NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/index.html I must admit, one of the 60 something percent in dissent. your thoughts.

Hehehe...

About damn time!

Yeah, there never was a need to commit ground forces to iraq. Saddam's nuclear program easily could have been contained from the air. Just get good intel on his sites and bomb 'em when we get the chance. You have to get discouraged after a couple 5 year set-backs.

We must stay the course not for the good of the US, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

We must stay the course not for the good of the US, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Despite the fact that both the US and the Iraqi people want us to get off the course right now (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503462)?

Surely you're not suggesting that Dubya is smarter than the majority population of two countries?

Finally some people have come to their senses.

Good, people are finally starting to wake up.

We must stay the course not for the good of the US, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

We cannot win by staying the course. Staying the course certainly means keeping forces on the ground and in 4gw, boots on the ground does not work. For every enemy you kill there is another to take his place, for every loss we take public support errodes, for every loss they take public support is bolstered, for every school we build we get 1/10x credit by the people, for every mistake we make we get 1000x credit by the people. There is no way to win.

We must stay the course not for the good of the US, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, that's a good one. :D

Torture is now higher than under Saddam Hussein.
Women's rights have been set back decades.
Christians have been ethnically cleansed from Iraq.
Sunni, Shia and Kurd are at each others' throats.
The police are the militias.
The CIA are running Death Squads.
The militias are running Death Squads.
Anywhere between 30,000 and 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct result of the invasion (although that doesn't mean 655,000 Iraqis have been shot, just that they died when they wouldn't've done if we weren't there).
And so on and so on.

Troops out now! Like I've been saying since... ooh... 1991.

Surely you're not suggesting that Dubya is smarter than the majority population of two countries?

Intelligence is not cumulative. Think of how dumb the average person is, and then reflect upon the fact that half of all people are dumber. Iraqis are understandably pissed off at us, but we need to rebuild their country whether they like it or not. The threat of civil war dangles like the sword of Damocles over the head of the Iraqis, and they ought to be careful lest it fall.

Intelligence is not cumulative. Think of how dumb the average person is, and then reflect upon the fact that half of all people are dumber. Iraqis are understandably pissed off at us, but we need to rebuild their country whether they like it or not. The threat of civil war dangles like the sword of Damocles over the head of the Iraqis, and they ought to be careful lest it fall.

So if you think that so many people are so stupid, then why is democracy so desirable? Especially in a so-called "backwards" region like the Middle East?

We must stay the course not for the good of the US, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

For once you say something even vaguely true.
I honestly don't know the exact situation on the ground there, but it feels like what we did could be likened to knocking the pillar that's supporting the roof of a building down, and now our troops are holding that roof up, keeping it from collapsing. If we pull out too hastily, I fear that Iraq will just totally collapse.

It just feels too easy to assume that Iraq will set itself to rights if we simply leave.

Intelligence is not cumulative. Think of how dumb the average person is, and then reflect upon the fact that half of all people are dumber. Iraqis are understandably pissed off at us, but we need to rebuild their country whether they like it or not. The threat of civil war dangles like the sword of Damocles over the head of the Iraqis, and they ought to be careful lest it fall.

Ah. So Bush know's what's good for them better than they know what's good for them. Good to know.

As a random quip, my History teacher stated that Congress never declared war with Iraq... any truth to this? Anyone know?

For once you say something even vaguely true.
I honestly don't know the exact situation on the ground there, but it feels like what we did could be likened to knocking the pillar that's supporting the roof of a building down, and now our troops are holding that roof up, keeping it from collapsing. If we pull out too hastily, I fear that Iraq will just totally collapse...

:p It's too late. The roof's already collapsed, and our troops are stuck in the rubble along with the Iraqis... and the Iraqis are getting the worst of it.

If we leave, things might get better.
If we stay, things will get worse.

"I don't know..." "...but it feels like..."
Truthiness at its finest.

It just feels too easy to assume that Iraq will set itself to rights if we simply leave.
Yeah! What do they know? It's only their country, after all...

Finally some people have come to their senses.

Beat me to it. x.x

Ah. So Bush know's what's good for them better than they know what's good for them. Good to know.

