Reasons to get out of Iraq
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
I'm not sure what sort of neighborhood you grew up in but in my old neighborhood if you ran from a fight that made you an easy convenient target late that same afternoon.
You would probably look more like the guy who puts up a fire and then runs away because he lost control over it. That is how you would look like if you left Iraq right now.
----- If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown God is the only being who, to rule, does not need to exist. -- Charles Baudelaire
Le Centriste wrote:
You would probably look more like the guy who puts up a fire and then runs away because he lost control over it. That is how you would look like if you left Iraq right now.
The longer we stay there, the longer it will seem that way. We're caught up in a deadly game of whac-a-mole that we can't win with the over-extended troops we have there. Hopefully the next administration will wise up to the reality.
Man is a marvelous curiosity ... he thinks he is the Creator's pet ... he even believes the Creator loves him; has a passion for him; sits up nights to admire him; yes and watch over him and keep him out of trouble. He prays to him and thinks He listens. Isn't it a quaint idea. - Mark Twain
-
I didn't percieve the post as anti-American.
Steve
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I didn't percieve to post to be anti-American.
Anyone who espouses any view that remotely contradicts Red's is antiAmerican. He belongs to the Joseph McCarthy school of politics.
Mongkut to a Christian missionary friend: "What you teach us to do is admirable, but what you teach us to believe is foolish".
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
so we're holding classes on how to build IEDs
By "engaging - but not defeating - the terrorist enemy with one of the smartest, most high-tech militaries the world has ever known. To survive, the terrorists and insurgents and militias need to keep improvising their tactics, honing their skills and constantly improving their equipment. These skills and devices are transferable from Iraq across the globe. We may, in other words, be giving Jihadists the best training they have ever had, without obliterating them"
Mike Gaskey wrote:
how far would you run
Sorry - I don't know what you mean. Chased out? Running away? So, what is the point of staying? Can we quell the Iraqi civil war? We might have if we had put in 500,000 troops 3 years ago. But what we have is a "surge" of 160,000 and that will only last until next spring. That hasn't quelled the civil war. The Bagdad government doesn't exist as a national entity and no amount of US troops can change that. The militias have not been disarmed, the terrorists have not been defeated and we have a sectarian police and military. None of this is getting better. Much is getting worse. And this has been the reality for three years now.
oilFactotum wrote:
the terrorists have not been defeated
I agree with much of what you have to say. I find the quote above a little ironic however: the Iraq war has incubated the terrorist problem in Iraq and the purported links with terrorists organisations claimed by the “coalition of the willing” turned out to be bullocks.
Steve
-
Leaving Iraq will not lead to intervention in Darfur. And I do not feel we have any responsibility to be the worlds policeman. Why should we be the ones to send troops to Darfur? Where is the rest of the world? have they no responsibility?
Rob Graham wrote:
Where is the rest of the world? have they no responsibility?
"Once in Africa I lost the corkscrew and we were forced to live off food and water for weeks." - Ernest Hemingway My New Blog
-
oilFactotum wrote:
We are training them to kill us
so we're holding classes on how to build IEDs? EFPs? Or is that Iran?
oilFactotum wrote:
The Iraqi Army and police cannot be trusted
probably not. but if, as you propose, we let them chase us out, how far are you willing to run? Of course I assume they're not planting IEds and EFDs because they want us to leave, that would happen virtually over night if they'd quit planting IEDs and EFDs because the din from the Democrats and the left in general would be so loud leaving would be unavoidable. So maybe it is a two part question: how far would you run, and, why do the insurgents continue insurging? I believe those questions shold be answered first.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike, you just got it totally backwards. Here is the scenario: Lion tamer keeps slapping a lion around the face and the lion keeps trying to bite him. The lion tamer says, 'When you stop trying to bite me, I will stop slapping you' The Lion says, 'When you stop slapping me arond the face, I will stop trying to bite you'. Mike, get out of Iraq. Leave them to whatever hell or heaven they create for themselves, but stop wasting american lives in a pointless struggle. Also, there is no shame in turning around and walking away from a psychopathic crazy who is harrassing you.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Mike, you just got it totally backwards. Here is the scenario: Lion tamer keeps slapping a lion around the face and the lion keeps trying to bite him. The lion tamer says, 'When you stop trying to bite me, I will stop slapping you' The Lion says, 'When you stop slapping me arond the face, I will stop trying to bite you'. Mike, get out of Iraq. Leave them to whatever hell or heaven they create for themselves, but stop wasting american lives in a pointless struggle. Also, there is no shame in turning around and walking away from a psychopathic crazy who is harrassing you.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Probably better to back away - it's best not to turn your back on a psychopathic crazy :)
-
Leaving Iraq will not lead to intervention in Darfur. And I do not feel we have any responsibility to be the worlds policeman. Why should we be the ones to send troops to Darfur? Where is the rest of the world? have they no responsibility?
Rob Graham wrote:
Where is the rest of the world? have they no responsibility?
The rest of the world simply chooses not to interfere in the sovereignty of another country. I would'nt think that *any* country would try to act as a *policeman* unless it saw some material/political gain out of it. Even the UN does not do that.
