QFTAn Enlarged Liver wrote:
Don't get it do you. We can not win no matter how fucking long we stay dumbass. We could be there for a hundred fucking years and there will still be suicide bombers just like there was today (in the most fortified place in Iraq's entirety). Just more wasted money on a tyrants legacy and dead US soldiers and Iraqi's.comet241 wrote:
i feel the same about you. keep cramming what the liberal media feeds you down your gullet. thats what they want, just like a good boy.
great idea: lets cut and run, do another half-assed job.
regardless of what you may feel about our reasons for being there in the first place are, there is no arguing that we are there, and what we do next makes a big difference.
reference my previous post and ask yourself the same question:
would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?
Or: South Korea or Vietnam?
The difference between cutting and running and sticking it out, no matter the cost, is pretty clear.
Nobody expects teh isolationisms now. Events throughout the later half of the 19th and all of the 20th century have destroyed the isolationist view of the United States. You could really even argue back to the Monroe Doctrine as not truly an isolationist (need a thesaurus) policy. The last 75 years or so really take the cake with the Soviets, the Truman Doctrine and onward.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'd argue being isolationist most of the time is a good thing. Yes, you can't be purely isolationist, but 9 times out of 10, that's the way to go.
Isolationism would be the end. Like I said the concept is not bad but given what we have become it is not going to happen. Too many sacrifices that Americans are unwilling to accept.
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-13 10:49:42)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Wow, a lot of anger over this topic, eh? Here's the problem: cutting and running at this stage would do more harm than good. Sure, it would save some american lives, but at the cost of what and who? how many countless people would be murdered in an unbridled wave of sectarian violence that would spread throughout the country, and most likely spill over into other countries? Do you really think everything would be happy-go-lucky now that those 'awful americans' are gone?An Enlarged Liver wrote:
Don't get it do you. We can not win no matter how fucking long we stay dumbass. We could be there for a hundred fucking years and there will still be suicide bombers just like there was today (in the most fortified place in Iraq's entirety). Just more wasted money on a tyrants legacy and dead US soldiers and Iraqi's.comet241 wrote:
i feel the same about you. keep cramming what the liberal media feeds you down your gullet. thats what they want, just like a good boy.
great idea: lets cut and run, do another half-assed job.
regardless of what you may feel about our reasons for being there in the first place are, there is no arguing that we are there, and what we do next makes a big difference.
reference my previous post and ask yourself the same question:
would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea?
Or: South Korea or Vietnam?
The difference between cutting and running and sticking it out, no matter the cost, is pretty clear.
Im not arguing that there wont be suicide bombers 100 years from now. I know that, and i never said anything contrary to that. Regardless of why we went to war, we are there now and there is nothing changing that. Im arguing that by sticking it out, we will be doing more for peace in the long run than by cutting and running. Why are you trying to push for history to repeat itself? It is estimated, and this is just an estimate and reports vary, that between 3 and 10 times as many civilians died in vietnam and cambodia AFTER the first 5 years of Americans leaving than during the entire vietnam conflict... between 300,000 and 3,000,000 is the estimates ive seen, the truth is somewhere in the middle... as opposed to an estimated 100,000 civilians dying during the conflict.
Do we expect things to go differently in iraq? Do you HONESTLY believe that there will be peace after we leave? Do you put American lives ahead of innocent civilians from another country?
You haven't answered any of the hard questions. cutting and running is ignoring the underlying problems and future problems that will result. it's the easy way out, but is it the right way?
Comet241 I understand what you are saying, I really do. But please make an effort to see the basic flaw that has now become apparent.
What are we fighting for?
Why not put a few thousand of those troops on our borders, ramp up security, and stop dumping billions in a country of corruption. Anyone who believes that the credit for new schools and running water is going to the Great Satan is sadly mistaken. That money could be better used in our most vital tool against an idea like terrorism, intelligence.
We must engage our enemies, but we must think in terms of the best way to do this as well. This does not equate to surrender or "Cut and Run". In the military you must be able to reocognize new problems, rethink, and adjust.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
What are we fighting for?
- A stable Iraq? It was stable before we went in.