As a random quip, my History teacher stated that Congress never declared war with Iraq... any truth to this? Anyone know?

True. No formal declaration of war has been made by the U.S. since World War II.

For once you say something even vaguely true.
I honestly don't know the exact situation on the ground there, but it feels like what we did could be likened to knocking the pillar that's supporting the roof of a building down, and now our troops are holding that roof up, keeping it from collapsing. If we pull out too hastily, I fear that Iraq will just totally collapse.

It just feels too easy to assume that Iraq will set itself to rights if we simply leave.

It's more like we took the top off a can full of bees. By taking out Saddam, we destabilized the entire region, and allowed mass chaos to ensue(Saddam, being mostly secular, did not enjoy Islamic Fundamentalists, and kept them a rather small minority in the region-by removing him, and thus removing a major power in the region, there is less control over the Fundamentalists). We removed the lid from teh can, and can't put it back on because we are swarmed by bees, and thus cannot get close enough. We're trying to, but it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible.

True. No formal declaration of war has been made by the U.S. since World War II.

So, technically speaking, President Bush declared war on Iraq, more or less, however only Congress can officially Declare war... which in turn means that that Bush broke Constitutional law, which in turn means... Imeachment! Technicalities and semantics rule the day.

Seriously though, then since this is not an actual War, why is it that so many people(including the President himself, I do believe) claim this to be a war? Is it not simply a conflict(Such as with Korea in the early 1950's and Vietnam)?

It's more like we took the top off a can full of bees. By taking out Saddam, we destabilized the entire region, and allowed mass chaos to ensue(Saddam, being mostly secular, did not enjoy Islamic Fundamentalists, and kept them a rather small minority in the region-by removing him, and thus removing a major power in the region, there is less control over the Fundamentalists). We removed the lid from teh can, and can't put it back on because we are swarmed by bees, and thus cannot get close enough. We're trying to, but it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible.

But since we opened this particular can of bees, don't we owe it to Iraqi's to put the lid back on again?


Truthiness at its finest.

I'm not a general, nor am I a military strategy specialist. I will not give absolute statements of fact on things of which I only have periphreal knowledge. I apologise for using honest language in my statements.

Yeah! What do they know? It's only their country, after all... We're a foreign occupying force, of course they want us out. We killed their government, so now we have to act in their place, for their best interests. Once people stop dying in the streets on a daily basis, they can begin building a democracy.

So, technically speaking, President Bush declared war on Iraq, more or less, however only Congress can officially Declare war... which in turn means that that Bush broke Constitutional law, which in turn means... Imeachment! Technicalities and semantics rule the day.


....what? Congress approved the use of force in Iraq.

Despite the fact that both the US and the Iraqi people want us to get off the course right now (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503462)?

Surely you're not suggesting that Dubya is smarter than the majority population of two countries?

Don't forget, God doesn't talk to the majority of population in those countries, but He does talk to Bush. ;)

The congress can, at any time, recall active soldiers en masse. Wether the expected democratic majority does anything with this power will weigh heavily on wether I ever give them another chance.

We must stay the course not for the good of the US, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
Jeez, do you have a 'Bush soundboard' that just pumps out these meaningless jingoistic cliches?

Jeez, do you have a 'Bush soundboard' that just pumps out these meaningless jingoistic cliches?
Heh... "Baby's First Spin Zone".

Good, people are finally starting to wake up.

*Comes out of cyrogenic freeze chamber.*

Finally. dissent in Iraq. I've been waiting a couple years.

Who won the FIFA World Cup?

So, technically speaking, President Bush declared war on Iraq, more or less, however only Congress can officially Declare war... which in turn means that that Bush broke Constitutional law, which in turn means... Imeachment! Technicalities and semantics rule the day.

Seriously though, then since this is not an actual War, why is it that so many people(including the President himself, I do believe) claim this to be a war? Is it not simply a conflict(Such as with Korea in the early 1950's and Vietnam)?

Every conflict since WWII has been authorized by Congress and pursued by both the President and Congress. They simply aren't called "wars", for whatever reasons. It's entirely legal in a Constitutional sense, so you can't call for impeachment just yet.

