just curious

robbie

jlew24asu wrote:

USA did not loose any war with terrorists. el queda in iraq has not been an issue since we took out their leader.

this is about sunnis vs shittes.

while that may very well be true, the president of the united states has been telling the world for years that if we leave iraq before we achieve complete victory, it will be a win for the terrorists....... therefore the world will view our departure from this nightmare as a win for the terrorists. and so will the terrorists....... and so will history.........even 20 years from now............

FinsburyParkCarrots

hailhailkc wrote:

EXACTLY.

But that would take half the fun out of things.

farfromglorified

robbie wrote:

shit, if it was up to the current government our grandchildren will still be DYING in iraq 20 years from now.

Ok.

and regardless of when we leave, i'm pretty sure that the war the United States of America LOST TO TERRORISTS will be read about for a LOOOONG time.

:rolleyes:

No. The only losers in the Iraq war are the Iraqi people. Incidentally, the only losers in pre-war Iraq were the Iraqi people as well.

if democracy was going to be a beacon to the rest of the middle east, what do you think our complete and utter FAILURE will serve as?

I'm not sure how a failure of Iraqi democracy is "our failure". That would destroy the very meaning of democracy.

thanks to W, and the way he has framed the argument, anything less than a thriving democracy is a WIN for terrorism...... we HAVE TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF THAT NIGHTMARE, or we will still be murdering and dying for NOTHING, but if we leave, W, has made sure that there is no other way to view it as a WIN for terrorism. how can you believe that the "defining moment of our generation" will not be remembered 20 years from now.......?

The "defining moment of our generation" was 9/11 (politically speaking), not the Iraq war.

Anyway, victory is not a measure of perception. It is a measure of accomplishment. The United States accomplished their primary objective in Iraq -- the removal of Saddam Hussein. Whether or not Iraq can be a viable democracy is still very much in question. However, success measured as an improved government or governments for the Iraqi people is not impossible or even unlikely.

this has weakened the United States in ways we will not realise for many years to come, but what it does for sure is embolden any enemy of the U.S. by PROVING we are incompetent, and unable to win an insurgent war.

:rolleyes:

Do you really believe we are "unable to win"??? Do you really believe that the United States, if it truly wanted to, could not win this war???

The United States has every capability to destroy the insurgency in Iraq. Thankfully, we have not resorted to the tactics necessary for such a defeat, nor are we likely to do so.

why would anyone fight us with an army when they know they can beat us and embarrass us without one?

"Beat" and "embarrass" are not synonymous.

terrorism is the only way to defeat the united states, george w. bush has PROVEN this, and if you think that will be forgotten within 20 years, you are delusional.

How has he "proven" this???? How has terrorism defeated the United States in any way???

Uncle Leo

I would think that a response to the question would be: "Would Iraq be better with Saddam in power?" Should that question still be rhetorical?

jlew24asu

robbie wrote:

while that may very well be true, the president of the united states has been telling the world for years that if we leave iraq before we achieve complete victory, it will be a win for the terrorists....... therefore the world will view our departure from this nightmare as a win for the terrorists. and so will the terrorists....... and so will history.........even 20 years from now............

you dont get it. who gives a fuck what W says. he has to stay strong. he is the commander in chief. over 100,000 american soliders' lives are on him. should he admit defeat because americans havnt begun buying time shares there yet?


we may never fully leave Iraq. we are still in the balkins are we not? in germany? in korea?

terrorists arent the issue in Iraq. settling long standing conflicts between 2 fueding parties is.

if that can be resolved history will see this as a great success and freedom will concour in a country and region that has never seen it.

and I might buy myself a time share.

farfromglorified

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

55,000 dead civilians

Awful? Yes. Significant in any historical way? No.

a dictatorship turned into a haven for terrorism

Going from one bad to another bad does not make for compelling history, by default.

a civil war

Get in line.

a hugely empowered IRAN

"Hugely"??? How so?

And so, it's worthwhile saying that re-enforced national security in the States, ostensibly to combat the fall out of what's happened in Iraq, is going to have a big effect on the way Americans live their lives. In twenty years time, some people might ask rhetorically, "Was Iraq the war for we gave up our own freedoms, to liberate?"

That's what people are asking rhetorically now. 20 years from now, they'll be asking where their money went. That's about it.

robbie

surferdude wrote:

If this is your attitude why bother asking the question. WHy not just people from the get go if you don't agree with me you are delusional. It would save people from having to post answers to your questions when you feel their is only one answer.

my original question was how many people still support this war, was i not supposed to respond to a post stating that nobody will read much about the iraq war 20 years from now????? do you really believe that? you thing the ramifications of how poor of an idea this war was will not still be present in 20 years? look, the united states went "all in" on this bet, if a flourishing democracy took hold, it would be remembered in 20 years, hell it would be written about for hundreds of years..'how the middle east became a democratic region thanks to george bush and his glorious war"...... same is true for the reality of this war and its ramifications, we have managed to make everything FAR WORSE in the middle east, and the great power this has given to IRAN, and the message we have sent to all of our enemies is not something that will soon be forgotten. we blew it, and we will pay for it. im sorry if you cannot realise that, but your children and grandchildren will.

