honest debate

present address

do we think we should leave iraq or not and why? i feel that what we are doing is right for right now....and im not sayin we are there for the right reasons.... i am saying that when you start something you finish it... we need to try to finish it and if we cant this time then its over they the iraq people will be the one to suffer... not us but i feel we owe it to them and those who have lost their lives trying to bring them freedom...


how do the rest of you feel and please tell me your view and not tear me apart ..... like the old days of politics where they would argue like hell and state their views but at night would drink and dance like the best of friends

jeffbr

I'd like to see us leave. Tomorrow. Just pack it up, tip our hats and say aufwiedersehen.

In investing they always tell you not to throw good money after bad. Same thing with gambling. Don't keep buying back into a losing venture. This is no different. There is no way to "win" this one, but lots of ways to continue to lose, not the least of which is loss of lives of some of those additional 20k troops. The Iraqis have shown no desire to help themselves, and we aren't going to change their culture and belief system through force.

MrBrian

present address wrote:

do we think we should leave iraq or not and why? i feel that what we are doing is right for right now....and im not sayin we are there for the right reasons.... i am saying that when you start something you finish it... we need to try to finish it and if we cant this time then its over they the iraq people will be the one to suffer... not us but i feel we owe it to them and those who have lost their lives trying to bring them freedom...


how do the rest of you feel and please tell me your view and not tear me apart ..... like the old days of politics where they would argue like hell and state their views but at night would drink and dance like the best of friends

What exactly do you think america is doing in Iraq? I also don't think america should finish what it started, that would entail more killing and destrcution from them and I obviously don't want that.

Also, I'm trying to be kind here, did/do you really believe any of this was about freedom?

sponger

MrBrian wrote:

that would entail more killing and destrcution from them

As opposed to killing and destruction from each other? From what I can tell, arabs are dying at the hands of other arabs on a daily basis and on a grand scale.

I say why not stay and finish what we started. Having lived in San Diego for a long, long time, I conversated with many marines who had been in Iraq in recent times. They all say they have no problem what so ever with being there.

So, if that's how they feel, then let them go I say.

Then there's those people out there who say that the longer America stays there, the more problems are going to be created. I don't agree with that at all. As of right now, the US presence is the only thing preventing a three-way genocide from taking place. It is the only thing guaranteeing that Iraq will eventually have a unified government one way or another.

And then there's the people who say that America's presence is wrong because they're there for those oil contracts. That may be true, but if the US bugs out now, who knows what other greedy bastards will be getting their hands on those contracts.

It certainly won't be state controlled oil no matter how you look at it. There's too much chaos going on over there for a centralized authority to take control of its drilling without total outside intervention.

And this reminds me of something I was thinking about the other day, which is where is OPEC and the league of arab nations during all this? Where's that arab brotherly bond? Why isn't OPEC stepping in and at least trying to help Iraq not get screwed by the foreign invaders at the negoating table?

wolfbear

Well, I don't think we should have been there in the first place. But now, I just don't know. All I know is, I don't have the info to answer that question. It's a bad situation no matter how you look at it. :(

hippiemom

I think it's time to go. If we had 200,000 troops to send, that might be worth discussing, but we don't. 20,000 isn't going to do the trick. I don't see any reason to risk the lives of 20,000 additional soldiers.

It's a very embarrassing time to be an American. I agree with the original poster that we have an obligation to fix what we broke, but I don't think we're able to do that. We made a mess that's beyond our ability to clean up, and jeffbr is right ... we're throwing good money after bad. Worse than that, we're taking the lives of thousands of good people, both American and Iraqi.

I think that Bush's latest plan, if it's implemented, will result in a bloodbath. I'll be happier than I've been in years if I'm wrong, but right now that's what I see coming.

present address

agreed on bad money idea but money is money and lives are lives....the iraqi government cant control much... you are right and people have to want to change... great points... thanks...

history lesson for those who read this thread.....this nation took years to get its legs under it.. some argue not until after the civil war where we finally a nation... but even back further when we announced independence we had loyalist that fought patriots like mad.... the british even gave up fighting in the south because in the carolinas we americans were fighting each other...so maybe iraq will take time and did i think this would be easy and the iraq government would be fine and running like a locamotive no i did not i knew that struggles would happen... but i had hoped that iraq would stand against terrorism stronger... it is the few who make the many pay for their actions

MrBrian

sponger wrote:

As opposed to killing and destruction from each other? From what I can tell, arabs are dying at the hands of other arabs on a daily basis and on a grand scale.