I think the President's rhetoric about the war has to do with mobilizing the population into supporting it. "War" sounds a lot more serious than "authorized conflict", and it probably ties in well with the rhetoric about the "War on Terror". Remember, political speech is full of bullshit, exaggeration, half-truths, and maybe a little serious material. Don't take all of it too literally.

We're a foreign occupying force, of course they want us out. We killed their government, so now we have to act in their place, for their best interests. Once people stop dying in the streets on a daily basis, they can begin building a democracy.

Yeh, because they're totally going to stop attacking the occupiers and Iraqi collaborators because... um... they won't go away otherwise... um.

Anyone else see the major flaw in that logic?

Intelligence is not cumulative. Think of how dumb the average person is, and then reflect upon the fact that half of all people are dumber. Iraqis are understandably pissed off at us, but we need to rebuild their country whether they like it or not. The threat of civil war dangles like the sword of Damocles over the head of the Iraqis, and they ought to be careful lest it fall.

We're Gonna civilize them whether they like it or not!

We tried that with Native Americans... All we did was kill most of them off.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/index.html I must admit, one of the 60 something percent in dissent. your thoughts.

Yet more than that supported going into Iraq initially. The majority of the dissenters are upset that things are not going as smoothly but instead of wanting a Murtha approach they are looking for a McCain approach, get more troops, get stricter with the Iraqi authorities and get tougher on Syria and Iran to stay out of Iraqi affairs.

A new Defense Secretary might help too.

Yet more than that supported going into Iraq initially. The majority of the dissenters are upset that things are not going as smoothly but instead of wanting a Murtha approach they are looking for a McCain approach, get more troops, get stricter with the Iraqi authorities and get tougher on Syria and Iran to stay out of Iraqi affairs.

A new Defense Secretary might help too.

Getting into the war was stupid and wrong. Now that we are in the war, we need to win it.

The people fighting in Iraq arn't just fighting because we're there, they are fighting because they want to take over. They want their particular sect or military faction to run the place. If we leave, there'll be nothing in their way.

Do the advocates of simply leaving now honestly believe that in the state the Iraqi security forces are in now, that they could hold their own against the various militant groups

....what? Congress approved the use of force in Iraq.

Shhh! They don't need to know that.

I was joking, of course.

We're Gonna civilize them whether they like it or not!

We're not going to "civilize" them. We will protect them from extremist Islamo-fascist elements of the country, to rebuild the infrastructure from incessant attacks, and to enforce the decisions of the government. If we left right now, Iraq would completely collapse. The Iraqis may not realize this because they are blinded by their irrational hatred of the US, but it is the truth. We screwed up in Iraq before, and the Iraqis hate us for it. That doesn't mean we should leave now. Two wrongs don't make a right.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/index.html I must admit, one of the 60 something percent in dissent. your thoughts.
Watch the video.

We're not going to "civilize" them. We will protect them from extremist Islamo-fascist elements of the country, to rebuild the infrastructure from incessant attacks, and to enforce the decisions of the government. If we left right now, Iraq would completely collapse. The Iraqis may not realize this because they are blinded by their irrational hatred of the US, but it is the truth. We screwed up in Iraq before, and the Iraqis hate us for it. That doesn't mean we should leave now. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Guess what? There were no "extremist Islamo-fascist elements" in Iraq prior to our invasion.

We're not going to "civilize" them. We will protect them from extremist Islamo-fascist elements of the country, to rebuild the infrastructure from incessant attacks, and to enforce the decisions of the government. If we left right now, Iraq would completely collapse. The Iraqis may not realize this because they are blinded by their irrational hatred of the US, but it is the truth. We screwed up in Iraq before, and the Iraqis hate us for it. That doesn't mean we should leave now. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Heh. Funny crap man.

You're gonna force them to accept democracy, whether they like it or not! Force them to accept unity in an unifiedland, whether they like it or not! You're gonna make things right, even when they don't want you to.

A new Defense Secretary might help too.

No. A new administration might help.

