A Question for War Supporters

Byrnzie

NCfan wrote:

IWho said anything about nuclear weapons? Is that your best attempt to answer my questions? You're a detriment to your own side my friend.

DeLukin did.

DeLukin wrote:

Would an even worse regime than Saddam's take power, hell bent on acquiring nuclear arms to use on Western countries?

jlew24asu

NCfan wrote:

Even if that leads to another regime the likes of Mullah controlled Iran, Sharia law of Saudi Arabia, another dictator like Mubarak, Assad or Saddam, a puppet state of Iran like lebanon or the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan? Would that be acceptable to you if that happened?

The fact of the matter is this... Everybody has interest in Iraq, not just the U.S. Iran wants to influence the direction of the country and so do Islamic fundamentalist. What TRUE Iraqi citizens want will not happen unless order is restored, becuase they are too fragmented and hold little military power to determine their own destiny. For better or worse, the U.S. represents the interest of all freedom-loving, democratic nations of the world. We have been the only group out of all the different factions in Iraq that has tried to create peace, hold elections so the voice of Iraqi's could be heard and realized. Why is it that WE are the ones who need to leave and forfeit our influence? Should we be so niave as to think that if the U.S. would give up our interest that so would Iran, Syria and other Islamic fundamentalist?

you said it alot better then I did. i'm not awake yet. long night last night.

Dirty Mosquito

DeLukin wrote:

Yea, that's my dilemma. I don't like the war, but what's the alternative? I think we can all agree that war sucks but would leaving now keep my kids safer? I don't think so...

IMO, your kids and all of our kids are less safer because of the war in the first place. We have alienated and made more enemies now than we had when Saddam was in power. Though I disagree with the war, I am happy Saddam is no longer in power, I just hope America can clean up their mess.

old and in the way

NCfan wrote:

Even if that leads to another regime the likes of Mullah controlled Iran, Sharia law of Saudi Arabia, another dictator like Mubarak, Assad or Saddam, a puppet state of Iran like lebanon or the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan? Would that be acceptable to you if that happened?

The fact of the matter is this... Everybody has interest in Iraq, not just the U.S. Iran wants to influence the direction of the country and so do Islamic fundamentalist. What TRUE Iraqi citizens want will not happen unless order is restored, becuase they are too fragmented and hold little military power to determine their own destiny. For better or worse, the U.S. represents the interest of all freedom-loving, democratic nations of the world. We have been the only group out of all the different factions in Iraq that has tried to create peace, hold elections so the voice of Iraqi's could be heard and realized. Why is it that WE are the ones who need to leave and forfeit our influence? Should we be so niave as to think that if the U.S. would give up our interest that so would Iran, Syria and other Islamic fundamentalist?

Well thought out and stated my friend, that is why three members of my family have contributed.

Abuskedti

jlew24asu wrote:

they are doing that already even as we are there. all we are doing is providing more boots on the ground and some level of security. they are fighting each other. is a sunni saying....Look at that damn american, I'm gonna go blow up a shiite!

leaving today would send the country into further turmoil. thats a bad thing. there have to be timelines set based on goals set and accomplished

No they are not.. they are resisting the government we designed for them and our presence.

Why do you think that our imposed government is what they want.. We have chosen a side to protect. Obviously they are not happy with it.

the conclusion that they are stupid and violent is designed to cover up the fact that we created this mess.

Abuskedti

NCfan wrote:

Even if that leads to another regime the likes of Mullah controlled Iran, Sharia law of Saudi Arabia, another dictator like Mubarak, Assad or Saddam, a puppet state of Iran like lebanon or the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan? Would that be acceptable to you if that happened?

The fact of the matter is this... Everybody has interest in Iraq, not just the U.S. Iran wants to influence the direction of the country and so do Islamic fundamentalist. What TRUE Iraqi citizens want will not happen unless order is restored, becuase they are too fragmented and hold little military power to determine their own destiny. For better or worse, the U.S. represents the interest of all freedom-loving, democratic nations of the world. We have been the only group out of all the different factions in Iraq that has tried to create peace, hold elections so the voice of Iraqi's could be heard and realized. Why is it that WE are the ones who need to leave and forfeit our influence? Should we be so niave as to think that if the U.S. would give up our interest that so would Iran, Syria and other Islamic fundamentalist?

I would be happy if we left. There already is an Iran and all the other groups you mention. If Iraq becomes a threat - we have ways of dealing with it.

as of now, all we are doing is maintaining and contributing to violence and division.

jlew24asu

Abuskedti wrote:

No they are not.. they are resisting the government we designed for them and our presence.

Why do you think that our imposed government is what they want.. We have chosen a side to protect. Obviously they are not happy with it.

the conclusion that they are stupid and violent is designed to cover up the fact that we created this mess.

we can agree to disagree.

trappedinmyradio

Abuskedti wrote:

No they are not.. they are resisting the government we designed for them and our presence.

i thought the fight was with terrorists streaming into the regions to try to stop the american machine and our wonderful way of life because they hate us for our freedom...or, was that last month? or, last year? or, was that a rationale for war?

jlew24asu

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i thought the fight was with terrorists streaming into the regions to try to stop the american machine and our wonderful way of life because they hate us for our freedom...or, was that last month? or, last year? or, was that a rationale for war?

that was last year. or maybe 6 months. whenever we killed the leader, el queda in iraq seemed to be less of a threat.

NCfan

Abuskedti wrote:

I would be happy if we left. There already is an Iran and all the other groups you mention. If Iraq becomes a threat - we have ways of dealing with it.

as of now, all we are doing is maintaining and contributing to violence and division.

