How about "IF we lose, they will follow us home"

Abuskedti

So... you'll have us believe the mess we made in Iraq has been an effective tool successfully keping eager "Terrorists" from striking in the US.

Is it just to confusing for them to think about two things at once?

gimmesometruth27

i seriously doubt that we would ever have to "fight" them here. what to they mean by fight them anyway? it would not be a house to house battle like in baghdad or fallujah. i can not imagine an army of jihadists attacking one of our cities. they might hit us and blow something up, but the attackers would kill themselves in the strike. there would be no army for us to fight. it would be like getting suckerpunched then we would bomb the middle east again and start the whole process over again.

hailhailkc

Abuskedti wrote:

So... you'll have us believe the mess we made in Iraq has been an effective tool successfully keping eager "Terrorists" from striking in the US.

Yes.

Bu2

bread crumbs and the little lost lambs from terrorist cells will suddenly come out of hiding and attack all our cities at once.

Leaving Iraq in stages, while keeping some troops there to help Iraq out, will not hurt anything.

Staying there will.

gue_barium

hailhailkc wrote:

Yes.

I wish you could back that up. The fact is, since America invaded Iraq, "terrorist" recruitment has grown by leaps and bounds.

Cosmo

Abuskedti wrote:

So... you'll have us believe the mess we made in Iraq has been an effective tool successfully keping eager "Terrorists" from striking in the US.

Is it just to confusing for them to think about two things at once?

...
I know... that, "They will follow us here" is bullshit... and the people who are scared by this are pussys. Like the way the Viet Cong waged war with us in the cornfields of Nebraska after we fled Saigon.
This mess is Iraq has fired u the desire of religious fundamentalist all over the world to strike us where we sleep. They want to hit us... period. It doesn't matter to them if we are in Iraq or not.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Claymore!!

sponger

I think what's being missed so far is that there is a huge difference between why the invasion took place and why we are there now.

It's pretty obvious to just about anybody that the invasion was a needless mistake and that nothing good has come of it.

But, that shouldn't be confused with the fact that things will get even worse if the US military just ups and leaves right here and now.

Point in fact is that Afghanistan would never have become a haven for the taliban and al qaeda were it not for the removal of Russia's political authority over its central government.

so this statement..

So... you'll have us believe the mess we made in Iraq has been an effective tool successfully keping eager "Terrorists" from striking in the US.

...is not related to why the troops are actually there now.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

It's pretty obvious to just about anybody that the invasion was a needless mistake and that nothing good has come of it.

au contraire. saddam is gone. that is good.

sponger

catefrances wrote:

au contraire. saddam is gone. that is good.

Maybe you are the exception, but nobody residing on US soil could have cared less about the way Saddam treated his people until the whole "WMD" scare was thrown upon them.

Using Saddam's removal as any sort of justification for the invasion is sort of a misleading perspective, IMO. At least that's the case for most americans.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

Maybe you are the exception, but nobody residing on US soil could have cared less about the way Saddam treated his people until the whole "WMD" scare was thrown upon them.

Using Saddam's removal as any sort of justification for the invasion is sort of a misleading perspective, IMO. At least that's the case for most americans.

maybe i am the exception cause i actually reside on australian soil.
and yes you are correct. saddam killed with impunity. the West knew what he was doing when he was doing it and chose to turn a blind eye. that is until it suited their agenda to react. then he was a bad bad man who needed removing.
but still his removal is a good thing.

sponger

catefrances wrote:

maybe i am the exception cause i actually reside on australian soil.
and yes you are correct. saddam killed with impunity. the West knew what he was doing when he was doing it and chose to turn a blind eye. that is until it suited their agenda to react. then he was a bad bad man who needed removing.
but still his removal is a good thing.

I suppose so. From what I hear from people who have been there, there are a lot of Iraqis who relish their freedom from his tyranny.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

I suppose so. From what I hear from people who have been there, there are a lot of Iraqis who relish their freedom from his tyranny.

...
About half of them do:
"... 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer."
49% prefer Maliki...
26% + 16% = 42% think it's the same or worse.
(Ref. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece )
...
also:
"One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse."
...
Personally... if any Iraqi reminisces the Saddam regime as "The Good Ol' Days"... I don't think that's a good thing.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
About half of them do:
"... 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer."
49% prefer Maliki...
26% + 16% = 42% think it's the same or worse.
(Ref. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530526.ece )
...
also:
"One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse."
...
Personally... if any Iraqi reminisces the Saddam regime as "The Good Ol' Days"... I don't think that's a good thing.

The 53% of Iraqis who think the security situation will improve after US withdrawal probably couldn't care less about the next Bin Laden setting up a training camp down the street.

We're talking about a nation of people who lived under ruthless tyranny for decades and virtually got conditioned to it. Do they really know the difference? I would be surprised if they do.

How many Iraq do you think are really capable of understanding the full ramifications of leaving behind an unchecked power vacuum? All they know is that the west doesn't belong there. Anything beyond that is just too complicated.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

The 53% of Iraqis who think the security situation will improve after US withdrawal probably couldn't care less about the next Bin Laden setting up a training camp down the street.