Guess what? There were no "extremist Islamo-fascist elements" in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Guess what? We're not going to fix the problems of the present by assigning blame to what people did in the past. We can't build a time machine, so it's pointless to point fingers when 100 people are dying each day in Iraq.

Guess what? We're not going to fix the problems of the present by assigning blame to what people did in the past. We can't build a time machine, so it's pointless to point fingers when 100 people are dying each day in Iraq.

The main catalyst for much of the violence is our presence. By staying, we're only escalating and prolonging the slaughter.

Guess what? We're not going to fix the problems of the present by assigning blame to what people did in the past. We can't build a time machine, so it's pointless to point fingers when 100 people are dying each day in Iraq.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-02-06.jpg

Guess what? You're not going to fix the problems of the present. Period.

Other people will.

The main catalyst for much of the violence is our presence. By staying, we're only escalating and prolonging the slaughter.
The problem is, I haven't been convinced that's true. The violence might continue at the ame level it is now if we leave. If that happens, I can't see the Iraqi people being able to stand up to it.

Honestly, if you could convince me that this is true, I would be on your side in this argument.

We're not going to fix the problems of the present by assigning blame to what people did in the past. We can't build a time machine, so it's pointless to point fingers when 100 people are dying each day in Iraq.
And yet the Republicans have no problem blaming Clinton for our current foreign policy woes...

(Note: Did I just hear MTAE admit that Bush made mistakes in Iraq...?)

Heh... "Baby's First Spin Zone".

You win the thread. :)

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-02-06.jpg

Guess what? You're not going to fix the problems of the present. Period.

Other people will.

Please tell me that last panel isn't saying something that actually happened. Please tell me Hannity isn't that stupid or that delusional. Please tell me that if he did say something that asinine that no one bought his BS.

Please tell me that last panel isn't saying something that actually happened. Please tell me Hannity isn't that stupid or that delusional. Please tell me that if he did say something that asinine that no one bought his BS.

That particular strip is kinda back-dated, so I'd hafta look it up, but my gut tells me no, that bit was just intended to illustrate the the thought processes (or rather, the complete abdication of thought processes) at work in the Bushevik outlook.

Guess what? We're not going to fix the problems of the present by assigning blame to what people did in the past. We can't build a time machine, so it's pointless to point fingers when 100 people are dying each day in Iraq.
This from the people who blame Clinton for causing 9/11.
There were no "terrorists" in Iraq before we came in, deposed Hussein, and destabilised the government. Neither I nor Kishana was blaming anyone for anything, only stating the facts.
The only reason we went into Iraq and started fucking around with them was so Bush could boost his approval ratings. No other reason. Bush didn't want to give them "democracy"; if he did, he wouldn't be forcing it on them, because democracy depends on the will of the people. He didn't give a shit about the terrorists either, since there were none in Iraq before the US moved in. He just wanted to hold on to his "heavenly justified" position in office.

The problem is, I haven't been convinced that's true. The violence might continue at the ame level it is now if we leave. If that happens, I can't see the Iraqi people being able to stand up to it.

Honestly, if you could convince me that this is true, I would be on your side in this argument.
The violence only started when we went in there, after we took out Saddam. Saddam was a major player in the region, and so was able to keep things relatively quiet and the place relatively free of Islamic fundie-fascists. When we came in and sent the country into the anarchic state it is in ATM, we also allowed the terrorists in. The terrorists are fighting us because they want us off their soil; you yourself pointed this out in saying that "they want to take over". So if the reason they are launching attacks is simply because they wish us out, then how can you say that "staying the course" will somehow quiet things down?

This from the people who blame Clinton for causing 9/11.
There were no "terrorists" in Iraq before we came in, deposed Hussein, and destabilised the government. Neither I nor Kishana was blaming anyone for anything, only stating the facts.
The only reason we went into Iraq and started fucking around with them was so Bush could boost his approval ratings. No other reason. Bush didn't want to give them "democracy"; if he did, he wouldn't be forcing it on them, because democracy depends on the will of the people. He didn't give a shit about the terrorists either, since there were none in Iraq before the US moved in. He just wanted to hold on to his "heavenly justified" position in office.


