either. We need to pull out once the Iraqi government is able to defend and protect its people. That is in end goal. I don't agree that we should have gone in there and taken out the government the way that we did, but the damage and deaths that would happen if we just pulled out now would make the war look like a walk in a small town suburban park, in my opinion.

The biggest complaint that I have is that people handle the war in a policital correctness fashion. There is no such thing as a politically correct war, and so following that measure, one cannon win one policitcally correct. So what you get is needless deaths, and in the end, nothing gets done. What needs to be done is a hard line must be drawn. Set things up in 'military lockdown' and if anyone violates that, either arrest them, or if they attack against that, then bring it down around them.

Sure, in a politically correct way, innocent people are going to die. Well, if people would listen, and not rebel against the rules, then it would all be done with relitivily quickly. Just like in France, riots all over the place, then the military locks everything down, and boom, it dies out fast. Same thing in Iraq. The militants will rebel against it, and then firefights will ensue, but innocent lives will not be taken out.

Next time, instead of invading a country, we should just nuke it.

No insurgency, no rebuilding, no trial of former dictators. No US troops overseas, no Cindy Sheehans.

Over in 20 minutes.

Ah, the reckless destruction and killing of countless of innocent lives. As easy as that would be in practice, I'm sure we could consider the moral merit of our country "fucked". I'd rather not have to risk that, thanks.

Of course, you could just be sarcastic and my previous paragraph is for moot.

I'm too lazy to fetch the link, but Iran has come out saying that it's the fault of the US and UK that Iraqis are being killed and that they lack security.

You fucking liberals suck. Get a fucking life and quit your bitching. I have a solution to your problems. GET A JOB. and no, the corners of san fransisco do NOT count as a real job. Unless youve been to Iraq, shut your fucking mouths.

Semper Fi Mac.:sniper:

Ah, the reckless destruction and killing of countless of innocent lives. As easy as that would be in practice, I'm sure we could consider the moral merit of our country "fucked". I'd rather not have to risk that, thanks.

Of course, you could just be sarcastic and my previous paragraph is for moot.
No one seems to recognize sarcasm here, especially the people who want things done the "easy way".

You fucking liberals suck. Get a fucking life and quit your bitching. I have a solution to your problems. GET A JOB. and no, the corners of san fransisco do NOT count as a real job. Unless youve been to Iraq, shut your fucking mouths.

Semper Fi Mac.:sniper:

Take it from someone who's been here since February: you might not want to charge in here with your first few posts with guns a-shootin'. Flames aren't generally smiled upon 'round these here parts.

Not disagreeing with you, but suggesting that you state as much in a less...flameworthy approach. Neh?

It does matter! You can't quit now that the bodie bag total begins to mount. You said you'd help them- if you quit now, you'll be leaving them to the wolves. They'll remember that. So will the rest of the world.

You see, the problem is, none of that would be hapening if Americans wouldn't go there in the first place!
I mean, atleast they had almost free oil, and now prices of oil are rising all over the world JUST BECOUSE AMERICANS ARE STEALING IT FROM IRAQ!!!(wich is the real reason they went there)

And ofcourse, they can't do anything more now, as soon as they leave, the terorists will stop bombing civilians!

No one seems to recognize sarcasm here, especially the people who want things done the "easy way".
Just go back to the good ol days of quietly assassinating people you don't like. Or paying others to do so.

Cheaper too.

:D

We didn't try. We DID! We got rid of Saddam Hussein. We got rid of his whole government.

And I'm so sick of this "you better stay and clean up that mess" attitude. Nations are not children you can scold and guilt-trip into "cleaning up" a "mess." If I get into a car crash is it my job to stay and clear the debris off the highway? No, no it isn't. That is because the rule that applies to children spilling milk is not the same rule that applies to adults - or nations - in the real world.

If you caused the debris on the highway, then you would be responsible for it. Not to clean it up, but if your bumper causes another accident, then yes, you are held accountable for it.

In this case, and in any case where lives are at stake, then there is a greater responsiblity at hand. Many terrorists that are now running around free were kept under control by Saddam. Woman were protected in many ways by Saddam, they were able to keep their children in a divorce, and they were able to file for divorce, just to list an example. Many of the terrorist groups now have gone out of their way to kill women that are doing just that in iraq now.

Should we pull out, yes. But not until we have at least returned it to how it was BEFORE we came in there. If you break into my house, and make a mess, you will be paying for it to be cleaned up. Not the same, but an object lesson to consider.

Just go back to the good ol days of quietly assassinating people you don't like. Or paying others to do so.

Cheaper too.

:D

As soon as the Airborne Tactical Laser is operational, that will be an extremely handy option.

No one seems to recognize sarcasm here, especially the people who want things done the "easy way".

Not too sure if you're implying I'm one of the latter you mentioned, and not too sure what "easy way" you may be talking about, unless it's the pulling out now schpeal.