- The Iraqi government? Al-Sadr, the guy who is calling for attacks against Americans, has a very active role in the government. Do we die to promote a government that says.. well , we should die.
- The rights of the Iraqi people? I am glad to see the return (to some degree) of womens rights. But there is nothing that permits us in our constitution to invade a country in order to allow women to be able to drive automobiles.
- Fight them over there instead of here? It only took a few to cause an incredibly tragic event. Our occupation is being used as a tool to recruit thousands.
Why not put a few thousand of those troops on our borders, ramp up security, and stop dumping billions in a country of corruption. Anyone who believes that the credit for new schools and running water is going to the Great Satan is sadly mistaken. That money could be better used in our most vital tool against an idea like terrorism, intelligence.
We must engage our enemies, but we must think in terms of the best way to do this as well. This does not equate to surrender or "Cut and Run". In the military you must be able to reocognize new problems, rethink, and adjust.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-13 11:46:53)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I feel........cleansed.Kmarion wrote:
Comet241 I understand what you are saying, I really do. But please make an effort to see the basic flaw that has now become apparent.
What are we fighting for?
- A stable Iraq? It was stable before we went in.
- The Iraqi government? Al-Sadr, the guy who is calling for attacks against Americans, has a very active role in the government. Do we die to promote a government that says.. well , we should die.
- The rights of the Iraqi people? I am glad to see the return (to some degree) of womens rights. But there is nothing that permits us in our constitution to invade a country in order to allow women to be able to drive automobiles.
- Fight them over there instead of here? It only took a few to cause an incredibly tragic event. Our occupation is being used as a tool to recruit thousands.
Why not put a few thousand of those troops on our borders, ramp up security, and stop dumping billions in a country of corruption. Anyone who believes that the credit for new schools and running water is going to the Great Satan is sadly mistaken. That money could be better used in our most vital tool against an idea like terrorism, intelligence.
We must engage our enemies, but we must think in terms of the best way to do this as well. This does not equate to surrender or "Cut and Run". In the military you must be able to reocognize new problems, rethink, and adjust.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
+1
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I agree, we need to definately make changes at home before we can start worrying about other countries. The problem that I have is that we are already there. We shouldn't be there for the next hundred years, and we shouldn't leave tomorrow. Obviously the way that we have been going about over there hasn't worked/wont work, and we need to find the solution.
I just dont think that solution is packing our bags and saying: "best of luck"! as the door swings shut behind us.
No, im not providing a solution. I dont think anybody on these forums have the knowledge, background, and experience to provide a solution (ie somebody who has worked at a higher government level for many years and knows a little more than the average joe). The best we can do is make suggestions, form opinions, and vote vote vote.
As far as what we are fighting for: That's a damn good question. I think you'd get a hundred different answers if you asked people. I think my answer would be a combination of your first 3 points.
In regards to the first point in particular: yes, iraq was 'stable' before we went in. I wouldn't say the we in particular made it unstable, but our actions created a situation in which other groups, for various reasons, have created the instability (sunni vs shiite and so on). Is the solution to leave and let them fight it out? Whether we are the direct cause or the indirect cause of the stability, it is our responsibility to stay and see it through to a (hopefully) happy ending. Leaving now would generate another situation in which America created a problem, directly or indirectly, and then abandoned the people they fucked over because of politics.
We have fucked up before, I'm not denying any of that. My question is: When are we going to ignore the polls and the ill-will and selfishness of politicians (on both sides) that they create and do the right thing for once? See something through, do the right thing for other human beings, even if it is because we fucked up.
I just dont think that solution is packing our bags and saying: "best of luck"! as the door swings shut behind us.
No, im not providing a solution. I dont think anybody on these forums have the knowledge, background, and experience to provide a solution (ie somebody who has worked at a higher government level for many years and knows a little more than the average joe). The best we can do is make suggestions, form opinions, and vote vote vote.
As far as what we are fighting for: That's a damn good question. I think you'd get a hundred different answers if you asked people. I think my answer would be a combination of your first 3 points.