The violence only started when we went in there, after we took out Saddam. Saddam was a major player in the region, and so was able to keep things relatively quiet and the place relatively free of Islamic fundie-fascists. When we came in and sent the country into the anarchic state it is in ATM, we also allowed the terrorists in. The terrorists are fighting us because they want us off their soil; you yourself pointed this out in saying that "they want to take over". So if the reason they are launching attacks is simply because they wish us out, then how can you say that "staying the course" will somehow quiet things down?

I don't necessarily mean staying the course, as in doing exactly what we are now.

I mean winning. I mean pacifying the region. We need to figure out if the region can be passified, and if it can be passified by us we need to do whatever is necessary to make that happen. We owe them that, after the giant pile of shit we've handed them.

If we leave, the warring factions will continue to war, in an extremely bloody fashion, until one gains the upper hand and takes over. After that, it's up in the air which dictator they get.

I don't necessarily mean staying the course, as in doing exactly what we are now.

I mean winning. I mean pacifying the region. We need to figure out if the region can be passified, and if it can be passified by us we need to do whatever is necessary to make that happen. We owe them that, after the giant pile of shit we've handed them.

If we leave, the warring factions will continue to war, in an extremely bloody fashion, until one gains the upper hand and takes over. After that, it's up in the air which dictator they get.

Did you not read my post? The only reason they're "warring" is that we're there. There are no "warring factions" except for us and them. To quote Wikipedia:
Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaida is an armed Sunni Islamist terrorist organization with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, and reestablishing the califate.
The reason they are launching attacks against us is to send the message: Fuck off. They are radicals fighting for a purpose, not a leader, so trying to "pacify" them by slaughtering them with AK-47s really isn't going to do any good. If anything, pulling out would be the best option if you wanted to bring peace to the region.

Did you not read my post? The only reason they're "warring" is that we're there. There are no "warring factions" except for us and them. To quote Wikipedia:

The reason they are launching attacks against us is to send the message: Fuck off. They are radicals fighting for a purpose, not a leader, so trying to "pacify" them by slaughtering them with AK-47s really isn't going to do any good. If anything, pulling out would be the best option if you wanted to bring peace to the region.

Well put.

Well hopefully this will bring about a realisation, particularly of US public opinion of the War in Iraq. People need to realise that the situation from invasion onwards has only deteriorated, it has by no means got better. People are dying in greater amounts and more often than theye ver were under Saddam by a long shot, the country has seeminlgy gone from tyranny to anarchy. In retrospect it could be easily said that Iraq is better off in terms of living conditions under Saddam with the occaisonal Kurd uprisining and political suppression, than in the kind of lawless anarchy in which 90 dead people a day are found on the streets that is the situation these days, with criminal murders and bombings commonplace.

Supporters of this imperialist war may point to that Iraq surposedly has a democratically elected government, this is out and out false, you dont get democracy simply through an election. Iraqi elections show nothing but a sectarian vote which only serves to perpetuate the ethnic/religious conflict in the country, that is not the pluralism of democracy but a furtherance of divisions and conflict. That is the very thing Saddam crushed, albeit brutally, in his time, he kept a fundamentally divided country quiet, and now the US has not only shaken the bees nest so to speak, but gone to it with a jackhammer.

As an Australian I see no way out for the US other than a Vietnam style exit and some quasi religious despot coming to power, at least that way less people will be dying on a regular basis. I respect those US people would generally believe in bringing pluralism and democratic unity to Iraq, but when democracy is coming from the jackboot of the US military it will NEVER work, Iraq has to come to democracy it's own way, and foreign interference will only bring it further from democracy, not closer.

So as an Australia I can see that our largely symbolic force could easily be removed and be replaced by the US with no harm, that way we will decrease our country as being a bulls eye for extremists abroad and those growing at home. And with what the world thinks of the Iraq war I doubt our relations with the US would suffer, and even if they did, honestly who cares?

So, in short, we should leave the US to it's fate.

