Yes or No

[BoarSpear]

The Saigon-style pullout is something I mentioned in another thread, but BoarSpear told me I was full of it.

AAAIIIYYyyy....I said we should tell the UN we are pulling out in 90 days We removed the dickhead...we aint here to occupy...get some peace keepers in here and keep the peace or there will be civil war when we leave...then by god pullout...tell the UN do it or count us out of your little country club from now on...

I dont think we should have ever went in to IRAQ in the first place...now that we are there WE HAVE TO SEE IT THROUGH

If we cut and run we reinforce terrorist behavior...if we turn it over the UN, it takes the focus off the US, and puts it on the terrorist...

[BoarSpear]

Oh, I forgot. Brownie sure did a heck of a job . . . . .
Sorry but I didn't drink from that batch of Koolaid.

And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I heard that he is a nice guy with a good sense of humor. I"m sure he's the life of the party once he gets a few drinks in him. As far as all those duties, he's suppose to handle them or find competent people who can. He's the president and leader of this country

amen Bro If Bush is doing a good job, Id hate to see what they consider a bad job

[medic06]

Oh, I forgot. Brownie sure did a heck of a job . . . . .
Sorry but I didn't drink from that batch of Koolaid.

And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I heard that he is a nice guy with a good sense of humor. I"m sure he's the life of the party once he gets a few drinks in him. As far as all those duties, he's suppose to handle them or find competent people who can. He's the president and leader of this country

[medic06]

Actually, we weren't trying to drive the mainstream populace into overthrowing Saddam. We were working the coup angle with the Kurds, and no one had to starve them to do it. We might have avoided this whole war had Clinton had the backbone to follow through on ANYTHING he did regarding Iraq.

As for the moral and ethical "rescue" argument, does the fact that we have other national intersts in the area really take that much away from the fact that we did indeed liberate an oppressed people? I don't see anything at all wrong with saying "We're doing the right thing for the good of the Iraqi people" if it's true. So what if other reasons are equally true? I also don't see it as a criteria obligating us to go and wage wars for liberation in areas where we have no interests. In Iraq, we are fighting for things that make both America and Iraq stronger. We are building schools, hospitals, power plants, stock exchanges, and businesses. We have improved their economy to unbelievable levels. And we got rid of a guy who killed off over half a million Iraqi citizens simply because they didn't like him. Those are good, moral, ethical, and just things, right? How does achieving them take away from the national interests we're protecting for ourselves?

I guess it's like saying:

You're on the side of a pool when fifteen kids fall in. None can swim, and they all start to drown. You know all of the kids, but three of them are your own children. You only have time to save three people from drowning. Who do you save first?

I think anyone would save their own kids first, and then do everything they can to save the rest. No one wants to see any of them drown, but your concern for your own children is higher, right? Same with nations. If we adequately insure our own interests, then we'll have the money and the alliances needed to go and fight for "other people's kids." But you gotta start by strengthening the home front.

Quite a few of our kids drowned right here in our backyard while our fearless leader enjoyed another 3 days of fun on his ranch.

[cam427]

Actually, we weren't trying to drive the mainstream populace into overthrowing Saddam. We were working the coup angle with the Kurds, and no one had to starve them to do it. We might have avoided this whole war had Clinton had the backbone to follow through on ANYTHING he did regarding Iraq.

As for the moral and ethical "rescue" argument, does the fact that we have other national intersts in the area really take that much away from the fact that we did indeed liberate an oppressed people? I don't see anything at all wrong with saying "We're doing the right thing for the good of the Iraqi people" if it's true. So what if other reasons are equally true? I also don't see it as a criteria obligating us to go and wage wars for liberation in areas where we have no interests. In Iraq, we are fighting for things that make both America and Iraq stronger. We are building schools, hospitals, power plants, stock exchanges, and businesses. We have improved their economy to unbelievable levels. And we got rid of a guy who killed off over half a million Iraqi citizens simply because they didn't like him. Those are good, moral, ethical, and just things, right? How does achieving them take away from the national interests we're protecting for ourselves?

I guess it's like saying:

You're on the side of a pool when fifteen kids fall in. None can swim, and they all start to drown. You know all of the kids, but three of them are your own children. You only have time to save three people from drowning. Who do you save first?

I think anyone would save their own kids first, and then do everything they can to save the rest. No one wants to see any of them drown, but your concern for your own children is higher, right? Same with nations. If we adequately insure our own interests, then we'll have the money and the alliances needed to go and fight for "other people's kids." But you gotta start by strengthening the home front.

From my limited knowledge of the subject I know the Kurds had a stronghold in the north but there was never a question of them overthrowing Saddam. The Sunni's from teh south almost did but the insurrection was not supported by Bush Sr so it was quelled.

The Kids in the pool analogy was an interesting one. Yes I would save my own kids first (as everyone would) and I agree that you need to make yourself safe before you can worry about the safety of others (just like in the emergency instructions on an aircraft).

I agree that you (we) did liberate an oppressed people which is why I voted "Yes" on this poll, but I just think everyone needs to be more honest about the reasons (like you are doing).