And yes, I do generally have a hard time distinguishing sarcasm from seriousness, but yes, I did figure you were being a smidgen sarcastic about nuking an entire country. :)

You see, the problem is, none of that would be hapening if Americans wouldn't go there in the first place!
I mean, atleast they had almost free oil, and now prices of oil are rising all over the world JUST BECOUSE AMERICANS ARE STEALING IT FROM IRAQ!!!(wich is the real reason they went there)

And ofcourse, they can't do anything more now, as soon as they leave, the terorists will stop bombing civilians!

Yeah, I know that. Problem is, the present day situation has to be dealt with now.

We seriously have to stop whining about 4 years ago- we've got to find the best solution today! Withdrawing right now, is not the answer. (Well, not the answer for the Iraqis, for the Us maybe, but I'm talking about what's best for the country and people of Iraq

Take it from someone who's been here since February: you might not want to charge in here with your first few posts with guns a-shootin'. Flames aren't generally smiled upon 'round these here parts.

Not disagreeing with you, but suggesting that you state as much in a less...flameworthy approach. Neh?


I have tried without the "flameworthy" approach and this seems to work, just a tad better. I am a marine so yes I have been there. I have seen the good that is coming out of that country. In a few years, they will be as wealthy as Kuwait, Screw the liberals.

Semper Fi:mp5: :sniper:

No, but it is your responsibility to leave your insurance details to make sure the other party is ok- ESPECIALLY IF YOU CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.

No, it is the pervue of medical officials to determine if the other party is OK. Its only my duty to call them to the scene if I can. And frankly, leaving my insurance details is a far cry from "cleaning up the mess." It's more like, "arranging to have someone else pay to clean up the mess."


Now its time to do what you promised- give them freedom and democracy. At the moment it doesn't look like the perfect picture of either does it?

It's not enough to kill the jailer and break the prison bars to set someone free?

You stay and finish the job you said you'd do. War is shitty, people die. Get on with the job.

*I* never said I was out to give anyone "freedom and democracy." If that truly is the job it will NEVER BE FINISHED until, of course, an anarcho-capitalist direct democracy is installed in Iraq. But that isn't the job, it never was, it was the rhetoric designed to sell the main idea of getting rid of a murdering tyrant.

Organizing their society is the job of Iraqis, not us.

Making a mess does not in any way qualify us as being capable of cleaning up the mess.

Not too sure if you're implying I'm one of the latter you mentioned, and not too sure what "easy way" you may be talking about, unless it's the pulling out now schpeal.


Pulling out now is the "easy way". It's also about as effective as the rhythm method of birth control.

I won't continue with the rest of the analogy, but I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.

It's not enough to kill the jailer and break the prison bars to set someone free?

Simply? No.


*I* never said I was out to give anyone "freedom and democracy." If that truly is the job it will NEVER BE FINISHED until, of course, an anarcho-capitalist direct democracy is installed in Iraq. But that isn't the job, it never was, it was the rhetoric designed to sell the main idea of getting rid of a murdering tyrant.
*sigh* Don't get picky. 'You' referring to the US/UK led Coalition.


Making a mess does not in any way qualify us as being capable of cleaning up the mess.
Capable? Yeah, i'd agree with you there. Clearly you're not capable of doing that. Should you try anyway? Yes.

In a few years, they will be as wealthy as Kuwait,

IT WAS, UNTIL US CAME AND TOOK ITS OIL!!! :mad:

IT WAS, UNTIL US CAME AND TOOK ITS OIL!!! :mad:


That's adorable Wolfenbach. It really is. I have a question, do you drive a vehicle?

No, i don't, i'm under age, but what is your point?

IT WAS, UNTIL US CAME AND TOOK ITS OIL!!! :mad:

the government was rich before the US came, and the government set fire to its oil rather then letting anyone else use them, and then its been a measure of resetting up the oil trade once again.

the war wasn't about the US getting the oil. If anything it was to cause the oil price to go up, so that oil companies could get richer, but it wasn't for the oil itself.

Please note, I am not saying that I feel the war was about anything mentioned, just a statement showing my disapproval to say the US came for the oil. I think in the end, the Iraqi people will get a lot richer with the oil trade.

Do your parents drive a vehicle?

Simply? No.

No, actually it is. It is not necessary to then follow the freed prisoner home and arrange his family life for him, which is basically what we're doing.

Maybe you better argue a bit more than "simply" here since I simply don't understand what you're saying, other than a lot of self righteous moral authoritarianism.


Capable? Yeah, i'd agree with you there. Clearly you're not capable of doing that. Should you try anyway? Yes.

Yeah, that makes sense. We're not right for the job, but we should try even at the expense of Iraqi sovereignty and the wishes of the Iraqi government and at the lives of the Iraqi people.