We must stay the course not for the good of the US, but for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~grummbo/StayOnTarget.jpg

I keep hearing that Bush is such a decisive leader. No flip-flops or indecision.
They're right. But it doesn't do us any good to have a leader who is so decisive if he makes such a habit of making bad choices.

I keep hearing that Bush is such a decisive leader. No flip-flops or indecision.
They're right. But it doesn't do us any good to have a leader who is so decisive if he makes such a habit of making bad choices.

Agreed 100%.

I don't necessarily mean staying the course, as in doing exactly what we are now.

I mean winning. I mean pacifying the region. We need to figure out if the region can be passified, and if it can be passified by us we need to do whatever is necessary to make that happen. We owe them that, after the giant pile of shit we've handed them.

If we leave, the warring factions will continue to war, in an extremely bloody fashion, until one gains the upper hand and takes over. After that, it's up in the air which dictator they get.

and if we stay, we risk plunging the nation into a total civil war.
One that may just jepordize Iraqs oil production, and ruin any hope of an stable economy in that nation.
Such a war between Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites, what do you suppose would be the death toll on civilians?
Reminding you that reputedly over 650,000 civillians are already dead.

Is that worth "staying the course"?

Is that the course we should take?

Or admit that we elected a fucking moron, and that this particular moron made a huge mistake, and that every effort to correct this mistake should be taken the very minute that fool is ousted from office?

The time to realize we cant play Global Cowboy so recklessly anymore, is now.

Time to realize that American policy ultimately affects the world, and the better interest of the world must sometimes be more than a passing thought in our leaders minds.

Imposing our will on other nations costs lives.
Lives that get in the way of our desires.
These people who remind us how "unsafe" we are, are the same ones who have put our safety on the line for the last 30 years.

We need to swallow our damn pride, and admit we have a problem.
Then, take whatever steps are needed to eliminate this problem.

and if we stay, we risk plunging the nation into a total civil war.
One that may just jepordize Iraqs oil production, and ruin any hope of an stable economy in that nation.
Such a war between Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites, what do you suppose would be the death toll on civilians?
Reminding you that reputedly over 650,000 civillians are already dead.

Is that worth "staying the course"?

Is that the course we should take?

Or admit that we elected a fucking moron, and that this particular moron made a huge mistake, and that every effort to correct this mistake should be taken the very minute that fool is ousted from office?

The time to realize we cant play Global Cowboy so recklessly anymore, is now.

Time to realize that American policy ultimately affects the world, and the better interest of the world must sometimes be more than a passing thought in our leaders minds.

Imposing our will on other nations costs lives.
Lives that get in the way of our desires.
These people who remind us how "unsafe" we are, are the same ones who have put our safety on the line for the last 30 years.

We need to swallow our damn pride, and admit we have a problem.
Then, take whatever steps are needed to eliminate this problem.

I hate George Bush.
I don't support the war.
I know it was a mistake.
I know we have a problem.
I just haven't been convinced that the problem will be solved by us pulling out of Iraq immediately.
We need a fucking plan. We need to at least give the Iraqis a fighting chance.
The war has deteriorated, but it is difficult to tell if that is because we are suffering under incompetent leadership, or that the very idea is flawed.
It just feels to me like the people saying "If we pull out now, everything will calm down" sound a lot like the people telling us we would be "greeted as liberators" It all sounds too easy.

I hate George Bush.
I don't support the war.
I know it was a mistake.
I know we have a problem.
I just haven't been convinced that the problem will be solved by us pulling out of Iraq immediately.
We need a fucking plan. We need to at least give the Iraqis a fighting chance.
The war has deteriorated, but it is difficult to tell if that is because we are suffering under incompetent leadership, or that the very idea is flawed.
It just feels to me like the people saying "If we pull out now, everything will calm down" sound a lot like the people telling us we would be "greeted as liberators" It all sounds too easy.

Agreed 100%!!!

You know what, I think the plan might be being formed as we speak

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6057740.stm

A panel of White House advisers is said to be ready to call for a major shift in Washington's policy on Iraq, the Los Angeles Times has reported.
Members of the panel, which is led by former US Secretary of State James Baker, told the newspaper that this could include large troop withdrawals