And this reminds me of something I was thinking about the other day, which is where is OPEC and the league of arab nations during all this? Where's that arab brotherly bond? Why isn't OPEC stepping in and at least trying to help Iraq not get screwed by the foreign invaders at the negoating table?

These points interest me,
----

Arabs have a history of not getting along, they often are fighting over such small things. Even this sunni/shiite war, it goes against islam. They have created their own walls in that case.

as far as the second part goes, well look at the leaders of these arab countries, they are in love with money, they live in palaces (sauds for example) and build gold whatever else. it's disgusting. It would be great for them to unite, infact I think it was chavez even said that he wanted to see the arabs come together. But it of course is hard when your leaders are so bad.

again, the saudis are the worst, they are US backed of course.

sponger

MrBrian wrote:

These points interest me,
----

Arabs have a history of not getting along, they often are fighting over such small things. Even this sunni/shiite war, it goes against islam. They have created their own walls in that case.

as far as the second part goes, well look at the leaders of these arab countries, they are in love with money, they live in palaces (sauds for example) and build gold whatever else. it's disgusting. It would be great for them to unite, infact I think it was chavez even said that he wanted to see the arabs come together. But it of course is hard when your leaders are so bad.

again, the saudis are the worst, they are US backed of course.

Yes, I know this. The point I'm making is that since arabs are always screwing each other, why not let the US screw them instead?

MrBrian

sponger wrote:

Yes, I know this. The point I'm making is that since arabs are always screwing each other, why not let the US screw them instead?

haha! I see.

Collin

sponger wrote:

Yes, I know this. The point I'm making is that since arabs are always screwing each other, why not let the US screw them instead?

I can think of many reasons. It would be sad if you couldn't.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

present address wrote:

do we think we should leave iraq or not and why? i feel that what we are doing is right for right now....and im not sayin we are there for the right reasons.... i am saying that when you start something you finish it... we need to try to finish it and if we cant this time then its over they the iraq people will be the one to suffer... not us but i feel we owe it to them and those who have lost their lives trying to bring them freedom...


how do the rest of you feel and please tell me your view and not tear me apart ..... like the old days of politics where they would argue like hell and state their views but at night would drink and dance like the best of friends

Not trying to rip you apart, but what you said is exactly comparable to what Russian citizens were saying in the 1980's concerning Afghanistan. They were saying they had to finish what they started, while everyone else in the whole world agreed that they should leave. Nobody except Americans and maybe a few Brits here and there thinks that America should stay and "finish it".

We should do what the majority of Iraqis want, which is withdraw over the course of this next year.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/275.php?nid=&id=&pnt=275&lb=hmpg1

norm

jeffbr wrote:

I'd like to see us leave. Tomorrow. Just pack it up, tip our hats and say aufwiedersehen.

In investing they always tell you not to throw good money after bad. Same thing with gambling. Don't keep buying back into a losing venture. This is no different. There is no way to "win" this one, but lots of ways to continue to lose, not the least of which is loss of lives of some of those additional 20k troops. The Iraqis have shown no desire to help themselves, and we aren't going to change their culture and belief system through force.

Brilliantly put. At this point, let's see what happens if we aren't there.

sponger

Saturnal wrote:

Not trying to rip you apart, but what you said is exactly comparable to what Russian citizens were saying in the 1980's concerning Afghanistan. They were saying they had to finish what they started, while everyone else in the whole world agreed that they should leave. Nobody except Americans and maybe a few Brits here and there thinks that America should stay and "finish it".

We should do what the majority of Iraqis want, which is withdraw over the course of this next year.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/275.php?nid=&id=&pnt=275&lb=hmpg1

The withdrawal of russian troops left a power vacuum that resulted in the formation of the taliban, and we all know that without the Taliban, al Qaeda would never have gotten the momentum it needed to swing 9/11.

So, in hindsight, the world actually would've been a better place if Russia had stayed in Afghanistan and ensured the continued reign of its marxist government.

And you say we should do what the majority of Iraqis want? What they want is rip each other to pieces, just like the Afghanis did after the Russians left.

Collin

sponger wrote:

And you say we should do what the majority of Iraqis want? What they want is rip each other to pieces, just like the Afghanis did after the Russians left.

Do you seriously think the majority of the Iraqis, the more than 28 million people, want war?

Stereotype

I don't think that I am adressed here... but..

