Let me be more clear.
The US is part of the coalition force.
What if ALL troops pulled out of Iraq? What do you think would happen?
[quote]Jeff K wrote:
OK, you all have your minds made up if you support the war in Iraq or not.
I pose a second question: what would happen if the coaliton forces pulled out of Iraq tomorrow?[/quote]
Pulling out is not really an option anymore, that’s why it’s considered a quagmire…the catch 22. Then the “Bush team” wants the elections to go as scheduled, but I have to ask, how will that change anything? Call me cynical but somehow I don’t see anyone but Allawi winning this so-called election.
The only thing it would possibly do (if we could do it) is make the world MORE safe. It might possibly alleviate some of the animosity toward the US…which is only increasing by the day.
I know you think differently, but I’d like to know how us BEING in Iraq right now is making us any safer? With our forces bogged down in Iraq, our enemys probably look at us like a lion does a three-legged gazelle.
Just the facts.
I think he hides like wounded Zebra when a pack of lions are walking around. Evertime our enemy shows his face he is anhilated. Not good for his long term prospects. More importantly, nobody is coming to his rescue. No relief possible.
Let’s face it. We control Iraq. They have an insurgency. We will decapitate it and the Iraqi’s will take care of those that are left once we are gone.
I agree though I don’t think we would pull out. If we did, lot’s of violence. A warlord would emerge, another strongman, no doubt a pawn of Iran.
[quote]hedo wrote:
If they pulled out tomorrow we would finish the job ourselves.
It will be safer when the rest of the middle east see the Iraqi’s voting and they decide to overthrow the tyrants who control them.
[/quote]
In order to do that they might possibly need us to stop supporting said tyrants. Think Saudi Arabia, Pakistan…
Jeff K,
[quote]Jeff K wrote:
OK, you all have your minds made up if you support the war in Iraq or not.
I pose a second question: what would happen if the coaliton forces pulled out of Iraq tomorrow? And do you think the world would be more or less safe as a result?[/quote]
Pulling out now, that the deed (and the damage) is done, would just leave another unsolved area of crisis in the middle east - and strengthen the impression that has settled in some parts of the world, that the US starts by toppling over gouvernments and then leaves before the countries are rebuilt. It makes sense to stay now, face the conflict and promote the building of a democratic state. As much as I opposed invading Iraq in the first place, I think the coalition now has to stay on until it has reached its long term goal of building up a democratic sample state in the region.
Makkun
[quote]hedo wrote:
It will be safer when the rest of the middle east see the Iraqi’s voting and they decide to overthrow the tyrants who control them.[/quote]
How exactly will it be safer? Just curious who you think will take over when they “overthrow the tyrants who control them”?
The only reason that Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and several other countries don’t have the same theocratic government as Iran is because of those “tyrants”. Twenty five years ago the people of Iran, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, overthrew the tyrant that controlled them. I would argue that everyone, especially the Iranians, would be better off now if Mohammed Reza Pahlavi or his heir was still in charge.
You really want to see the same thing replicated throughout the region? Do you really believe in the false Bush “democratic domino” theory?
I personally don’t believe that there is anything we can do at this point to prevent an Islamic theocracy from controlling Iraq, and that the “domino effect” in the region will not be the one we’d like to see. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.
Makkun,
That has been the plan all along.The only problem is that the deed is not yet done. The part of the strategy of drawing a line in the sand has been done.Now our troops are knocking the shit out of any one who crosses it,and better yet, to qoute rangertab’s submission “taking the fight to them”.This is consistent with the press conferences on strategy and results that Pres. Bush has been holding throughout this action.There was never any plan to just blow the place up and take off. Critics who complain of a “quagmire” and “no exit strategy” simply fail to realize that this is going to take a lot longer than the critics thought.Some rebuilding is allready taking place,but sabateurs are wrecking their efforts.It seems the process of nationbuilding requires some perseverence, but in an age of instant gratification many lack this virtue. If anyone cares to refute this please don’t bother with hyperlinks, unless they contain actual video footage of words leaving the Presidents mouth. That “my info is better than your info” style of arguement is too open to quackery. And if I’m not around till after Christmass-Happy Holidays!
False Bush Democratic Domino theory???
It is a matter of doing the right thing. If a thug is in charge you will not have democracy.
People want to be free. It’s human nature. The information revolution has opened up the world. Even repressed populations get to see what the rest of the world enjoy.
I don’t think it is a false Domino theory. Appreasment and containment has never worked. Especially if a major power or superpower is not around to enforce good behavior.
This may not be the chic avante garde theory but it will work.
Mindf’er,
Before the war the invasion was sold as something very different than it is. Nobody is arguing that the military itself has much by way of options on how to deal with things.
However, some losers were telling us that the Iraqi’s would love us and everything would be peace and harmony as soon as Saddam was out of power. This was a somewhat optimistic picture that was sold to the masses. It might even have been closer to the truth if we didn’t have so much external influence in the area.
Regardless, I think just about everyone except the diehard tree hugger believes that we need to stay in Iraq and see this thing through, no matter how different the reality is to the original bill of goods we were sold.
It’s not about being against it or considering it lost. It’s about opening our eyes and trying to get an honest assessment. We are collectively trying to figure out what has been done, could have been done, should have be done and will be done to move things along.
Our eyes are being opened and if there is a next time we will all be a lot more sophisticated when presented with a similar bill of goods.
vroom,
I don’t know what sales pitch you heard but the actual reasons I heard were:
1.Non compliance with previously agreed to conditions of surrender.
