Ed suggests troops are coming home

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

Security. The Iraqi's will not manage their own security as there are religious divisions within the security forces there now contributing to the problem.

So, how do we - the United States - overcome these ancient religious divisions? What you're suggesting is a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.

Byrnzie

RainDog wrote:

So, how do we - the United States - overcome these ancient religious divisions? What you're suggesting is a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.

That's right. If the U.S wants to be the world Police then it needs to take the rough with the smooth.

know1

RainDog wrote:

There is no way to concretely determine a "death averted" statistic. Hell, you do that everyday you live. Somehow, I don't see an anchor reporting "In other news today, 6.5 billion people managed to avert death."

Well I would have used "lives saved", but I do not believe a single life has ever been saved in the history of the humankind.

trappedinmyradio

know1 wrote:

Well I would have used "lives saved", but I do not believe a single life has ever been saved in the history of the humankind.

well, i was hoping you would say something about the deaths/day under the hussein regime and then compare that to the deaths/day since the U.S. invaded (along with their gunslinging coalition of the willing).

Byrnzie

know1 wrote:

Well I would have used "lives saved", but I do not believe a single life has ever been saved in the history of the humankind.

Strange comment. Is this some metaphysical reasoning? That we are all moved by outside forces?

RainDog

Byrnzie wrote:

That's right. If the U.S wants to be the world Police then it needs to take the rough with the smooth.

Well, that's just it; the U.S., by and large, doesn't want to be the world police - which is why I just shook my head when, in 2003, there was such support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I couldn't believe people didn't realize what this war would entail. Of course, people like Rumsfeld saying we'd be out after six weeks didn't help.

There's also the argument, and a valid one at that, that our presence there over the long term is actually a detriment to security.

trappedinmyradio

RainDog wrote:

Well, that's just it; the U.S., by and large, doesn't want to be the world police - which is why I just shook my head when, in 2003, there was such support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I couldn't believe people didn't realize what this war would entail. Of course, people like Rumsfeld saying we'd be out after six weeks didn't help.

There's also the argument, and a valid one at that, that our presence there over the long term is actually a detriment to security.

the U.S. population doesn't want the U.S. to be the world police, but, i feel, the actions of this administration (as opposed to their cheap talk) points to believing that they were god-sent to police this heathen, undemocratic, untamed world.

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

Strange comment. Is this some metaphysical reasoning? That we are all moved by outside forces?

It's not strange at all. In fact, Death is the ONLY certainty in life. Therefore, you can't "save" a life. You can only prolong one.

So my question stands. If the media was reporting every day about how many lives have been prolonged by the U.S. occupation right next to the information about deaths, would there be a different public perception?

callen

Byrnzie wrote:

I think no matter what happens the U.S will be blamed for this catastrophe, as it should be. If the U.S now just ups and leaves and the place turns into a blood bath, then who will be to blame for this? We created this mess.
I personally believe now that the U.S should stay there and suffer the consequences, whatever they may be. It's their responsiblity to see it through. Anything else will lose them all credibility and respect in the world. More so than that loss of credibility and respect suffered by the U.N after it was forced to abandon Yugoslavia.

not just the US...don't forget Tony went in lock stock and barrel as well...so your country will be with us in blame along with your soldiers. Its a bloody mess....not sure what will come out of this. Course if those fkers would just start drinking and smoking all would be fine. (-:

callen

trappedinmyradio wrote:

the U.S. population doesn't want the U.S. to be the world police, but, i feel, the actions of this administration (as opposed to their cheap talk) points to believing that they were god-sent to police this heathen, undemocratic, untamed world.

as well as alot of Americans.......if they only understood cultures and inability to change them....Jeese (-:

Byrnzie

callen wrote:

not just the US...don't forget Tony went in lock stock and barrel as well...so your country will be with us in blame along with your soldiers.

Hence my use of the word "We".

Abuskedti

The United States will never leave Iraq while George Bush is president.

Skitch Patterson

Ed said it, it must be true.

therover

chopitdown wrote:

i think we need to put it in the iraqi citizens hands. We need to tell them, we will help you if you want it, that means the citizens take responsibility for ratting out the insurgents, the citizens doing everything they can to help the cause. They haven't shown (aside from some people joining the iraq army) a huge dedication to their own freedom / democracy. I'm sure it's not easy, but if we put the onus on the citizens to take control of their country for a common good; I think that will help more than anything. Just leave it to them. If they don't figure out a way to work together w/o violence, we tell them "hey we tried to help you but you didn't want the help apparently and we're out". I think it's come to this. I am all for supporting the troops, i'm all for a new iraq, but at some point the citizens of Iraq need to work together to help bring about peace and if they don't want help (and show they're willing to do their part), then I say we get out.

Bravo, this is the key to whole thing. They have lived in fear for so long its all they know. We have to show them we are in it till the end. IMO we have to start taking the fight back to the enemy. City to city, house to house, door to door. If our guys have to die, I would rather see them die fighting the enemy instead of being blown up riding around in their humvees doing nothing.


We have to finish the job or else it will haunt us for many years to come.

sapperskunk

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Well according to the newspaper reports from the Brisbane shows, Ed seems to think we will be bringing the troops home, or the new house and senate will at least.

I think he may be being a little too optimistic.

The Democrats voted for the war in the first place, and continue to cower and hide and not speak out harshly against the war, fearing they will be labeled unpatriotic, unamerican or worse.

Ed usually is spot on, but I think this may be wrong on his part.

The war, barring some massive antiwar movement much more radical than the current one, will continue until Bush hands his power to the next president in 2009. He said this in many speeches.

I didn't know Eddie Vedder was a political scientist?