SG
-
oilFactotum wrote:
We are training them to kill us
so we're holding classes on how to build IEDs? EFPs? Or is that Iran?
oilFactotum wrote:
The Iraqi Army and police cannot be trusted
probably not. but if, as you propose, we let them chase us out, how far are you willing to run? Of course I assume they're not planting IEds and EFDs because they want us to leave, that would happen virtually over night if they'd quit planting IEDs and EFDs because the din from the Democrats and the left in general would be so loud leaving would be unavoidable. So maybe it is a two part question: how far would you run, and, why do the insurgents continue insurging? I believe those questions shold be answered first.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Al Beback wrote:
What most Americans voted for this past year is to get a timeline that includes the progressive withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
cool - so now they read minds at the polling station?
Al Beback wrote:
This would benefit our troops (ie, they would have a clear goal),
Troops do have a clear goal, execute the commands given by a superior.
Al Beback wrote:
it would benefit Americans who for several years have seen NO progress in our very expensive and deadly adventure.
No progress? Who owns the measuring stick? I've seen plenty of progress, you just have to look somewhere other than the lame stream media.
Al Beback wrote:
We're in middle of a civil war; it's not our war anymore. We're spending billions of dollars and putting our troops on the line for nothing. We got rid of the evil dictator, now it's time to let the Iraqis deal with their problems.
Incredibly naive.
Al Beback wrote:
Tell me, if Mexico had a civil war, would you care?
If I were responsible for igniting it, yep.
Al Beback wrote:
If the answer was because they want the foreign occupiers to leave, would you then oblige them?
I really didn't expect you to get the point, but I'll restate it just in case: If they wanted us to leave, they'd be quiet for a week or so, then the yammering of the Democrats would in fact force us out.
Al Beback wrote:
You care more about not looking like a wussy who got his butt kicked in recess.
No, I'm more concerned about the enemy believing we're wussys.
Al Beback wrote:
there are American lives at stake.
like I've said before, we lose 40,000 plus lives a year owing to auto accidents, ready to pull cars off the road?
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
No, I'm more concerned about the enemy believing we're wussys.
Has it ever ocurred to you that if you didn't go round stomping on nations / democracies / causing "collateral damage" (AKA - civillian deaths) that perhaps there wouldn't be so many enemies to confront? Or is that an oversimplification?
"Knock me down, I'll get straight back up again, I'll come back stronger than a powered up pacman" (Lilly Allen / Kaiser Chiefs)
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Where is the rest of the world? have they no responsibility?
The rest of the world simply chooses not to interfere in the sovereignty of another country. I would'nt think that *any* country would try to act as a *policeman* unless it saw some material/political gain out of it. Even the UN does not do that.
SG
SimulationofSai wrote:
The rest of the world simply chooses not to interfere in the sovereignty of another country.
This applies to Darfur? How convenient.
SimulationofSai wrote:
I would'nt think that *any* country would try to act as a *policeman* unless it saw some material/political gain out of it.
And what was the material/political gain in Bosnia? Or Lebanon?
SimulationofSai wrote:
Even the UN does not do that.
Of course not. It would be out of line with their policy of utter ineffectiveness.
-
SimulationofSai wrote:
The rest of the world simply chooses not to interfere in the sovereignty of another country.
This applies to Darfur? How convenient.
SimulationofSai wrote:
I would'nt think that *any* country would try to act as a *policeman* unless it saw some material/political gain out of it.
And what was the material/political gain in Bosnia? Or Lebanon?
SimulationofSai wrote:
Even the UN does not do that.
Of course not. It would be out of line with their policy of utter ineffectiveness.
Rob Graham wrote:
This applies to Darfur? How convenient.
Sudan has rich reserves of oil and other notable minerals. Stepping in to solve the Darfur crisis will boost the image of any developed nation in the govt's of other African nations. And, thats a *lot* of material gain.
Rob Graham wrote:
And what was the material/political gain in Bosnia?
It's proximity to Russia.
Rob Graham wrote:
Of course not. It would be out of line with their policy of utter ineffectiveness.
The UN is not ineffective for no reason. The big 5 who virtually *administrate* it have effectively made it toothless and crippled it's charter.
SG
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
I didn't percieve to post to be anti-American.
Anyone who espouses any view that remotely contradicts Red's is antiAmerican. He belongs to the Joseph McCarthy school of politics.
Mongkut to a Christian missionary friend: "What you teach us to do is admirable, but what you teach us to believe is foolish".
Tim Craig wrote:
Anyone who espouses any view that remotely contradicts Red's is antiAmerican. He belongs to the Joseph McCarthy school of politics.
That's an funny accusation to make against someone who's half-American. I must have multiple personalities disorder.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
This applies to Darfur? How convenient.
Sudan has rich reserves of oil and other notable minerals. Stepping in to solve the Darfur crisis will boost the image of any developed nation in the govt's of other African nations. And, thats a *lot* of material gain.
Rob Graham wrote:
And what was the material/political gain in Bosnia?
It's proximity to Russia.
Rob Graham wrote:
Of course not. It would be out of line with their policy of utter ineffectiveness.