Wow, that sounds like some pretty sound logic... "There are already countries who threaten Democracy and the Western way of life, so what's the difference if Iraq becomes one too?"

What are our ways of dealing with these countries who threaten us? The U.N. sure isn't going to do anything, if history has been any guide. Other countries aren't going to help the United States bear the burden of protecting democracy and free-market economies, even thought they have enjoyed freedom and prospered finanically thanks to our sacrifices.

We struck a deal with North Korea, and they just turned around and blackmailed us by continuing their nuclear program. The U.N. is proving totally inept at trying to persuade Iran from not developing nuclear weapons.
They couldn't do anything about Saddam violating 17 of their resolutions.

Please tell me what our "options" are? Looks to me like we only have bad choices and worse choices in dealing with these countries. If you know of something I don't, please enlighten me!

SundaySilence

There is an insurgency in Iraq. The fighters will not leave if we leave because they are Iraqi themselves.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

And the insurrection has grown from the first time the US set its foot in Iraq until today. If the insurrection has gotten stronger every year we have been there, is there not some reason in saying the insurrection has been aided by our continued presence? And if it has been aided by our continued presence, is it not in the interest of the insurgents for us to maintain our presence? The history has shown insurgent power has expanded in the presence of US troops.

They are not just attacking each other, they are attacking american troops. October was one of the bloodiest for american soldiers. We have become targets in Iraq, terrorists use it as a training ground.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0703/dailyUpdate.html?s=mesdu

All our intelligence agencies and some generals have concluded our occupation of Iraq is making terrorism worse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-25T232516Z_01_N25287562_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-USA.xml&archived=False

NCfan wrote:

Even if that leads to another regime the likes of Mullah controlled Iran, Sharia law of Saudi Arabia, another dictator like Mubarak, Assad or Saddam, a puppet state of Iran like lebanon or the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan? Would that be acceptable to you if that happened?

This will happen regardless, and already is. Does any one really expect that the dominant Shia voting bloc is going to turn Iraq into a pluralist democracy? Is it really possible that an organization like The Supreme Council For The Islamic Revolution In Iraq, is going to turn into a liberal democratic organization? Dawa, the party of the acting Iraqi prime minister was a virtual wing of Hezbollah when in exile. Do we really expect it to pal up with Israel?

There are senior military officials in Iraq who state there is no military solution. And the people of Iraq overwhelmingly want us to leave. Benchmarks and goals are fine if they are accomplished, but what if they aren't? What do war supporters think is going to happen? Is there any historical precedent for a severely fractionated country turning into a democracy at gunpoint? No

Byrnzie

SundaySilence wrote:

There is an insurgency in Iraq. The fighters will not leave if we leave because they are Iraqi themselves.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

And the insurrection has grown from the first time the US set its foot in Iraq until today. If the insurrection has gotten stronger every year we have been there, is there not some reason in saying the insurrection has been aided by our continued presence? And if it has been aided by our continued presence, is it not in the interest of the insurgents for us to maintain our presence? The history has shown insurgent power has expanded in the presence of US troops.

They are not just attacking each other, they are attacking american troops. October was one of the bloodiest for american soldiers. We have become targets in Iraq, terrorists use it as a training ground.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0703/dailyUpdate.html?s=mesdu

All our intelligence agencies and some generals have concluded our occupation of Iraq is making terrorism worse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-25T232516Z_01_N25287562_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-USA.xml&archived=False



This will happen regardless, and already is. Does any one really expect that the dominant Shia voting bloc is going to turn Iraq into a pluralist democracy? Is it really possible that an organization like The Supreme Council For The Islamic Revolution In Iraq, is going to turn into a liberal democratic organization? Dawa, the party of the acting Iraqi prime minister was a virtual wing of Hezbollah when in exile. Do we really expect it to pal up with Israel?

There are senior military officials in Iraq who state there is no military solution. And the people of Iraq overwhelmingly want us to leave. Benchmarks and goals are fine if they are accomplished, but what if they aren't? What do war supporters think is going to happen? Is there any historical precedent for a severely fractionated country turning into a democracy at gunpoint? No

Well said.

Puck78

people who support the war really don't know what war is.
I tried one, i was against war before and I'm even more against it now. But still, i know a lot of people that didn't try one but are smart enough to be against it.... people that are for war have a distorted idea about what a war is.

miller8966

Puck78 wrote:

people who support the war really don't know what war is.
I tried one, i was against war before and I'm even more against it now. But still, i know a lot of people that didn't try one but are smart enough to be against it.... people that are for war have a distorted idea about what a war is.

That makes absolutely no sense

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

it just amazes me how people from other countries seem to know exactly what is going on in America.

um...how do Americans "know" exactly what's going on in Iraq...?

jlew24asu

inmytree wrote:

um...how do Americans "know" exactly what's going on in Iraq...?

he wasnt refering to what was going on in iraq, neither was I

norm

inmytree wrote:

um...how do Americans "know" exactly what's going on in Iraq...?

O'Reilly tells them.:D

jlew24asu

cutback wrote:

O'Reilly tells them.:D

no no, its olberman

norm

jlew24asu wrote:

no no, its olberman

I said that just for you:)

inmytree

jlew24asu wrote:

he wasnt refering to what was going on in iraq, neither was I

wasn't your point; people from other countries have no idea what is going on in another country...? that's what I read, I may be wrong, but as I said, that was my take...