Do your parents drive a vehicle?
Let it go! This nit picking doesn't address the problem of how do you solve the current situation!

Let it go! This nit picking doesn't address the problem of how do you solve the current situation!
Most opponents of the Iraq War are not concerned with solutions. They wish to run away immediately, and blame anything that happens afterwards on Bush, not on themselves.

A simple extension of the "Never try, never fail" philosophy.

Do your parents drive a vehicle?

Yes, both of them! I still don't see your point!

Why not just put Saddam back in power? Yeah, he was a sick bastard, but at least he kept the country together. He was a brutal tyrant, but that's the rule, not the exception, in the Middle East. Under him, Iraq was once a prosperous country. There was stability, peace, free education and healthcare, etc. No, I am not a Saddam apologist. I hate him as much as the next guy. BUT his rule is much preferrable to the chaos in Iraq now.

No, actually it is. It is not necessary to then follow the freed prisoner home and arrange his family life for him, which is basically what we're doing.

Maybe you better argue a bit more than "simply" here since I simply don't understand what you're saying, other than a lot of self righteous moral authoritarianism....

If the promise would have been, hey I'm going to get you out of jail, you are on your own from there, then that would be the end of it.

But if the promise was to take out the jail master, his henchmen, and free all those that are under his control, and to restore democracy to the land, well you still have a long way to go.

The US didn't just say, "we are going to kill the tyrant and then its up to you"

they said they would bring democracy, that they would free them from their oppressors.

So we pull out when the government asks us to, and we set up a time table to do it in.

I have tried without the "flameworthy" approach and this seems to work, just a tad better.

Screw the liberals.

Semper Fi:mp5: :sniper:

When you say "seems to work" what exactly do you mean? It works better at provoking people into flamewars? It works better on releasing your obvious anger? It works better at making you look like a child? It certainly doesn't work at making your point at all.

No, actually it is. It is not necessary to then follow the freed prisoner home and arrange his family life for him, which is basically what we're doing.
Yes, it is. You (the administration) promised to 'free them from tyranny' and give them democracy blah blah blah. Leaving a power vacuum after taking out a dictator A: is not smart for Iraq, or the United States B: Is morally equivalent to letting them die after you promised to show them say, where the well was in the desert, but help them get the water.


Maybe you better argue a bit more than "simply" here since I simply don't understand what you're saying, other than a lot of self righteous moral authoritarianism.
What I'm saying dear fellow is, you made the mess, now you clean it up. Don't come crying other people saying 'Its too hard' :(


Yeah, that makes sense. We're not right for the job, but we should try even at the expense of Iraqi sovereignty and the wishes of the Iraqi government and at the lives of the Iraqi people.
You leave now, Iraqi will undoubtedly lose whatever fragile chance its got at surviving. The wishes of the iraqi govt and people are to live- leave now and its highly dubious they will, in the current climate.

(by the by, I'm anti-war)

they said they would bring democracy, that they would free them from their oppressors.

They would bring democracy on the tips of their bayonets! Nobody asked them for such a favour...

Most opponents of the Iraq War are not concerned with solutions. They wish to run away immediately, and blame anything that happens afterwards on Bush, not on themselves.

A simple extension of the "Never try, never fail" philosophy.

I'm for actually spending the money that had been allocated for training Iraqi forces, which to date only a fraction has been. I want Iraq to stand on its own, and they want the same thing. In the end, it's about giving them sovereignty, and respecting it, which is the exact thing we AREN'T doing.

Let's look at more opinions:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1016

Scroll down to the table titled, "Opinion Leaders Pessimistic On Iraq"

Now note the difference between people in the news media as compared to the general public.

Most opponents of the Iraq War are not concerned with solutions. They wish to run away immediately, and blame anything that happens afterwards on Bush, not on themselves.

A simple extension of the "Never try, never fail" philosophy.

That actually gets annoying. I was against the war and all that went with it- but now the issue is how to help them- not piss around enjoying the fact the Us is screwing up- people are dying while that is going on.

I think you liberals are funny. You are so concerned with our soldiers in Iraq. Talk to a veteran of this war, he or she will tell you that they want to be there to help. Its not a problem, its a solution. yeah they will be fighting forever, but as long as it keeps them from attacking anyone else, it is a victory. People say Vietnam was a loss for the U.S. It wasnt. The goal of the vietnam war was to stop the spread of communism, last time i checked, it worked. This is no differnt. WE are stopping the spread of Terrorism from affecting the U.S. You liberals sit there with no clue on what's going on, you watch cnn and get the daily body count. FUCK CNN. Take a look at how many innocent Iraqi citezens were killed by saddam ad terrorists. It nowhere near comes close to the body count. As a veteran of this war, I have seen 90% good in that country, and 10% terrorism. In a few years, you fucktards will see.