[cam427]

Cam, sanctions against a country are designed to create hardship so that the leaders of that country will start complying and end the hardship. Saddam was the one who didn't care about the Iraqi people, because rather than use his government money to take care of his people, or comply with the restrictions and conditions established by the UN, he simply redirected any and all aid to his elite class and let the rest of the people suffer.

I agree that Saddam did keep what little money was available for himself and the rich elite but this is just evidence that sanctions against dictatorships are ineffective at lowering their resolve. They were kept in place even when this became obvious for several reasons. The first is that a starving population is far more likely to try and overthrow the government and secondly keeping the country poor made it more difficult (if not impossible) for them to mass produce weapons or produce WMD (which are very expensive).

Also, as far as European cities being breeding grounds, they are. You're a few hours from the Edgeware Road section of London, yes? Next time you take a trip to London, take a look around the newsstands there. You may need an Arabic speaker to understand them. There are shelves and shelves of books preaching radical Islam, there are newspapers that back terror groups, and there are bookstores littered with anti-Western violent idealism. None of these books list publisher's offices. None list authors. And the various British Intelligence services have no idea (or no inclination to share with us) who's running the propaganda machines. It's a large scale movement, this terrorism against the West, and it happens right under your noses. I am vehemently against support for any organization like that, including the idiots who sent money to the IRA in your country. But don't try to deny that it doesn't happen there as well.

I agree that there are muslim extremists in London but muslim extremist groups also exist in the US, Australia, the Phillipines. They are everywhere. I think the statement "the EU is a breeding ground for terrorists" is unfair not because we do not have any, but because everyone has them. As to no one taking any action, the British government has started deporting non-british muslims if they are seen as extremists. The only fault I see is that they did nothing until they were attacked themselves (just like the US). Most people dont really care about things until it starts to effect them directly (sad but true).

As for invading other countries with horrible dictators at their helms, I agree, there are a lot of them out there who need their asses kicked. But America is already being criticized for trying to be the world's police, so what good would it do? Why doesn't the UK step up and go help some of those countries? I don't see them rushing in either, so before you label us as uncaring, look at your own as well. Some of us aren't swayed by the media assertion that we are at war for purely ethical reasons. I think we're doing the right thing by being there, but I know that's not the underlying cause of the war. We are at war for our national security, and for resources our country depends on (and yours too). I also do not think it is wrong to go to war over resources vital to your nation's survival. The UK has done it throughout history, even being the aggressor in many cases. Hell, they tried it here in "the Colonies." If you don't think that was a war for money, you're sadly mistaken. I do not believe it is wrong to go to war to protect your nation's interests abroad if diplomacy has failed - which it clearly had with Saddam. Saddam WAS indeed a supporter of terrorism, allowing safe haven to terrorists from both Syria and Iran, he provided money to terror organizations (which we've both already said we're against), and he provided weapons to terrorists fighting against Israel. He wasn't just a bad guy. He was a bona fide threat to our national interests and security abroad. Maybe he didn't have missiles that could reach us, but he had missiles that could reach our bases in the region. He supported many of the groups that liked to blow us up through material, financial, and political means. He allowed Syrians to cross through into Iran and vice versa, and he allowed them to run weapons and drugs between them. Not to mention the fact that we all (including your government and intelligence services) knew (not thought) he had chemical and biological weapons. The fact that we've found so few of them frankly worries me a lot more than if we had found them all. I suspect a great deal of them made it out of Iraq through Syria, and into the hands of God knows who. So to answer the question you posed to Jubaji, he was a threat to the US.

Firstly I am not saying that you are uncaring and should invade every country on earth. I am saying that it is not an honest argument to say you were trying to rescue the Iraqi's because you either do it or you dont rather than only doing it in one case.

I like your honesty about why you think you are there (I agree with you) and I also think that historically you have many precedents. For all of civilisation we have been invading weaker nations to steal their resources like the US is doing now. Do I see this as an issue, yes, I dont really like it as I thought we had moved on but I accept that it has hapenned and will continue to happen forever.

You say that you do not believe that it is wrong to protect your countries interests abroad (like the british tried to do in America). That is an interesting statement.

As to the Israel statement, as we all know, until recently it did not exist. It's creation was a disaster that have caused a never ending conflict. It was like me deciding to give the US to the Mexicans and them starting to evict you from your house so a mexican could have it. Do you think that would upset you? Do not read this as an anti-semetic statement. It is just fact.

I agree that we ought to keep discussing this stuff, because it's great for understanding different points of view. Jubaji is up to his normal tricks, getting everyone pissed off so they forget he's a poor neglected circus creature, but that's okay. Even though he's not putting up too many solid arguments for his side here, I have a feeling we agree on this topic. Please don't use that as evidence that I am wrong.

I will forget that you ever said this

Cam

PS: I had to edit out your smilies because there were too many on my post but that is all I edited (I dont like to edit "Quotes")

[jubaji]

This is why I support the war. I'll stay over here and fight insurgents as long as I have to, to keep them over here. I'm a soldier - I'm a much harder target than my family, and all the other people back home. Hell, the longer we can keep terrorists attacking us somewhere else, the better.

