Irresponsability

Red Stateler

fat_boy wrote:

Do you care about Iraqi lives?

I think a nuke would have been more convenient.

Jorgen Sigvardsson

The need of the many outweighs the need of the few. Or was it the other way around? I forget...

-- Broadcast simultaneously one year in the future

KaRl

"Kill 'em all, God will sort them out", like in the good ol' time, hmm?

brianwelsch

And we all know, the best thing to do with spilled wine is to let it soak into the carpet and just leave a stain. It's pointless to argue over the fact that it shouldn't have been spilled in the first place. Instead, figure out the best way to clean it up. -- modified at 15:20 Wednesday 29th August, 2007 [spelling]

BW

Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart

KaRl

Without acknowledging the mistakes of the past, it would be like building a house on quicksand.

brianwelsch

You acknowledge your mistake by fixing it, not by running away from the problem and thinking about what you should have done in the first place.

BW

Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart

KaRl

brianwelsch wrote:

hinking about what you should have done in the first place.

It could be a good idea anyway to avoid to make the same mistake again. Do you really think that the vision of your president over Iran is different than the one he had over Irak?

brianwelsch

I don't discount that we should learn to avoid making the same mistake twice. I'm saying that endlessly debating that lesson shouldn't keep you from trying to fix what is now wrong. In other words, saying we should never have gone into Iraq is a moot point, except when looking at things from an historical perspective. I don't know where the Iran issue is going. I don't think both ignoring Iran and leaving Iraq would make for a good scene.

BW

Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart

Al Beback

brianwelsch wrote:

And we all know, the best thing to do with spilled wine is to let it soak into the carpet and just leave a stain. It's pointless to argue over the fact that it shouldn't have been spilled in the first place. Instead, figure out the best way to clean it up.

Nice analogy, but it doesn't hold water wine. ;P There are three possibilities when it comes to Iraq: 1. Leave soon. 2. Leave when someone decides that the mess has been cleaned (or that an election is in peril). 3. Never leave. Examine the pros and cons of each possibility and tell me what's best for: 1. Saving American lives. 2. Preventing Americans from being severely wounded (eg, brain disorders, lost limbs). 3. Stopping the suicide bombings occurring almost daily, due to our presense. 4. Removing the negative image the world has of us as occupiers. 5. Removing the view that we're in the region to protect Iraq's oil for the benefit of American oil companies. 6. Pushing the Iraqi government to devote less time to taking vacations and more to uniting and organizing their security forces. 7. Putting a stop to our $3 BILLION/week bill. I don't know about you, but to me this stain on the carpet isn't worth scrubbing that much. We changed their regime -- that we did. The rest we should leave up to the Iraqis. There's a chance our departure will actually curtail the violence and bring peace to the region much more quickly. If not, it's their problem. We shouldn't have to waste American lives and resources on people who don't value peace and freedom.

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

Lost User

1. What do you tell the already wounded soldiers and the families of those already killed when we leave too soon and Iraq ends up worse off in the long run than had SH been left in power? 2. Couldn't we have used much of your logic to stay out of WW1 and WW2 as well?

Al Beback

Mike Mullikin wrote:

1. What do you tell the already wounded soldiers and the families of those already killed when we leave too soon and Iraq ends up worse off in the long run than had SH been left in power?

"We made a mistake going in; we felt it was about time to stop putting American troops in harm's way for no reason." What do we tell them now, after four years of no progress and no end in sight? What do we tell them in 2010, after 7 years of no progress and no end in sight? What do we tell them in 2015, after 12 years of no progress and no end in sight? Think about who are the people that are now urging us to stay in Iraq. They're the same people who told us to invade in the first place (each time with a different pretext), who told us we would be welcomed as liberators, who told us that the Iraqis would pay for their own reconstruction, and who for three years kept telling us that everything was going fine when it clearly wasn't. Why should we even listen to their predictions of doom and chaos after we depart? There's already doom and chaos!

Mike Mullikin wrote:

2. Couldn't we have used much of your logic to stay out of WW1 and WW2 as well?

We actually stayed out of WW2 until we were attacked by Japan. And WW2 was an entirely different circumstance. A couple of conquering lunatics had to be stopped, and the whole world was willing to fight to stop them. It was a World War.

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