Semper Fi:sniper:

They would bring democracy on the tips of their bayonets! Nobody asked them for such a favour...
and I didn't say that anyone did, nor is the post about that.

If you are going to quote me just to make a stance against it, make sure you are quoteing something that is connected to what you're saying.

Your above post does nothing to distract from the thread at hand.

I was saying that they had promised something, and now they had better not give up until what they promised was on its way into motion, and that it had a better then 50% chance of happening, unlike the 5% it has now.

Note the numbers used above are not statistacally accurte, more of a statement.

*snip*
Thank you for that ever so enlightening piece of drivel. 'Liberal'- nice label. Care to generalise some more?:rolleyes:

Yeas, it is. You (the administration) promised to 'free them from tyranny'

Which we did.

and give them democracy blah blah blah.

Is that not a democratic government they have? It certainly is a "democratic blah blah blah" government, kinda like WE have.

I say, good enough. Job done.

Leaving a power vacuum after taking out a dictator A: is not smart for Iraq, or the United States B: Is morally equivalent to letting them die after you promised to show them say, where the well was in the desert, but help them get the water.

There will be a power vacuum when we pull out no matter what, due to the US tending to have an overwhelming amount of power wherever it goes. So by your reasoning we should never, ever leave - it would create a power vacuum. Let's just say forever.


What I'm saying dear fellow is, you made the mess, now you clean it up. Don't come crying other people saying 'Its too hard' :(


I didn't say "its too hard" nor am I "crying." I like the subtle attempt to portray the argument as essentially cowardice. We didn't make the mess - Saddam made the "mess." We cleaned it up - we got rid of Saddam.


You leave now, Iraqi will undoubtedly lose whatever fragile chance its got at surviving.

Hogwash. It's not undoubted, I doubt that very much. Iraq's lived through a lot. It'll continue to do so.


(by the by, I'm anti-war)

Funny, I was for the war, but against the concept of sticking around and managing their nation for them afterward. I would have preferred to leave as soon as we'd gotten rid of Saddam's administration. THAT was the job we HAD to do morally, what with him being a brutal murdering tyrant and all. "Democracy?" Eh. Spreading our personally preferred political idealogy-semen comes secondary to that.

That actually gets annoying. I was against the war and all that went with it- but now the issue is how to help them- not piss around enjoying the fact the Us is screwing up- people are dying while that is going on.
Yes.

Think of it from the perspective of people who are there now.

Iraqis. US and UK soldiers. Insurgents.

Iraqis want everything to be more stable and get better.
Insurgents are apparently noticing that they had better find a way to become involved in the political process - or risk getting left out.
US and UK soldiers would like to know that they've done some good.

Seems like a plan to make that all happen would be a good thing to try.

But too many would quit now.

I can imagine that if these same people had been around on D-Day, and we had the 24-hour newscycle back then, the US would have quit the war on June 7, 1944 - the UK probably would have quit as well. And the USSR would have surrendered at Stalingrad, rather than risk further civilian casualties.

It's the same reason given by Petain for his reason to surrender France in 1940 - he didn't want France to suffer any more casualties.

Yes.

Think of it from the perspective of people who are there now.

Iraqis. US and UK soldiers. Insurgents.

Iraqis want everything to be more stable and get better.
Insurgents are apparently noticing that they had better find a way to become involved in the political process - or risk getting left out.
US and UK soldiers would like to know that they've done some good.

Seems like a plan to make that all happen would be a good thing to try.

But too many would quit now.

I can imagine that if these same people had been around on D-Day, and we had the 24-hour newscycle back then, the US would have quit the war on June 7, 1944 - the UK probably would have quit as well. And the USSR would have surrendered at Stalingrad, rather than risk further civilian casualties.

It's the same reason given by Petain for his reason to surrender France in 1940 - he didn't want France to suffer any more casualties.

But in WWII, France, the UK, and the USSR had their survival at stake. The nations in the 'Coalition of the Willing' do not have their survival at stake. Iraq posed no threat to any other nation.

I say, good enough. Job done.

Yeah.... sure LOOKS that way alright doesn't it. :rolleyes:


There will be a power vacuum when we pull out no matter what, due to the US tending to have an overwhelming amount of power wherever it goes. So by your reasoning we should never, ever leave - it would create a power vacuum. Let's just say forever.
What?! No you %^&. If you leave a stable secure govt then there IS no vacuum! Jeez.



I didn't say "its too hard" nor am I "crying." I like the subtle attempt to portray the argument as essentially cowardice. We didn't make the mess - Saddam made the "mess." We cleaned it up - we got rid of Saddam.
Yeah, Saddam invaded you.. and caused the whole problem.. riight.



Hogwash. It's not undoubted, I doubt that very much. Iraq's lived through a lot. It'll continue to do so.
In 15 years or less- Iraq will cease to exist. There will be 3 seperate entities there.

