Is Withdrawl From Iraq ETHICAL?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Did anyone get a look at the amount of nuclear warheads we have on these subs. It is a shitload. I can’t believe anybody would even bother messing with country. I figured it out.

We’ve become wussified and every third world country knows we can obliterate them, but they also know we are to whimpy to actually use the weapons we have.

I think we should pull out the troops and start bombing from under the sea. Seemed to work in WW2 from the air. Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut? I am a democrat by the way. I’m kinda liberal on social issues but I’m pretty conservative on crime.

I just think too many American boys are dead, and if Iran ends up giving nuclear warheads to terrorists, we’re gonna have to bust them out sooner or later. I say we get the party started. Withdrawl the troops and start the fiesta.

42

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?[/quote]

I’ll go with complete nut.

43

[quote]doogie wrote:
pookie wrote:
Almost every man/boy in Iraq has at least 1 machine gun. We allow them to keep 1 per household for protection.[/quote]

I was refering to your troops, not to the Iraqi population.

44

[quote]semper_fi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Do you think the currently elected Iraqi government is Islamofascist friendly?

Hmmm…maybe not but didn’t the Islamofacists try to boycott the election?

Watch… once we pull out these assholes will take power and everything we have done will be in vain.[/quote]

It would almost be easier at this point to have an Islamo-fascist government in place. Then it would be pretty clear exactly who the enemy is.

We’ve got to get out of the nation building business. Overthrow the governments that support terror, pull out, let the UN earn their money, and if the people install another government that supports terror we overthrow that one, too. Endless little wars versus one endless big one.

45

[quote]pookie wrote:
Go heavy fool wrote:
Does anyone think this will work, or am I a complete nut?

I’ll go with complete nut.
[/quote]

O.K. I’ll accept that. Would you say that when we dropped the funnel clouds over those two Japanese cities, that those guys were nuts in their thinking too?

I dunno, solved WW2. It won’t be long. Nuclear war is inevitable… just a matter of time before those nukes end up in the (terrorists)kamikazi’s hands.

46

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
O.K. I’ll accept that. Would you say that when we dropped the funnel clouds over those two Japanese cities, that those guys were nuts in their thinking too?[/quote]

The situation was different at that time. Only the US had The Bomb and using it on Japan was unnecessary, as Japan was looking for a way to surrender while saving face. The bombs where dropped at least as much as a demonstration for the Soviets as to completely break the Japanese will for war.

Today, at least seven countries have nuclears weapons and 4 of them (Russia, China, Pakistan and India) are in the region with Iran. Can you risk any one of them becoming involved with nukes? Once you pull yours out and start using them, what’s to prevent them from doing the same? If you’re ready to nuke to protect your interests; it’s unreasonable to expect others to restrain themselves when they see their interests being threatened.

WW2 was pretty much already solved by that time… it’s another debate.

Even if you’re right about nuclear war being inevitable, the escalation and eventual outcome of that war will be different if it’s the U.S. that uses the nukes first. A terrorist nuke can and will cause immense damage and death, but might not lead to a nuclear escalation. You might have a world coalition invading the “source” country to forcibly remove any nuclear production and of arsenal remaining. If the US uses them, there’s really no way to counter the threat using conventional warfare.

47

You guys still haven’t figured out that the world is going to be turned into versions of the United States, with varying degrees of government, from authoritarian to liberal democracy. The USA, China, Russia, and India are the future. Countries like Iraq are simply on the list for 2nd tier development.

The terrorism will be crushed, Iran will get a ‘regime change’, and Iraq will emerge from the dark ages. Do you honestly think that a few thousand whack-jobs are going to stop this process, against the 4 largest nations on earth?

48

I’m glad we nuked Japan. My old man had just gotten to Okinawa, for the invasion of Kyushu, from Germany. That invasion would’ve sucked major donkey ass.

Headhunter

49

Nuking Iraq would solve nothing. All it would do is turn other nations against us - or should I say FURTHER against us. We need to make FRIENDS in the world, not more enemies - we’ve got PLENTY of enemies.

I think Teddy said it the best. “Speak softly and carry a big stick”.