I think you should have left long time ago. You shouldn't get involved in the first place (Iraq and Us of A have a long colaborative past and America has supported significant leaders when it was in their interest.) It's time to stop playing the policeman (everywhere) and mind you own policy. It's very un-moral that you are there in order to bring "peace", you brought war and are continuing to..Even if you enstablish democracy, the democracy will only be representitive, in reality you will put in lead an elite that suits your interest.

It's all about economy and greed. No peace, no freedom-that never was an american goal. It was maintaining power and control.
There are more and more people that hate american foreign policy because they have enough of this "fuck you I am american" attitude..

And also if you are thinking of what you should do...how about signing the Kyoto protocol? I hate the fact that you can do whatever you want..The US, the world's largest emitter of gases, is refusing to ratify the agreement, saying it would harm the economy ... Such grace.

redrock

present address wrote:

we need to try to finish it

Finish what? What was the 'real' goal (we all have our ideas on this). How do you finish?

present address wrote:

to bring them freedom...

Try to bow out gracefully... no need to try and save face.

Byrnzie

sponger wrote:

As opposed to killing and destruction from each other? From what I can tell, arabs are dying at the hands of other arabs on a daily basis and on a grand scale.

I say why not stay and finish what we started. Having lived in San Diego for a long, long time, I conversated with many marines who had been in Iraq in recent times. They all say they have no problem what so ever with being there.

So, if that's how they feel, then let them go I say.

Then there's those people out there who say that the longer America stays there, the more problems are going to be created. I don't agree with that at all. As of right now, the US presence is the only thing preventing a three-way genocide from taking place. It is the only thing guaranteeing that Iraq will eventually have a unified government one way or another.

And then there's the people who say that America's presence is wrong because they're there for those oil contracts. That may be true, but if the US bugs out now, who knows what other greedy bastards will be getting their hands on those contracts.

It certainly won't be state controlled oil no matter how you look at it. There's too much chaos going on over there for a centralized authority to take control of its drilling without total outside intervention.

And this reminds me of something I was thinking about the other day, which is where is OPEC and the league of arab nations during all this? Where's that arab brotherly bond? Why isn't OPEC stepping in and at least trying to help Iraq not get screwed by the foreign invaders at the negoating table?

I foresee a scene like that witnessed in Saigon in 1975 when the Huey's were taking off from the roof of the U.S embassy . The difference now is that we'll be leaving behind a situation far more volatile and dangerous than the one left behind in Vietnam by the U.S. We'll never fix the situation in Iraq. It's fucked. Throwing more troops into the fray isn't going to solve anything.

The U.S can't win a victory whilst fighting a guerilla war, which is what this is. Maybe they'll drag Iran into it and escalate the conflict, transforming it into another air war which the U.S can win. I can't see the Bush Administration pulling out without taking something with them. I can't see them withdrawing without having otherthrown the Iranian regime. This shit will probably only get worse before it gets better.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

I foresee a scene like that witnessed in Saigon in 1975 when the Huey's were taking off from the roof of the U.S embassy . The difference now is that we'll be leaving behind a situation far more volatile and dangerous than the one left behind in Vietnam by the U.S. We'll never fix the situation in Iraq. It's fucked. Throwing more troops into the fray isn't going to solve anything.

o Byrnzie, your always the optimist.

Byrnzie wrote:

The U.S can't win a victory whilst fighting a guerilla war, which is what this is.

Yes we can. and in the meantime we will train the Iraqis to do it.

Byrnzie wrote:

Maybe they'll drag Iran into it and escalate the conflict, transforming it into another air war which the U.S can win. I can't see the Bush Administration pulling out without taking something with them. I can't see them withdrawing without having otherthrown the Iranian regime. This shit will probably only get worse before it gets better.

no way. Bush will not invade an occupy another country unless Iran starts shooting nukes at Israel. Bush has only 2 years left. the mistakes of invading Iraq are obvious. even bush knows the consequences now.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

no way. Bush will not invade an occupy another country unless Iran starts shooting nukes at Israel. Bush has only 2 years left. the mistakes of invading Iraq are obvious. even bush knows the consequences now.

I hope you're right.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

I hope you're right.

you really believe he will? even the most powerful country in the world, (the USA ) cant afford to invade and occupy a country as big as Iran right now. I'm sure Iran knows this but that also means bush has to talk tough. he cant make it obvious that we do not have the resources to invade.

Iran hates the US. the people there have daily and even semi hourly chants of "death to america". maybe one day, we can extent an olive branch and talk it out. I dont ever see war fixing that problem. well unless Iran shoots off a nuke. but I dont think, even the whacko resident, is that stupid.