I think you liberals are funny. You are so concerned with our soldiers in Iraq. Talk to a veteran of this war, he or she will tell you that they want to be there to help. Its not a problem, its a solution. yeah they will be fighting forever, but as long as it keeps them from attacking anyone else, it is a victory. People say Vietnam was a loss for the U.S. It wasnt. The goal of the vietnam war was to stop the spread of communism, last time i checked, it worked. This is no differnt. WE are stopping the spread of Terrorism from affecting the U.S. You liberals sit there with no clue on what's going on, you watch cnn and get the daily body count. FUCK CNN. Take a look at how many innocent Iraqi citezens were killed by saddam ad terrorists. It nowhere near comes close to the body count. As a veteran of this war, I have seen 90% good in that country, and 10% terrorism. In a few years, you fucktards will see.


Semper Fi:sniper:



Dude. You need to chill. I actually WANT to respect you for your contribution. But you're acting like a dick, and that's making it amazingly difficult to do so. Back off a little. I'm not in favor of letting the Iraqis twist in the wind any more than most of the people here. The problem, however, is that wdont' appear to be taking steps to help them do things on their own either. Wether it's training Iraqi security forces, or just ordering corporate contractors to give them jobs. That is the kind of stuff that needs to happen at this stage.

*snip*
This is so surreal. I normally am at polar opposites to you on these issues- but am finding myself agreeing with you on the solutions! :eek: Yipes!

I think you liberals are funny. You are so concerned with our soldiers in Iraq. Talk to a veteran of this war, he or she will tell you that they want to be there to help. Its not a problem, its a solution. yeah they will be fighting forever, but as long as it keeps them from attacking anyone else, it is a victory. People say Vietnam was a loss for the U.S. It wasnt. The goal of the vietnam war was to stop the spread of communism, last time i checked, it worked. This is no differnt. WE are stopping the spread of Terrorism from affecting the U.S. You liberals sit there with no clue on what's going on, you watch cnn and get the daily body count. FUCK CNN. Take a look at how many innocent Iraqi citezens were killed by saddam ad terrorists. It nowhere near comes close to the body count. As a veteran of this war, I have seen 90% good in that country, and 10% terrorism. In a few years, you fucktards will see.


Semper Fi:sniper:


Just because a solider has a different opinion or has been over there to see their opinion furthered, doesn't mean that their opinion has a greater merit then me.

You use the term "liberal" as one would use any other term of predjudice and vice. You use angry words, and vulgality. I was always raised that the person that has to resort to curese and insults to get their point across may not have that strong of a point, and if they do, then they don't know enough about it to talk about it if they have to substitute words of intelligence with words of ignorance.

You would make a greater arguement if you learned diplomacy of words. You are allowed to speak how ever you wish, but if you want to be chosen to be listened to, then you should really learn to speak to your audiance.

But in WWII, France, the UK, and the USSR had their survival at stake. The nations in the 'Coalition of the Willing' do not have their survival at stake. Iraq posed no threat to any other nation.

Saddam seemed to have posed a major threat to the Shias and Kurds.

I suppose if Hitler had not invaded any country, and was merely gassing and cremating millions of German citizens classified as untermensch, you would see no reason to invade Germany?

Saddam seemed to have posed a major threat to the Shias and Kurds.

I suppose if Hitler had not invaded any country, and was merely gassing and cremating millions of German citizens classified as untermensch, you would see no reason to invade Germany?
In fairness, neither did anyone back then either :( Saving the Jews wasn't high on states agendas back then. :(

Saddam seemed to have posed a major threat to the Shias and Kurds.

I suppose if Hitler had not invaded any country, and was merely gassing and cremating millions of German citizens classified as untermensch, you would see no reason to invade Germany?

Of course not! Why the fuck is it our business what happens over there? We're not the goddamn world policeman! :headbang:

This is so surreal. I normally am at polar opposites to you on these issues- but am finding myself agreeing with you on the solutions! :eek: Yipes!

For people who are in combat, once it starts, the political and policy reasons for the war are essentially of no importance whatsoever.

You become focused on accomplishing what you can in a local manner. And you almost never hear the political windbaggery that passes for news.

No sense in going there without leaving the place in a state acceptable to the locals. But that may take some time.

Yeah.... sure LOOKS that way alright doesn't it. :rolleyes:


I'd say so. http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/ArticleImages/saddamTrial_web.jpg


What?! No you %^&. If you leave a stable secure govt then there IS no vacuum! Jeez.

And of course, who gets to define "stable secure govt?" We do, apparently.

And I take offense at the name "%^&." :p


Yeah, Saddam invaded you.. and caused the whole problem.. riight.


No, actually he invaded Kuwait. The way I see it is getting him out of power was the job that was never completed in the 90s. But it's complete today and the problem - Iraqi tyranny - is gone.