We're talking about a nation of people who lived under ruthless tyranny for decades and virtually got conditioned to it. Do they really know the difference? I would be surprised if they do.

How many Iraq do you think are really capable of understanding the full ramifications of leaving behind an unchecked power vacuum? All they know is that the west doesn't belong there. Anything beyond that is just too complicated.

that is such a derogatory statement aimed at the iraqi people. just because they have lived under tyranny for so long is no reason to believe they have no clue as to what would happen after foreign troop withdrawal. i think you underestimate them. they're not idiots.

JaneNY

Abuskedti wrote:

So... you'll have us believe the mess we made in Iraq has been an effective tool successfully keping eager "Terrorists" from striking in the US.

Is it just to confusing for them to think about two things at once?

More revisionist history. They (the powers that be) want us to forget what the original reason of going to Iraq was since it was false.

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

The 53% of Iraqis who think the security situation will improve after US withdrawal probably couldn't care less about the next Bin Laden setting up a training camp down the street.

We're talking about a nation of people who lived under ruthless tyranny for decades and virtually got conditioned to it. Do they really know the difference? I would be surprised if they do.

How many Iraq do you think are really capable of understanding the full ramifications of leaving behind an unchecked power vacuum? All they know is that the west doesn't belong there. Anything beyond that is just too complicated.

...
So... are you saying WE know what is better for them than they do?
What about all this 'Democracy' shit we are spreading around? If the majority of populous wants Bin Laden... isn't THAT Democracy? What **IF**... Iran (and Syria) can come in and broker a peace plan to provide security? That is a real possibility.
...
Time to wake up, kiddies... The United States under the direction of George W. Bush, Inc. has given Iraq to the Iranians. Talk about irony.

sponger

catefrances wrote:

that is such a derogatory statement aimed at the iraqi people. just because they have lived under tyranny for so long is no reason to believe they have no clue as to what would happen after foreign troop withdrawal. i think you underestimate them. they're not idiots.

You are correct that they are not idiots. I didn't say they were. They're people, and my assessment of their outlook is based on how people think in general.

It's like the movie Shawshank Redemption when Brooks Hadley was released from prison after spending nearly his whole life there. As Morgan Freeman put it, Brooks Hadley was "institutionalized", hence is committing suicide.

The Iraqi people got comfortable with the idea of having a person who makes their decisions for them and tells them what to think. It least that way there is no sectarian violence. This does not make the Iraqi people especially idiotic. It makes them victims of their situation.

There is an arab proverb that goes, "Better sixty years of tyranny than one day of anarchy."

The long history of brutal tribal politics springing from competition for limited natural resources in Arab society gave way to a consensus of acceptance for brutal authoritarianism as a means of maintaining law and order.

pjalive21

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i seriously doubt that we would ever have to "fight" them here. what to they mean by fight them anyway? it would not be a house to house battle like in baghdad or fallujah. i can not imagine an army of jihadists attacking one of our cities. they might hit us and blow something up, but the attackers would kill themselves in the strike. there would be no army for us to fight. it would be like getting suckerpunched then we would bomb the middle east again and start the whole process over again.

they would beat us in the way we cannot fight them..guerilla warfare, just like in Iraq

Cosmo

sponger wrote:

You are correct that they are not idiots. I didn't say they were. They're people, and my assessment of their outlook is based on how people think in general.

It's like the movie Shawshank Redemption when Brooks Hadley was released from prison after spending nearly his whole life there. As Morgan Freeman put it, Brooks Hadley was "institutionalized", hence is committing suicide.

The Iraqi people got comfortable with the idea of having a person who makes their decisions for them and tells them what to think. It least that way there is no sectarian violence. This does not make the Iraqi people especially idiotic. It makes them victims of their situation.

There is an arab proverb that goes, "Better sixty years of tyranny than one day of anarchy."

The long history of brutal tribal politics springing from competition for limited natural resources in Arab society gave way to a consensus of acceptance for brutal authoritarinism as a means of maintaining law and order.

...
If that's the case... then we should install a Saddam Hussein over there to keep the peace.

sponger

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... are you saying WE know what is better for them than they do?
What about all this 'Democracy' shit we are spreading around? If the majority of populous wants Bin Laden... isn't THAT Democracy? What **IF**... Iran (and Syria) can come in and broker a peace plan to provide security? That is a real possibility.
...
Time to wake up, kiddies... The United States under the direction of George W. Bush, Inc. has given Iraq to the Iranians. Talk about irony.

Still...you're having a very difficult time differentiating between why the invasion took place and why the occupation is still taking place.

The invasion may have practically given Iraq to Iran, but this transfer of power to Iran is even more assured if the US pulls out before Iraq has its own sense of unified sovereignty. I know you dislike Bush immensely, but you are letting that cloud your understanding of the entire situation.

I never said that we are there to establish a true democracy. I'm saying we need to make sure that everything possible is done to prevent a central Iraqi government from being overthrown by Islamic-facism, paving the way for another Afghanistan.

Do you not agree that we can't have another Taliban and Al Qaeda haven in Iraq?

And in response to your first question, please refer to my post above.