We MUST ACT ETHICALLY in our conduct, for if we do not, and we betray the rights of the people we are ostensibly trying to help, then we become as monstrous (perhaps more) as the very enemy we are attempting to defeat. Two-thousand American lives over several years of combat is NOTHING. Sure I’m upset that our guys died, and that good friends of mine are risking their lives on a potentially hopeless situation, but compare that to how many Iraqi CIVILLIANS have died in this war. Keep in mind that your average Iraqi civillian is just a dude or a woman trying to make ends meet in a one shitty situation after another. Whereas before they couldn’t speak out against Saddam without a family member dissapearing, now they can’t walk down the street to the fucking market without fearing for their lives - either they could be killed by a terrorist insurgent - blown to pieces by a homemade bomb, or mistaken by the US as a terrorist insurgent and cut down by gunfire.

If we show carelessness with the lives of Iraqis, we will lose the battle for public opinion, more civillians will turn to the insurgents, and the country will crumble before we’ve even finished building it. If we lose the battle for public opinion in Iraq, we will subsequently begin to lose it in the rest of the world.

This is why we don’t use nukes. This is why we should train our soldiers in cultural sensitivity. This is why teaching our soldiers that we’re there for “revenge” (though it may motivate them temporarily), WILL BACKFIRE. We need to shift gears from “We’re there to kick ass” to “We’re there to stabilize a new nation and protect innocent people”.

This whole war has been mis-managed, and I gauranfuckingtee you if John Kerry or Al Gore was in charge, that would not be the case. (I just hope the Dems don’t decide to puss out and run for office on the platform of “pull them out now” - I don’t forsee it, but I still fear it. What I DO forsee is them running on a platform of “timetable for withdrawl”)

50

[quote]doogie wrote:
semper_fi wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Do you think the currently elected Iraqi government is Islamofascist friendly?

Hmmm…maybe not but didn’t the Islamofacists try to boycott the election?

Watch… once we pull out these assholes will take power and everything we have done will be in vain.

It would almost be easier at this point to have an Islamo-fascist government in place. Then it would be pretty clear exactly who the enemy is.

We’ve got to get out of the nation building business. Overthrow the governments that support terror, pull out, let the UN earn their money, and if the people install another government that supports terror we overthrow that one, too. Endless little wars versus one endless big one.[/quote]

This might be a more realistic strategy but it doesn’t sit right with me.

51

[quote]knewsom wrote:

Two-thousand American lives over several years of combat is NOTHING. Sure I’m upset that our guys died, and that good friends of mine are risking their lives on a potentially hopeless situation, but compare that to how many Iraqi CIVILLIANS have died in this war. [/quote]

This is the problem with America right here… this type of thinking. How about if it was 3 of your brothers that were part of the 2,000 dead. Would you still gladly trade your 3 brothers to save those Iraqi citizens. If so, i would never want you for a brother… I have 3 of my own and I wouldn’t trade one of their lives to save every Iraqi on earth.

You need to learn to protect your own first. We can’t even do that right. How many did we lose in the Twin Towers crashes? Now America wants to save the world and protect everyone else. This is embarassing. Right now America couldn’t protect a warm cup of piss with this liberal attitude on crime.

-Get the boys home.
-Stop invading 3rd world non-threatning countries. (if they ever pose a threat, use those fucking bombs we have, or stop building them). “You don’t put on a condom unless you’re going to fuck!” - Crimson Tide
-Stop trying to push our way of life and government for people that want nothing to do with the kind.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe if we weren’t the leading country in invasions of other countries… maybe we wouldn’t have so many enemies in the first place? Besides that, we act like pussies when it comes time to fight anyone. Even the rules of engagement are wussified, “don’t fire, until fired upon”… that had to be someone part of the liberal label society that came up with that, I mean what the fuck?.. don’t kill until someone kills you first, or at least tried to kill you.

This is rediculous. Bush is a puppet… he has the I.Q. of a roof shingle, he listens to his war cronies like Rumpystillskin and starts war for approval rating. Now he has a clusterfuck mess that he can’t get out of… YOU CANNOT CHANGE A COUNTRIES ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE WITH THIS REDICULOUS PLAN… ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Just keep the Amercan boys death total going up daily for Bush’s approval rating and some oil we could manufacture out of shale rock.

Good thinking conservatives… they want act hard, but when it comes down to it… all they do it talk and let their liberal friends do the fighting for them and clean up their mess.

How ironic is it that this government is going down the tubes, yet we want to make everyone else like us? We need to fix our own problems first and maybe some other country will decide its a good way to do things after all, then just do it themselves. If not, stop forcing others to eat fucking apples when they like oranges.