Thank you very much.

[Makkhatter]

The more focus terrorists place on fighting troops in Iraq, the less they're focused on attacking us at home. With their operational cycles shortened to current levels, these groups are dumping money, personnel, and resources into the fight in Iraq. That's money, personnel, and resources that won't show up here on US soil. The more costly it is for them over there, the less they have to work with over here.
Mike

This is why I support the war. I'll stay over here and fight insurgents as long as I have to, to keep them over here. I'm a soldier - I'm a much harder target than my family, and all the other people back home. Hell, the longer we can keep terrorists attacking us somewhere else, the better.

[jubaji]

piss off, loser!

You've got a real big mouth...I bet it would make an interesting urinal.

I think you have the wrong forum, Mr. Kelly.

[Garland]

Well, you never know 'till you try. Git goin!

You've got a real big mouth...I bet it would make an interesting urinal.

[aseepish]

Sorry, my bad - I meant that the Iraqi insurgents are nationalistic. The foreign fighters certainly are ideological!

[aseepish]

Mike,

I agree with a lot of what you wrote.

I'm very much in favour of UN reform. The UN wasn't doing a good job with weapons inspections, and the level of corruption in oil-for-food was horrendous. America doesn't necessarily need a 1991-style UN resolution to justly engage in military activity - witness the bombing of Serbia in 1999. That action had NATO support though.

The UN aside, key NATO allies refused to support the invasion of Iraq because they felt that a diplomatic solution hadn't been given time to work.

In the case of Afghanistan, the proof was indisputable. In the case of Iraq, many governments had a lot of questions as to the quality of the intelligence.
I won't argue that Saddam didn't pose a threat to the west. However, I'm not convinced that the magnitude of the threat was immediate enough to justify a unilateral pre-emptive war though. If he was indeed selling biological weapons to terrorists, that changes things. It gets very complicated when non-state actors get involved. In 1967 when Egypt told Israel "We will destroy you!" Israel believed them and struck pre-emtively and with justification.Perhaps better intelligence would have helped to convince other governments.

If terrorist fund-raisers want to dump their funds into supplying the insurgency, I agree. Let them! I read recently that foreign fighters in Iraq are not popular with the locals. This is a piece of good news. I do see the insurgency as an expression of nationalism instead of simply being anti-US. Perhaps I'm overly pessimistic about the chances that the new Iraqi government will be pro-US. I think if there's a Saigon-style withdrawal the chances are very slim.

When I called Iraq a powerless state I was referring to the fact that it doesn't have an army or police force. Progress is being made, but there is no way the US can withdraw without Iraqi military units being completely non-dependent on US support, and that point is very far in the future. If the US were to withdraw tomorrow, there would be chaos in Iraq. It's funny. I was anti-invasion, but I am pro-occupation. With more allies though, the burden of occupation and reconstruction could have been shared. The issue would have been a lot less painful for Americans.

As a side note, giving Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 was really really strange. I'm surprised Kim Jong Il hasn't won one yet.

[aseepish]

I voted no.

While I agree that Saddam was a monster, and removing him was morally comendable, the circumstances of his removal (i.e. the invasion) have left the world a much less secure place.

On September 12 2001, the whole world (with some exceptions) was heartfully sympathetic towards America. "We are all Americans" was the sentiment expressed. The international community supported the invasion and removal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. NATO invoked Article Five, the call to action of all member states in the event of an attack on one of its members. The action in Afghanistan was widely seen as just.

America squandered this political capital in the years following Afghanistan. In the eyes of the world, the case for invading Iraq was weak. Diplomatic attempts to gain support for a war failed. The result of America's decision to invade without the support of most of its allies was a diplomatic catastrophe.

Even assuming that Saddam did indeed posess chemical or biological weapons, there was no indication that he would have employed them against the west. Gathering the diplomtatic support necessary for an invasion would have made extraction much less complicated.

The occupation of Iraq has given radical muslims more fuel for discontent. If Iraq wasn't a haven for anti-western terrorists before the invasion, it certainly is one now.

By making Iraq a powerless state, America has destabilized the region. Iraq was a very useful counter-balance to Iranian power. It is highly unlikely that American dreams for a secular pro-western government in the new Iraq will be realized.

In short the invasion diminished America's security instead of enhancing it.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

[jubaji]

so go! who the **** needs ya?

Unlike you...yes, yes I do think I'll be missed when I bounce from this shit.:

Well, you never know 'till you try. Git goin!

[Garland]

Why wait? Do you think you'll be missed?

Unlike you...yes, yes I do think I'll be missed when I bounce from this shit.
It's nobodies fault that your an ostricized little assclown, cept your own.
A good place to remedy that would be to try and keep you stank ass a bit cleaner by only posting relevant shit, instead of pirating the thread with really fucking stupid one liners.

I'm sure you must have been really funny in highschool, but those days are gone, sucka...give it a rest and get down to doing something productive!