In regards to the first point in particular: yes, iraq was 'stable' before we went in. I wouldn't say the we in particular made it unstable, but our actions created a situation in which other groups, for various reasons, have created the instability (sunni vs shiite and so on). Is the solution to leave and let them fight it out? Whether we are the direct cause or the indirect cause of the stability, it is our responsibility to stay and see it through to a (hopefully) happy ending. Leaving now would generate another situation in which America created a problem, directly or indirectly, and then abandoned the people they fucked over because of politics.
We have fucked up before, I'm not denying any of that. My question is: When are we going to ignore the polls and the ill-will and selfishness of politicians (on both sides) that they create and do the right thing for once? See something through, do the right thing for other human beings, even if it is because we fucked up.
It is not reasonable to "see something through" without having a logical reason to do so. I thought the reason was to provide a stable government. The moment Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki sided with the anti-American cleric against our forces I saw a big problem. Those who care about our troops should have alarms going off in their head at this point. This is not a debate about the capability of success. It is a question of what will define success.
Understand also that it is the Iraqi people who are fucking themselves over with the secretarian violence. Don't be afraid to actually blame the people killing their countrymen. Leaving does not make the Sunni/Shiite hate our fault, it has been there longer than America's existence. Staying allows us to continually be blamed for it though. It is a problem only the people of Islam can work out/fix.
Understand also that it is the Iraqi people who are fucking themselves over with the secretarian violence. Don't be afraid to actually blame the people killing their countrymen. Leaving does not make the Sunni/Shiite hate our fault, it has been there longer than America's existence. Staying allows us to continually be blamed for it though. It is a problem only the people of Islam can work out/fix.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Its at a different stage of political development, one far from stable. They're essentially undergoing their own middle ages, but its doubtful they'll recover, simply because they don't seem to want to. He's not being patronizing, he's being honest and realistic. At one point, the Europeans were the center of learning in the classic era of Greece and Rome, while the Arabs in the desert were the savages. Then came the dark ages, and Europe plummeted into a situation of attempted stabilization, and eventual recovery and discovery. Meanwhile, in the East, Arabs soon became some of the greatest astrologers and mathematicians. Why is this? How did Arabs and middle eastern folk inherit such knowledge they never had?CameronPoe wrote:
"Iraq was the Arab world's last chance to board the train to modernity, to give the region a future, not just a bitter past." What a patronising cunt. The Islamic world advanced mankind to a far greater extent than the Christian world during the middle ages. Only yesterday the president of Iran announced the fact that they have 'entered the nuclear club of nations' - a shocking achievement if, like this idiot, you believe Arabs and Muslims have missed their 'last chance to board the train to modernity' and probably dwell in caves of some description. The Arab world is just a different phase of political development from the West and may or may not choose the West's example as the best way forward.
Simple, the Byzantine Empire was in the East, the last remnant of Rome. The Islamic wave overran Byzantine lands like Syria, Egypt, and Palestine. In fact, they did not come up with these skills and know hows by themselves, but by conquering Byzantine lands full of mathematicians and philosophers. The Islamic rulers, recognizing these Christian men's importance, imposed a level of tolerance, to an extent. The Islamic people got credit for developing these medicinal miracles, when they were merely building on the knowledge gained by Romans and Greeks. The reason the Arabs were able to do it at the time was because their empire that had been built on sheer energy and religious fanaticism. They had the wealth and ability to do it. However, their religion which they adhered to so rigorously forbade them from make new discoveries. Europeans when restricted formed new forms of Christianity, more tolerant, for religious principles that can be debated later.
As for this Iran nonsense, well being glad they have nukes is not a good thing, because Iran is insane.
Wake up call, they have been there for at least four hundred years.The_Mac wrote:
They're essentially undergoing their own middle ages, but its doubtful they'll recover, simply because they don't seem to want to.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'm thinking the air is just about out.
What a joke.
In Iraq, benchmarks look more like obstacle course
BAGHDAD: Iraq's political leaders have failed to reach agreement on nearly every law that the United States has demanded as a benchmark, despite heavy pressure from Congress, the White House and top military commanders. With only three months until reports on progress are due in Washington, the deadlock has reached a point where many Iraqi and U.S. officials now question whether any substantive laws will pass before the end of the year.