“George bush is killing American boys trying to save face on an original agenda that is no longer possible, and he knows it, he is just looking to pass this war on to the democrat that recieves it and push the blame” -GHF

52

[quote]Go heavy fool wrote:
knewsom wrote:

Two-thousand American lives over several years of combat is NOTHING. Sure I’m upset that our guys died, and that good friends of mine are risking their lives on a potentially hopeless situation, but compare that to how many Iraqi CIVILLIANS have died in this war.

This is the problem with America right here… this type of thinking. How about if it was 3 of your brothers that were part of the 2,000 dead. Would you still gladly trade your 3 brothers to save those Iraqi citizens. If so, i would never want you for a brother… I have 3 of my own and I wouldn’t trade one of their lives to save every Iraqi on earth.

You need to learn to protect your own first. We can’t even do that right. How many did we lose in the Twin Towers crashes? Now America wants to save the world and protect everyone else. This is embarassing. Right now America couldn’t protect a warm cup of piss with this liberal attitude on crime.

-Get the boys home.
-Stop invading 3rd world non-threatning countries. (if they ever pose a threat, use those fucking bombs we have, or stop building them). “You don’t put on a condom unless you’re going to fuck!” - Crimson Tide
-Stop trying to push our way of life and government for people that want nothing to do with the kind.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe if we weren’t the leading country in invasions of other countries… maybe we wouldn’t have so many enemies in the first place? Besides that, we act like pussies when it comes time to fight anyone. Even the rules of engagement are wussified, “don’t fire, until fired upon”… that had to be someone part of the liberal label society that came up with that, I mean what the fuck?.. don’t kill until someone kills you first, or at least tried to kill you.

This is rediculous. Bush is a puppet… he has the I.Q. of a roof shingle, he listens to his war cronies like Rumpystillskin and starts war for approval rating. Now he has a clusterfuck mess that he can’t get out of… YOU CANNOT CHANGE A COUNTRIES ENTIRE WAY OF LIFE WITH THIS REDICULOUS PLAN… ITS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Just keep the Amercan boys death total going up daily for Bush’s approval rating and some oil we could manufacture out of shale rock.

Good thinking conservatives… they want act hard, but when it comes down to it… all they do it talk and let their liberal friends do the fighting for them and clean up their mess.

How ironic is it that this government is going down the tubes, yet we want to make everyone else like us? We need to fix our own problems first and maybe some other country will decide its a good way to do things after all, then just do it themselves. If not, stop forcing others to eat fucking apples when they like oranges.

“George bush is killing American boys trying to save face on an original agenda that is no longer possible, and he knows it, he is just looking to pass this war on to the democrat that recieves it and push the blame” -GHF
[/quote]

…exactly why in the buildup to the war in Iraq, you would’ve seen me on the fucking street corner with a goddamn sign protesting the whole fucking thing. I have many brothers and cousins, some of whom ARE IN THE ARMED FORCES. Of course I’d rather see one of them live instead of a random Iraqi - but don’t you see that wanton waste of civillian life RESULTS NOT ONLY IN THE FORMATION OF TERRORISTS AND SYMPATHY FOR TERRORISTS, BUT ALSO TURNS OUR ALLIES AWAY FROM US?

Emotion is a valid part of decision making, but you MUST think logically about your decisions rather than making them based soley on your emotional response.

You’re totally right about what GBW is tryign to do, but I still think that unless we do everythign we can to right this terrible wrong, we’ll have ended up FAR the worse for ever having tried such a stupid thing. Better to try and make iced tea with a lemon slice instead of a pile of fucking lemons.

53

Gotta agree with Semper Fi. We have given Iraq the gift of free democratic election. So we have to let them go with who ever they elect, which (in all likelyhood) will be a nutter - because that’s what they understand. They don’t have a history of freedom or democracy or the information system to deal with informed political decision making. Then when we decide we don’t like their choice we can pull out & let them stew.
We gave them the electoral system & opportunities we promised, the rest is their problem!

As to the UN sending in troops after we invade a country? Not likely. Look at the international hooplah after the initial invasion. How much support was there for the coalition? BUGGER ALL! No way the UN would back up another action like this.