In 15 years or less- Iraq will cease to exist. There will be 3 seperate entities there.

Well okay, Nostradamus, but then I don't see it as our duty to insure that Iraq is one political hegemony and not three. If they can't hold it together without us then that is their problem, not ours. If Saddam's tyranny was all that could maintain unity in Iraq, let's not compound the issue by replacing his enforced mandate with our own hmmm?

I'd say so.
Yeah you got him. Is the place any more secure, stable, better to live in right now?


And of course, who gets to define "stable secure govt?" We do, apparently.
The Iraqis themselves.. though I am worried what will happen if a style of govt comes into power that the US doesn't agree with.... 're invade'?

And I take offense at the name "%^&." :p
:D Apologies



No, actually he invaded Kuwait. The way I see it is getting him out of power was the job that was never completed in the 90s. But it's complete today and the problem - Iraqi tyranny - is gone.
Meh.. we could go back further and why things weren't done after say, Halabjah and all that.



Well okay, Nostradamus, but then I don't see it as our duty to insure that Iraq is one political hegemony and not three. If they can't hold it together without us then that is their problem, not ours. If Saddam's tyranny was all that could maintain unity in Iraq, let's not compound the issue by replacing his enforced mandate with our own hmmm?

Think about it- Kurds in the North been desperate for their own state for decades.. Hello Kurdistan.
The Shias in the south are gaining more and more influence in local govt especially near Basra- allying themselves with their Shia brethern in Iran... join Iran in an autonomous move
The Sunnis left in the middle with no resources... pretty much screwed in the end.

They are fractured to f*** historically. If the Coaltion leave now- it will hasten the split. If they stay- they might just save some lives.

Saddam seemed to have posed a major threat to the Shias and Kurds.

I suppose if Hitler had not invaded any country, and was merely gassing and cremating millions of German citizens classified as untermensch, you would see no reason to invade Germany?

Rather than invade Germany, I would have supported a military coup or an assassination attempt against Hitler, but not an invasion.

Let's bring them home. There's no point in staying in Iraq. The longer we stay, the more of our boys get killed, the more innocent Iraqis get killed, the more the world hates us, the more recruits Al Quaeda gets, the more tax dollars get flushed down the toilet, the more our debt increases. There is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't just pack up, leave immediately, and never come back.
thank you!

Rather than invade Germany, I would have supported a military coup or an assassination attempt against Hitler, but not an invasion.

And how would that have stopped the death camps?

The whole bureaucracy of German government at the time was running it - not just Hitler. In fact, he seems to have taken a rather hands-off approach.

It is interesting how according to the war-lovers, that the White House had every right to invade another country, but the citizens of that country don't have the right to defend themselves. I am all for bring the troops home, for all the reasons that were obvious from the start. People all over the United States and the world protested this war before it even began. I knew (and I don't have access to special intelligence) that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that invading Iraq would only lead to more terrorism against coalition countries, not less (this is only logical) that Iraq would never have democracy (if by democracy you actually mean democracy, rule by the people) because if they ruled themselves they might actually want their oil, instead of letting American corporations have it for bargain basement prices. This is of course an unwinnable war, for the reasons that Vietnam was unwinnable. In Vietnam, the people supported the Viet Mien (Viet Cong), and therefore it became a war against the people. The more that were killed the more the people hated the US troops. Once the conflict is organized in this manner, all the best intentions by the troops won't matter very much. This is why even pro-war politicians like Murtha are calling for troop redeployment, because that the war is unwinnable is obvious. Bringing the troops home will stop violence against them and will increase worldwide good will against the American people who have finally seen what has been obvious for the rest of the world for so long.

And how would that have stopped the death camps?

The whole bureaucracy of German government at the time was running it - not just Hitler. In fact, he seems to have taken a rather hands-off approach.

We could have covertly funded anti-Nazi resistance groups, used proxy armies, air strikes, etc.

It is interesting how according to the war-lovers, that the White House had every right to invade another country, but the citizens of that country don't have the right to defend themselves. I am all for bring the troops home, for all the reasons that were obvious from the start. People all over the United States and the world protested this war before it even began. I knew (and I don't have access to special intelligence) that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that invading Iraq would only lead to more terrorism against coalition countries, not less (this is only logical) that Iraq would never have democracy (if by democracy you actually mean democracy, rule by the people) because if they ruled themselves they might actually want their oil, instead of letting American corporations have it for bargain basement prices. This is of course an unwinnable war, for the reasons that Vietnam was unwinnable. In Vietnam, the people supported the Viet Mien (Viet Cong), and therefore it became a war against the people. The more that were killed the more the people hated the US troops. Once the conflict is organized in this manner, all the best intentions by the troops won't matter very much. This is why even pro-war politicians like Murtha are calling for troop redeployment, because that the war is unwinnable is obvious. Bringing the troops home will stop violence against them and will increase worldwide good will against the American people who have finally seen what has been obvious for the rest of the world for so long.