Kurds have blocked a vote in Parliament on a new oil law. Shiite clerics have stymied a U.S.-backed plan for re-integrating former Baathists into the government. Sunnis are demanding that a constitutional review include more power for the next president.
And even if one or two of the proposals are approved - the oil law appears the most likely, officials said - doubts are spreading about whether the benchmarks can ever halt the cycle of violence.
The war for oil crowd should pay attention to this article
What a joke.
In Iraq, benchmarks look more like obstacle course
BAGHDAD: Iraq's political leaders have failed to reach agreement on nearly every law that the United States has demanded as a benchmark, despite heavy pressure from Congress, the White House and top military commanders. With only three months until reports on progress are due in Washington, the deadlock has reached a point where many Iraqi and U.S. officials now question whether any substantive laws will pass before the end of the year.
Kurds have blocked a vote in Parliament on a new oil law. Shiite clerics have stymied a U.S.-backed plan for re-integrating former Baathists into the government. Sunnis are demanding that a constitutional review include more power for the next president.
And even if one or two of the proposals are approved - the oil law appears the most likely, officials said - doubts are spreading about whether the benchmarks can ever halt the cycle of violence.
The war for oil crowd should pay attention to this article
Xbone Stormsurgezz
This shit was never going to fly in a million years. I can't say I never told ye so ... because I did.
simply put, bush and his cronies dragged america into an unjust war that cannot be won. and the reprecussions of pulling out will be damning.. thats why bush doesnt want the pull out on his watch...
Get out and let a dictator take control again. That or chop Iraqi up onto 3 and have 3 dictators. Either way their is going to be civil war and tens of thousands added to the death toll. Nice to see the US arming both sides in preparation for it. US arms companies might as well make a few more dollars before it ends.
Right back were we started. I only hope that this mess has taught Bush Co something and they don't repeat it again in Iran. Pity it took hundreds of thousands of deaths to demonstrate that you can't control what doesn't want to be controlled. Considering this is Vietnam all over again, I don't hold much hope for the US learning from this experience.
Right back were we started. I only hope that this mess has taught Bush Co something and they don't repeat it again in Iran. Pity it took hundreds of thousands of deaths to demonstrate that you can't control what doesn't want to be controlled. Considering this is Vietnam all over again, I don't hold much hope for the US learning from this experience.
The direction it is headed now really can't be disputed. I am more interested in discussing the fundamental flaws.CameronPoe wrote:
This shit was never going to fly in a million years. I can't say I never told ye so ... because I did.
Are they incapable, do they not want the government they elected and drafted, do they not want it "given/imposed" on them, or is it just the long history of sectarian hate showing?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Kmarion wrote:
it just the long history of sectarian hate showing?
Actually, they were sent there to dismantle Saddam's WMDs.lowing wrote:
THey were sent to Iraq to set up a stable working govt.
I think it's safe to say the American public was not aware an extended occupation would be required. The rapid success of first Gulf war was still fresh in our minds. Saddam had ignored the UN for years. Most (including Congress) were under the impression that "Shock and Awe" would have led to a quick end and compliance. Four years later we can claim to be the "Great Fortune Tellers" capable of peering deep into the Iraqi soul. However, with the amount of information the average American and Brit citizen was given (I'll spare you the reports) at the time predicting such an inconceivable chain of events was impossible. Combine that with the recent event of over 3K of our own getting slaughtered in the streets and you have a public who is susceptible to have someone play on their fears. It doesn't make Americans "War mongering hate filled supremest", it makes them victims of exploitation. Should our intelligence agencies have known, you bet. Did they know and did the policy makers selectively pick their facts, probably. Does any of this help Iraq or America now, no.RedTwizzler wrote:
Actually, they were sent there to dismantle Saddam's WMDs.lowing wrote:
THey were sent to Iraq to set up a stable working govt.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Seems like job's a good un in Iraq, time for Iran?
I think we did not fail in Iraq. The Iraqi people failed themselves. We gave them every chance to stand up and flourish. Simple as that. It seems to me it may be time to leave.