FinsburyParkCarrots

robbie wrote:

how many of you still support the iraq war? I mean, I know 20 years from now when your children or grandchildren read about this debacle and ask you how we allowed it to happen, you are going to lie and say you were opposed to it from the beginning, but as of now, how many of you still think this was a terrific idea? the polls still say 30 percent of the country think things are going well in iraq, i cannot imagine who these people are, but 3 out of 10 people think it is still a-ok, and actually going well, so, if you are still out there, could you please go on the record and explain why almost 3,000 dead soldiers, (that died for NOTHING) 22,000 wounded soldiers (wounded for NOTHING), 55,000 dead civilians, a dictatorship turned into a haven for terrorism, a civil war, a hugely empowered IRAN, and a VICTORY for world terrorism by showing the incomitance of the United States, is i good plan?

In fairness, though, why should someone have to lie about supporting the war from its outset? Because history proved that the war was illegal, immoral, ill-executed and doomed to counter-productive consequences, even failure?

We have the benefit of hindsight, and though I never supported the war, I understand that many people felt, for reasons we might question but can't totally discount, that a humanitarian mission to liberate Iraq might stabilise the middle east. Yes, I am one who always disagreed with this view, but I respect people's opinions: an honourable person will say, in twenty years time, "I supported what I believed was right at the time". One has to accept that. Honesty in maintaining a controversial opinion, in the face of mass disapproval, in some cases carries more virtue, than dishonesty in maintaining a dominant view: this goes for people against the war, in the minority in America in 2003, and also for supporters of that same war, inevitably in a minority of those who can even remember it first-hand, twenty years from now.

FinsburyParkCarrots

farfromglorified wrote:

Awful? Yes. Significant in any historical way? No.



Going from one bad to another bad does not make for compelling history, by default.



Get in line.



"Hugely"??? How so?



That's what people are asking rhetorically now. 20 years from now, they'll be asking where their money went. That's about it.

Which people, though? Are we just talking about Americans, here? See, that's my point. I'm thinking globally.

farfromglorified

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Which people, though? Are we just talking about Americans, here? See, that's my point. I'm thinking globally.

I'm just talking about Americans, since the original post was formulated from that perspective.

Globally, the historical reverberations will be lesser or greater depending on each nation's involvement. Obviously, the Iraq War, for Iraqis, will be a very big part of their history. But will Japanese grandchildren or Russian grandchildren focus much on this conflict? Unlikely.

FinsburyParkCarrots

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm just talking about Americans, since the original post was formulated.

Globally, the historical reverberations will be lesser or greater depending on each nation's involvement. Obviously, the Iraq War, for Iraqis, will be a very big part of their history. But will Japanese grandchildren or Russian grandchildren focus much on this conflict? Unlikely.

Okay. I was singling out Robbie's comments on the global repercussions of the war, because I thought they needed attention. I follow where you're coming from, though.

As for your main point, all I can do is speculate wildly about how the geopolitical landscape will change in the next twenty years, so I can't really answer you to the contrary, with any definite argument. If things stay roughly as they are, then I'd say you're probably right.

But, if we listen to the odd prediction and imagine new, emergent superpowers in years to come, might these states find use for the middle east, in changing power structures? Who knows.

farfromglorified

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Okay. I was singling out Robbie's comments on the global repercussions of the war, because I thought they needed attention. I follow where you're coming from, though.

As for your main point, all I can do is speculate wildly about how the geopolitical landscape will change in the next twenty years, so I can't really answer you to the contrary, with any definite argument. If things stay roughly as they are, then I'd say you're probably right.

But, if we listen to the odd prediction and imagine new, emergent superpowers in years to come, might these states find use for the middle east, in changing power structures? Who knows.

Sure -- this is all speculative and we're both operating off of some core assumptions that may prove to be wildly incorrect.