54

[quote]knewsom wrote:
…exactly why in the buildup to the war in Iraq, you would’ve seen me on the fucking street corner with a goddamn sign protesting the whole fucking thing. I have many brothers and cousins, some of whom ARE IN THE ARMED FORCES. Of course I’d rather see one of them live instead of a random Iraqi - but don’t you see that wanton waste of civillian life RESULTS NOT ONLY IN THE FORMATION OF TERRORISTS AND SYMPATHY FOR TERRORISTS, BUT ALSO TURNS OUR ALLIES AWAY FROM US?

[/quote]

Exactly right. I am continually shocked that more people don’t realize this.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/six_easy_paragraphs.htm

55

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tidbit of of levity and trivia:

If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100, 000 for the same period.

That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.[/quote]

I’m sorry, but that’s the stupidest fucking statistic out there, and you see it all the time on some of the cheerleading right wing blogs. How about you be honest and/or intelligent, and either compare the civilian gun death rate in D.C. (your 80.6) to the civilian gun death rate in Iraq; or the U.S. military death rate in Iraq to the rate of D.C. cops shot dead.

I don’t have the figures at hand, but I’m pretty sure they’d paint a far different picture than this “Baghdad is safer than Washington” bullshit. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

56

The way I see it is simply this:

(1) We were correct in going into Iraq – Saadam trained and supported terrorists and it was only a matter of time before something really bad happened because of this.

(2) I recognize the problem with Iraq being forced into democracy when it is just not in their culture or experience, and that taking out Saadam allowed the nut job in Iran to rise to power.

(3) We cannot police the entire world.

With that said, we will have to come to the point where we will have to hand over the government of Iraq to the Iraqis. What will happen then will probably be chaos and maybe invasion from Iran.

However, we cannot simply pull out of Iraq now – it would look like a defeat for the U.S. and that would not be good in further deterance of terrorism.

I am a Bush supporter (usually), but I do think there have been mess ups here with the prosecution of this war.

57

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The way I see it is simply this:

(1) We were correct in going into Iraq – Saadam trained and supported terrorists and it was only a matter of time before something really bad happened because of this.

(2) I recognize the problem with Iraq being forced into democracy when it is just not in their culture or experience, and that taking out Saadam allowed the nut job in Iran to rise to power.

(3) We cannot police the entire world.

With that said, we will have to come to the point where we will have to hand over the government of Iraq to the Iraqis. What will happen then will probably be chaos and maybe invasion from Iran.

However, we cannot simply pull out of Iraq now – it would look like a defeat for the U.S. and that would not be good in further deterance of terrorism.

I am a Bush supporter (usually), but I do think there have been mess ups here with the prosecution of this war.[/quote]

I didn’t even read your entire post because you were so wrong on the first thing you typed.

First off all… Saddam hated terrorists, and he hated Osama. Second, Saddam had control of his country and the terrorists before we invaded that country. Sure Saddam was cruel but he was never a threat to the United States and he could actually keep these people under control.

Bush is a historical brainfart. Nothing he does is worth repeating. If I were a democrat running for office… I would start buying some of the most absorbant mops that they can find, because they are going to need a shitload of them to clean up this fiasco.

Guess what donkeys, we inherited another elephant, and this one takes some ginormous dumps… and constantly. I wouldn’t want to be the next president… that’s just a 4 year janitorial gig.

58

[quote]
I am continually shocked that more people don’t realize this.
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/six_easy_paragraphs.htm[/quote]

beautifully illustrated. thank you for the link.

59

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
(1) We were correct in going into Iraq – Saadam trained and supported terrorists and it was only a matter of time before something really bad happened because of this.[/quote]

That’s crap. It’s Afghanistan you invaded because of terrorist camps, remember? For Iraq it was the bullshit about WMDs even while the U.N. inspectors kept reporting that their was nothing to be found.

You’re so well informed about the issues, you can’t even spell Saddam correctly.

Agreed. Now that you’ve turn the place into a shithole of chaos and violence, you should stay and fix your mess. I really hope that’s what happens, but I think it’s more likely that the troops will be pulled out in the coming years and the region will be left more unstable than it was before you invaded. It will reinforce to the terrorists the image of the US as a “paper tiger” while having alienated a lot of worldwide support you had after 9/11. Yup, Bush really did a bang-up job here.

60

The Iraqi people have earned our support. They are our brothers.

“We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother;”
from ‘Henry V’