A. Voilations of no fly zones and firing at planes patrolling the no fly zones.
B.Exporting oil illegaly.Dodging the Embargo and diverting the oil for food money to personal accounts,using money for weapons build-up and special weapons programs.Info on this was obtained first hand. My brother was on the U.S.S. Harley Burk,(1998-1999) assigned to enforce the embargo, and on the boarding teams that inspect the cargo ships.Not much of what they found was reported to the press, but did become part of the growing body of evidence that made a strong case for this invasion.
C.Non co-operation and evasion of U.N. weapons inspectors.Holding them up for hours and days while satelite surveilence shows trucks being loaded and leaving out of back gates.
D.Building up of troops in strategicaly determined areas that put them in range to attack Kuwait and other countries to the west.
2.With the previous statements in mind, (and these are just off of the top of my head) and alot more intelligence than a civilian is privy to,it was determined and agreed to that we should launch a PRE-EMPTIVE strike.
There was no sales pitch that I was aware of. There was Definitely a growing threat that I was aware of.I know that you may not have kmown these things, and you certainly don’t have to “buy” in to this war,but please don’t trivialize it into a product that we stupid Americans have been duped into buying. By doing that you trivialize the efforts of everyone over there, several of my family included.
No sales pitch? What, were you blind?
There was a sales pitch. The items you mention are the fallback plan now that the sales pitch turned out to be faulty.
Never mind eff’r, it’s just not worth trying to discuss anymore – these things have already been generally agreed to.
Besides, I wasn’t saying or implying what you seem to think I was. My post and your post don’t really seem to be about the same subject at all… I think you are forming an impression based on some mistaken belief about my viewpoint as put forth by a certain person.
Why don’t you wait until some new interesting topics come around and form your opinion first hand? I’m not interested in arguing with the ghost of comments past.
mindeffer,
Your post was excellent.
First, I’d like to suggest that you pick someone else besides vroom to debate.
Second, for some reason liberals have a problem with seventy-five reasons to invade. IF, one doesn’t pan out exactly as predicted, the liberal mind says, “Everything is suspect. They are all liars.”
If we continue to remember the other seventy-four reasons to invade and support our effort in Iraq, the liberal will call you “blinded by party ideology.”
Finally, be comforted by the fact that there are many of us out here who agree with the President’s decision to confront this “grave and gathering danger” before it could threaten our homeland directly.
JeffR
JeffR,
Thanks for the compliment. I wasn’t trying to debate him though, he just jumped in with his same old crap.I was actualy trying to have a civilized meeting of the minds with Makkun when that witless bozo jumped in. Apparently its just not possible to converse in this type of setting with someone like him around. In an actual face to face conversation, when people do shit like that, I usualy punch them in the temple and giggle as they fall. Too bad thats not possible either.
Aw, don’t be silly.
All I’m saying is that congress approved the use of force because everyone believed there was an IMMINENT danger from the combination of wmd’s and terrorists.
I wasn’t implying there was anything wrong with this sale… sale isn’t a bad word. Every war on the planet gets sold – you have to get the populace onside somehow.
The reasons you cited, such as ongoing oil for food abuse and so on obviously happened as well. However, lacking the 9/11 incident there would have been no rush to war. Things would have muddled along as before – that is why those things aren’t the REASON we went to war, IN MY OPINION. Your opinion differs, thats fine. Either way, there is a war now and that’s the real topic here.
This stuff was all discussed to death not too long ago… I just didn’t want to have to start rehashing everything. Especially when I’m not denying the reasons you stated or making accusations by using the word sold.
All that being said, the real issue of my post was that nearly everyone, conservative or liberal, realizes the war effort in Iraq is important – and now that it has started it must continue. This is a point of agreement that I was trying to stress. At this point, we all want to see a democracy spring up in Iraq.
There are a lot of dangers and obstacles we need to avoid or overcome. The more vision and foresight our leaders have (going forward), perhaps the less youth we will lose in the coming months or years.
I don’t see why any of that should make you so upset. If it does, try explaining it to me. What exactly do you think I’m criticising?
[edited to add “need to”]
Mage wrote: “Much of the American media is against Bush, just like most of the foreign media. Not all of it, but it is.”
This is a topic I see you harping on ad nauseum, but you seem to miss the point. I don’t think the media is against Bush… Isn’t it the job of the media just to report goings on, and letting us come to our own points of view. Actually, it turns out that Bush and company are astoundingly talented at using the media to its advantage, particularly “news” shows that pit a “liberal” vs. a “conservative” point of view. It only serves to divide the population even more sharply. Wasn’t it a quote from your savior, Herr Bush, that he was going to be a “uniter, not a divider”?
A liberal or conservative perspective should never even enter the picture, which is a problem with American media these days. If an objective news source simply reports the facts and it happens to be negative about our president, can’t you accept that perhaps that is because he provides them with plenty of material with his policies and decisions.
Not to let the french off the hook. I don’t read their media, but I would like to see how they report on the situation in Cote D’Ivoire. They have their own little Iraq going on. What is it about humans that - as soon as they get the reigns of power - they seem to want to express it with an iron fist… Like our own neocons, they are quite imperialistic, and their troops have killed thousands of innocent civilians (including women and children). Why? Because they control over 80% of the contracts there, and they don’t want to relinquish their lucrative contracts to African owned companies. Obviously I realize it is more complicated than that, but I am trying to be brief. I haven’t read enough European news to see if they are reporting fairly on their own actions.