Bullshit. The people did not support the Vietcong. Granted, the majority of them hated the South Vietnamese government, and many would have preferred the U.S. go home, but the vast majority of them hated the VC. The VC obtained support by kidnapping people, forcing them to join, sending children on suicide missions, and torturing and terrorizing people into submission. Compared to the VC, even the Nazis and Soviets look humane in comparison.

Yeah you got him. Is the place any more secure, stable, better to live in right now?

That's a matter of debate, but a lot of people seem to think yes, it is. And I would definitely say there is a drastically reduced chance of having the secret police come into your house one night, hijack the female members of your family off to be raped by the military and political elites and everyone tortured and then killed. That's gotta count for something, no?

And I've heard that the bombers and terrorists are attracted not because theres a power vacuum in Iraq, but because there are US forces there. And that people incourage this situation (despite it resulting in losses for Iraq more than the US) because its a way for the US to fight its war on terror. This to me doesn't seem to be taking the moral highground on our part.

The Iraqis themselves.. though I am worried what will happen if a style of govt comes into power that the US doesn't agree with.... 're invade'?

Probably. And, invasion is something the US does well, so its not like that will be too hard compared to camping out in Iraq for years on end trying to act like their government.
As for whether the Iraqis want us out... they certainly want the timetable for our departure, because I think they're (understandably) concerned that we may just decide their government is NEVER stable or secure enough so the US should just stay forever.



Think about it- Kurds in the North been desperate for their own state for decades.. Hello Kurdistan.

Well, good for them. Maybe its better that they get what they want rather than we the US get what we want at this point?


The Shias in the south are gaining more and more influence in local govt especially near Basra- allying themselves with their Shia brethern in Iran... join Iran in an autonomous move

Well, perhaps thats best for them too.


The Sunnis left in the middle with no resources... pretty much screwed in the end.

Hmm, that might be a concern. One that the Coalition of the Willing should address if and when it happens. We could ally with them to guarantee their sovereignty. More likely they would just get screwed, but if anyone winds up gassing them in large quantities a la Saddam, thats when its our job to step up to the plate again and do what we do best.

They are fractured to f*** historically. If the Coaltion leave now- it will hasten the split. If they stay- they might just save some lives.

Maybe, but not if we're incouraging terrorist action with our mere presence. But because terrorists wind up dying as a result of that, we won't leave. Has relatively nothing to do with democracy and more about our pet war on terror.

We could have covertly funded anti-Nazi resistance groups, used proxy armies, air strikes, etc.

I suggest you take a military history course to see how ineffective the German resistance was (and how tiny), and how inaccurate air strikes of the day were - and how ineffective even our massive bombing campaign was over several years.

Not until the very last year of the war did German production slow a bit - and not due to air strikes.

What proxy armies? Poland? France? Italy? Switzerland? Austria?

ROFLMAO!

I suggest you take a military history course to see how ineffective the German resistance was (and how tiny), and how inaccurate air strikes of the day were - and how ineffective even our massive bombing campaign was over several years.

Not until the very last year of the war did German production slow a bit - and not due to air strikes.

What proxy armies? Poland? France? Italy? Switzerland? Austria?

ROFLMAO!

*shrug*

*shrug*

That's called "wishful thinking" Magdha - the idea that you can just wish bad things away.

the discussion arises because people wish to talk about it. To be quite honest and frank about it, your opinion at this time doesn't matter. This thread will never see its way into a room of officals wishing to vote on the matter of taking them home and saying, "look, deep kimchi says this...."

The long and short of it all is this, the opinions of any single person don't matter, but the opinion of a united people are listened to. Would I be afraid of one person coming up to me, dressed as I am, armed as I am, and saying, you are wrong, and you need to stop." not really. If a hundred people walked up to me and said the same thing, I would probally reconsider what ever it was that I was doing. Doesn't mean I'll just stop and give up, but at the same time, I doubt it would be something that I would risk 100 people coming at me.

Not to say it only matters about the threat, because its not that way, it was just an object lesson.

onto my opinion about the question at hand.

Should we pull out? I think yes. Should we pull out asap? I think yes. What is as soon as possible? Well, thats the question that needs to be addressed. Its not overnight, its not a couple of days, and its not a matter of weeks either. We need to pull out once the Iraqi government is able to defend and protect its people. That is in end goal. I don't agree that we should have gone in there and taken out the government the way that we did, but the damage and deaths that would happen if we just pulled out now would make the war look like a walk in a small town suburban park, in my opinion.

The biggest complaint that I have is that people handle the war in a policital correctness fashion. There is no such thing as a politically correct war, and so following that measure, one cannon win one policitcally correct. So what you get is needless deaths, and in the end, nothing gets done. What needs to be done is a hard line must be drawn. Set things up in 'military lockdown' and if anyone violates that, either arrest them, or if they attack against that, then bring it down around them.