The UN is not ineffective for no reason. The big 5 who virtually *administrate* it have effectively made it toothless and crippled it's charter.
SG
SimulationofSai wrote:
Sudan has rich reserves of oil and other notable minerals. Stepping in to solve the Darfur crisis will boost the image of any developed nation in the govt's of other African nations. And, thats a *lot* of material gain.
So what's keeping them out? Your zeal to promulgate an
SimulationofSai wrote:
It's proximity to Russia.
So why didn't the Russians intercede there? why was it left up to Nato (and mostly the US) to stop the genocide? The UN is toothless because it is a corrupt organization. We should ask for it's removal from the United States, and resign from it altogether (which would result in its immediate demise, since we provide the majority support).
-
Rob Graham wrote:
Where is the rest of the world? have they no responsibility?
"Once in Africa I lost the corkscrew and we were forced to live off food and water for weeks." - Ernest Hemingway My New Blog
Excellent. SimulationOfSai[^] hopes you enjoy their oil riches you imperialist thieves, you.
-
SimulationofSai wrote:
Sudan has rich reserves of oil and other notable minerals. Stepping in to solve the Darfur crisis will boost the image of any developed nation in the govt's of other African nations. And, thats a *lot* of material gain.
So what's keeping them out? Your zeal to promulgate an
SimulationofSai wrote:
It's proximity to Russia.
So why didn't the Russians intercede there? why was it left up to Nato (and mostly the US) to stop the genocide? The UN is toothless because it is a corrupt organization. We should ask for it's removal from the United States, and resign from it altogether (which would result in its immediate demise, since we provide the majority support).
Rob Graham wrote:
So what's keeping them out?
Money? It'd cost billions of dollars to step in. Nobody has that kind of cash to spare, even if they consider the long term benefit. America steps in, acts like solving the crisis and hey, one good day, somebody will sit up and notice that there are a dozen American military bases in North Africa. But really, even if America or any other like minded country steps into a hell hole like Darfur, they will *not* succeed in solving the problem. It may simmer down due to brute military force, but will explode no matter soon. Those people are a native tribe, they don't understand round table conferences and peace deals.
Rob Graham wrote:
So why didn't the Russians intercede there? why was it left up to Nato (and mostly the US) to stop the genocide?
Ironic, considering that Russia played a very big hand in instigating the crisis.
Rob Graham wrote:
The UN is toothless because it is a corrupt organization. We should ask for it's removal from the United States, and resign from it altogether (which would result in its immediate demise, since we provide the majority support)
I'd agree on that. But i'd also say that the UN is a very effective front for America to justify it's conquests.
SG
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Anyone who espouses any view that remotely contradicts Red's is antiAmerican. He belongs to the Joseph McCarthy school of politics.
That's an funny accusation to make against someone who's half-American. I must have multiple personalities disorder.
Why? You certainly show no affinity for the countrymen of your non-US half.
-
Why? You certainly show no affinity for the countrymen of your non-US half.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Why? You certainly show no affinity for the countrymen of your non-US half.
I have very little. I just find it ironic that a born-and-raised 100%-American would criticize me for my affinity to America when I was neither born nor completely raised in this country. At least everyone can rest assured that I can never be president. :)
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Why? You certainly show no affinity for the countrymen of your non-US half.
I have very little. I just find it ironic that a born-and-raised 100%-American would criticize me for my affinity to America when I was neither born nor completely raised in this country. At least everyone can rest assured that I can never be president. :)
I mean absolutely no offense: Just like ex-smokers being the most militant non-smokers, the most nationalist citizens of a country are those who were not born into it. If you have to fight for something, or earn something, you'd rather defend it that someone who was given it for free.
Cheers, Sebastian -- "If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
-
I mean absolutely no offense: Just like ex-smokers being the most militant non-smokers, the most nationalist citizens of a country are those who were not born into it. If you have to fight for something, or earn something, you'd rather defend it that someone who was given it for free.
Cheers, Sebastian -- "If it was two men, the non-driver would have challenged the driver to simply crash through the gates. The macho image thing, you know." - Marc Clifton
Sebastian Schneider wrote:
If you have to fight for something, or earn something, you'd rather defend it that someone who was given it for free.
I was simply afforded the opportunity to see the world from different angles. My father's side is American and very conservative. My mother's side is, by no stretch of the definition, a collection of communists. This naturally made me interested in political philosophy at a young age and I allowed inquiry, rather than group association, drive my interests as I had no inherent bias towards either approach. Unironically, "diversity" drove me to conservatism.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Anyone who espouses any view that remotely contradicts Red's is antiAmerican. He belongs to the Joseph McCarthy school of politics.
That's an funny accusation to make against someone who's half-American. I must have multiple personalities disorder.
Red Stateler wrote:
That's an funny accusation to make against someone who's half-American.
So you only claim to be half American. So I guess my ALL American trumps you.
Red Stateler wrote:
I must have multiple personalities disorder.
I think your problem is that you lack any personality.
Mongkut to a Christian missionary friend: "What you teach us to do is admirable, but what you teach us to believe is foolish".