The ultimate political lesson of the Iraq War is still the failure of intelligence. We went to war because we assumed that Iraq was a major threat to this world. As it turned out, Iraq was only a major threat to itself. And that hasn't changed one iota since the day we invaded. Furthermore, Iraq's influence and importance will only further decrease as the world begins to explore alternatives to fossil fuels. Iraq is a nation with a very troubling future.

robbie

it seems like most people agree that the "terrorists" in iraq are non-existant, and what is left is a war between sunni and shiite factions, so why not bring our troops homw tonight? we cant still be "fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" if the problem is civil war. i dont think we have to worry about them bringing their civil war here. so if your kid died in iraq today, what did they die for? not our freedom...not our safety..... not the liberation of iraq........ not the spread of democracy........ not so we dont have to fight them here......... not because of weapons of mass destruction...... fact remains that somebody's kid is going to die in iraq tonight. you tell me what they are dying for, and why we cant just bring them home tonight so nobodys kid has to die for NOTHING tomorrow.

SweetHarmonics

Surprising that the cheerleaders of the war are reluctant ostriches right about now.

jlew24asu

robbie wrote:

it seems like most people agree that the "terrorists" in iraq are non-existant, and what is left is a war between sunni and shiite factions, so why not bring our troops homw tonight? we cant still be "fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" if the problem is civil war. i dont think we have to worry about them bringing their civil war here. so if your kid died in iraq today, what did they die for? not our freedom...not our safety..... not the liberation of iraq........ not the spread of democracy........ not so we dont have to fight them here......... not because of weapons of mass destruction...... fact remains that somebody's kid is going to die in iraq tonight. you tell me what they are dying for, and why we cant just bring them home tonight so nobodys kid has to die for NOTHING tomorrow.

because leaving would throw the country into further choas. possibly leaving the country to some el queda sympathizers or brutal dictatorship that would slaughter the opposite party. (sunni or shitte)

even bush has opened up and is willing to listen to other options from the iraq study group. withrawal will happen based on goals set and reached by the Iraqis.

jlew24asu

SweetHarmonics wrote:

Surprising that the cheerleaders of the war are reluctant ostriches right about now.

did you even read this thread? or better yet you can contribute to it. that may be hard for you.

robbie

jlew24asu wrote:

because leaving would throw the country into further choas. possibly leaving the country to some el queda sympathizers or brutal dictatorship that would slaughter the opposite party. (sunni or shitte)

even bush has opened up and is willing to listen to other options from the iraq study group. withrawal will happen based on goals set and reached by the Iraqis.

i still dont see anything in your statement that anyone would want to sacrifice their children for. and goal set and reached by iraqis? how long to you propose to give them to achieve these goals? is it ok to let another 3000 troops die while we wait for iraqis to meet the goals we set for them? is it ok if another 22 thousand are wounded while we wait? what goals do you have in mind? what exactly are we waiting for?

jlew24asu

robbie wrote:

i still dont see anything in your statement that anyone would want to sacrifice their children for. and goal set and reached by iraqis? how long to you propose to give them to achieve these goals? is it ok to let another 3000 troops die while we wait for iraqis to meet the goals we set for them? is it ok if another 22 thousand are wounded while we wait? what goals do you have in mind? what exactly are we waiting for?

we arent that far of. I want the troops home too. I would love a timeline. picking up and leaving today would only cause more problems. for us and them.

what goals do I have in mind?

secure borders
trained equipt military
strong police force
disarment of militias
peace agreements between top shiite and sunni religious leaders

Scratchin a Letter

I have not supported the Iraq war in any form at any time. It was rushed into, badly planned and its foundations are comprised of one Dodgy Dossier, and the manipulation of certain 'leaders'. This war was never about humanitarian aid or the safety of the Iraqi people. It was about a tyrant who was, 'In posession of weapons of mass destruction' (Blair); 'Has substantial links with al-Qaeda' and intent on waging war with the west.

None of which was true. War was declared against the will of th UN (therefore illegal), and without allowing weapons inspectors to finish their research.

If this REALLY was about Saddam's mass graves and crimes against humanity, why have Zimbabwe, North Korea et al not been invaded? Please, answer me without mentioning the gassing of the Kurds/invasion of Kuwait, which was fully supported by the ever-so-brilliant-USA.

jlew24asu wrote:

secure borders
trained equipt military
strong police force
disarment of militias
peace agreements between top shiite and sunni religious leaders

The first three are achievable, although they require much time and endeavour. The disarmament of militants hypothetically leading to 'peace', is not so. Saying that such a progress is 'not far off' is ridiculous.. staying in Iraq following the current course of action will do absolutely nothing to encourage stability; the war has effectively been lost. No time will swing anything in Georgie's favour.

SweetHarmonics

jlew24asu wrote:

did you even read this thread? or better yet you can contribute to it. that may be hard for you.

such a worthless dig at the end, really could be done better

I read the parroted material that Kristol, Rush and Hannity originated in the days after the election. The pro war side has been wrong from the beginning and yet still try to maintain some sort of credibility that is long gone at this point. It's time to sack up already, doesn't the spin get old?