Sure, in a politically correct way, innocent people are going to die. Well, if people would listen, and not rebel against the rules, then it would all be done with relitivily quickly. Just like in France, riots all over the place, then the military locks everything down, and boom, it dies out fast. Same thing in Iraq. The militants will rebel against it, and then firefights will ensue, but innocent lives will not be taken out.
blah blah blah, let's bring them home and get on with OUR lives!:mad:

Come on usa, it's time to stop this madness in iraq and bring our troops home! Who's with me?!:sniper:

name one good reason

i'll name several why this doesn't make sense:

1)If we leave now, it's quite possible that the insurgents will win.

2)If the insurgents win, the people of IRaq will once again be widely oppressed under a dictatorial regime (just like they were under Saddam, who was really bad, remember?).

3)If the insurgents win, everything we've worked for over the past 2+ years will have been in vain. The democratically elected government of IRaq, the new western-style Iraqi constitution, freedom/voting rights for all Iraqis (not just Sunnis), would all go to shit.

4)If the insurgents win, the 2000+ Americans who've died over there will have died in vain.

We can't leave the Iraqis to rot

We can't let insurgents/terrorists win, lest we embolden them with the thought that the doves of this country will always ruin America's efforts to defend her interests at home and overseas

We can't betray the sacrifices made by those who have already died -- both the Iraqis who've been murdered with intent by insurgents for wanting to take part in their new freedom, and our soldiers who've died to give them that freedom.

We started the job, and we must finish it.

When is the job done?

When Iraqi forces can protect peaceful, law-abiding iraqis from the insurgents/terrorists. It'd be nice if they'd drop their weapons, but I'm not sure if that's likely.

IT WAS, UNTIL US CAME AND TOOK ITS OIL!!! :mad:
Excuse me, but where's this cheap oil the US "stole" that everyone keeps talking about? And please don't come up with some rediculous conspiracy theory that the government wants the evil oil companies to take money from all the poor american people.

That's called "wishful thinking" Magdha - the idea that you can just wish bad things away.

thanks, you beat me to the punch.

Excuse me, but where's this cheap oil the US "stole" that everyone keeps talking about? And please don't come up with some rediculous conspiracy theory that the government wants the evil oil companies to take money from all the poor american people.

yeah, no kidding, to listen to some haters in here you'd think we were flying American flags on top of all their oil wells and shipping it all straight back to the US.

lmmfao

aside from Haliburton being the best in their field and winning a contract -- which helped a lot of American investors, but as far as I know hasn't much increased the US's supply of crude -- how exactly have we profited from Iraq's oil?

again, lol

we haven't stolen shit. it's a freaking humanitarian effort to help rid Iraq of their worst people -- the few who want to oppress the many.

Come on usa, it's time to stop this madness in iraq and bring our troops home! Who's with me?!:sniper:

You want the Oil..you voted in Bush...Reap the whirlwind

You want the Oil..you voted in Bush...Reap the whirlwind
Once again the oil...

You want the Oil..you voted in Bush...Reap the whirlwind
obviously coming from a non-american.

Not all of us voted for Bush. Who doesn't want cheap oil? However, gas prices have risen dramatically since the US was over there. Whirlwind? I got your whirlwind right here.

and on that note. I think it would be a mistake for the coalition to just leave. However, if the Iraqi gov't wants a timetable, we should give them one. We're there because they want us there, once that changes, we should leave.

Tho if you watched the show "Off to War" on the discovery times channel (yah, biased media i know) it seems like the iraqi's don't want us there. But that could just have been brilliant editing. who knows :shrug:

Come on usa, it's time to stop this madness in iraq and bring our troops home! Who's with me?
I am. They can come home when they've finished the job they were sent there to do in the first place. :p

You want the Oil..you voted in Bush...Reap the whirlwind
What oil? What whirlwind? Get real or get out. :p

IT WAS, UNTIL US CAME AND TOOK ITS OIL!!! :mad:
Have a serious problem with logic and facts, do we? Tsk! :D

Well, the majority of Americans don't agree with you.



The majority of Germans in 1930's thought Hitler was a great leader. going by your theory of the majority is always right, that means he was. Also, the majority of the US people managed to elect Bush.

we haven't stolen shit. it's a freaking humanitarian effort to help rid Iraq of their worst people -- the few who want to oppress the many.

Ahahahahahahahahahaha! :D

You made a funny. "humanitarian effort"... :rolleyes: How did you come up with that one? Hihihi! :p

The majority of Germans in 1930's thought Hitler was a great leader. going by your theory of the majority is always right, that means he was. Also, the majority of the US people managed to elect Bush.

wait, did i miss the crack at bush or was there none intended? :p

average iq ring a bell to anyone :confused: