Do you accept defeat?

[Kandahar]

**There's the defeatist attitude that I've been trying for weeks here to get liberals to admit to. Thank you Kandy, for finally coming out of the closet. Perhaps now we can get on to the business of supporting our troops and all the Republicans/Conservatives that seem to be the only people/Americans willing to win the war.

You're not real. Go away.

 

[Hatuey]

If you expect a simple one-word answer to a question that has hundreds of factors you didn't specify, then you're simple-minded.

When can we expect the invasion of Zimbabwe, Libya, Belarus, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and China to begin? Don't those countries have murderous dictators?

Let me add :

Cuba, Pakistan (Musharaf is in deep with A.Q.Kahn) and Syria.

 

[Iriemon]

The longer we stay their, the more we prove our opponent's point that the US's interest is controlling Iraq and its oil and their religion.

The United States' is not interested in "controlling Iraq and its oil and their religion." Do you actually believe this? You sound like the "war was for oil" type. The United States is interested in fighting and killing terrorists, while securing and helping Iraq form their Democracy.

It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is how it is reasonably perceived by folks in the ME, who are the folks we have to persuade.

Why would it be seen as illigitimate? Why do you say the United States has no credibility? Islamic terrorists would still hate us if we were not in Iraq.

Because 1) it was not done under international sanction 2) it was based on Iraq being an urgent threat to the US because of its WMDs, which was not true 3) despite the US holding itself out to be the model of freedom our Govt has regularly violated basic rights of others. And many other reasons. And yes there would have been terrorists who hate us, Iraq is not the only blunder we've made in the ME, but there are many more Islamic terrorists who hate us now.

No, you are not looking at the big picture. Iraq is a major part on the war on terror.

Iraq was not involved in any terrorist attack in the US. It was not involved in 9-11. The most it did was send money to Palestinian families who died attacking Israel.

Iraq is not part of the war on terror, but the war on infidel occupation. We could have invaded any country and found folks resisting a wrongful attack. It is an after the fact justification for war to say that people are resisting the occupation as the basis for the war.

The terrorists attacking us in Iraq would still hate the United States if we were not in Iraq.

I disagree with your implicit assetion that US policy in Iraq has had no influence on how the US is perceived in the ME. US policy has made the US much more hated. According to various reports, lots are in Iraq on what they view as a defensive mission fighting against infidel occupiers of their holy lands, who never otherwise had anything to do with terrorism.

 

[mikhail]

Defeat to who the sunni milita? the shhia milta? al qaida? Iran? who would be the defeat to?

 

[Iriemon]

Do you believe it is better to leave a murderous dictator in power or take the risk of losing many lives in order to free a nation from a murderous dictator?

You can answer by saying "freedom" or "dictator." Simple answer please.

Dictator. For reasons explained.

 

[conserv.pat15]

If you expect a simple one-word answer to a question that has hundreds of factors you didn't specify, then you're simple-minded.

When can we expect the invasion of Zimbabwe, Libya, Belarus, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and China to begin? Don't those countries have murderous dictators?

Put it in context with Iraq (is what I meant). Many of those countries you listed are not a threat to us as Iraq was. Iran and North Korea are a serious threat though... I agree with you there. I did not know that Vladamir Putin was a murderous dictator...

 

[Hatuey]

I did not know that Vladamir Putin was a murderous dictator...

He sends out ex-KGB agents to put polonium in your tomato soup if you talk **** about his government.

 

[Kandahar]

Put it in context with Iraq (is what I meant). Many of those countries you listed are not a threat to us as Iraq was.

Iraq was no threat to anyone outside of its own borders, especially a country as far away as the United States. Saddam Hussein didn't even have control over the no-fly zones within his own country. His loss in Desert Storm and over 10 years of tight restrictions had crippled his military. It was one of the weakest in the Middle East for a country of its size.

I did not know that Vladamir Putin was a murderous dictator...

Most definitely.

 

[Iriemon]

Put it in context with Iraq (is what I meant). Many of those countries you listed are not a threat to us as Iraq was. Iran and North Korea are a serious threat though... I agree with you there. I did not know that Vladamir Putin was a murderous dictator...

Iraq was no threat to the US. That is a fabrication to justify war.

Hussein was a two bit dictator who like politicians from Texas like to act tough, but had one main goal -- stay in power. And taking action against the US was not going to further that goal.

In contrast, the radical anti-American clerics who will probably end up in control of Iraq will be much more dangerous.

 

[mikhail]

Iraq was no threat to the US. That is a fabrication to justify war.

Hussein was a two bit dictator who like politicians from Texas like to act tough, but had one main goal -- stay in power. And taking action against the US was not going to further that goal.

In contrast, the radical anti-American clerics who will probably end up in control of Iraq will be much more dangerous.

Whoa dont be silly saddam was a lot tougher than any politician in texas

 

[conserv.pat15]

He sends out ex-KGB agents to put polonium in your tomato soup if you talk **** about his government.

Well, I meant on a large scale like Saddam... but I agree. I forgot about that KGB poisoning.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Iraq was no threat to anyone outside of its own borders, especially a country as far away as the United States. Saddam Hussein didn't even have control over the no-fly zones within his own country. His loss in Desert Storm and over 10 years of tight restrictions had crippled his military. It was one of the weakest in the Middle East for a country of its size.



Most definitely.

I think he was a threat... but I'm not gonna turn this thread into a debate about the threat Saddam posed.

 

[mikhail]

I think he was a threat... but I'm not gonna turn this thread into a debate about the threat Saddam posed.

Well he wasnt in fact Iraq was one of the most stable regions in the middle east.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Iraq was no threat to the US. That is a fabrication to justify war.

Hussein was a two bit dictator who like politicians from Texas like to act tough, but had one main goal -- stay in power. And taking action against the US was not going to further that goal.

In contrast, the radical anti-American clerics who will probably end up in control of Iraq will be much more dangerous.

Like I said to Kandahar, I think Saddam was a threat, but I'm not gonna turn this thread into a thread about the threat Saddam posed to us.

 

[Kandahar]

I think he was a threat... but I'm not gonna turn this thread into a debate about the threat Saddam posed.

If he was a threat, then surely he would have at least been able to get the US/UK air patrols out of his OWN country.

 

[Gibberish]

If he was a threat, then surely he would have at least been able to get the US/UK air patrols out of his OWN country.

Don't forget the invasion and toppling of his country and government in less then a week.

 

[jfuh]

Do you believe it is better to leave a murderous dictator in power or take the risk of losing many lives in order to free a nation from a murderous dictator?

You can answer by saying "freedom" or "dictator." Simple answer please.

Very well, I would've done exactly what Bush Sr. did, dictator.
By your own rational, there are now hundreds of other dictators in the world, thus the valid question here then is, when are we going to invade N.K? Saudi Arabia? Libya? ect.

 

[mikhail]

Very well, I would've done exactly what Bush Sr. did, dictator.
By your own rational, there are now hundreds of other dictators in the world, thus the valid question here then is, when are we going to invade N.K? Saudi Arabia? Libya? ect.

really hundreds?

 

[Thelost1]

really hundreds?

Lots, anyways.

 

[Hatuey]

really hundreds?

Well most of Africa is one big dictatorship. South America is heading the same route..plus..The middle east. Then we have China.....NK...Cuba....I'd say there are around 70-80 countries out there that count as dictatorships.

 

[mikhail]

Well most of Africa is one big dictatorship. South America is heading the same route..plus..The middle east. Then we have China.....NK...Cuba....I'd say there are around 70-80 countries out there that count as dictatorships.

Yes but are they all bad isnt a dictatorship part of a transistion in a developing country

 

[Hatuey]

Yes but are they all bad isnt a dictatorship part of a transition in a developing country

All dictatorships are bad. Democracy is the only way to truly advance. One guy running everything doesn't help imo.

 

[1069]

If we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished, it will be a defeat for the United States. Liberals, do you accept defeat?

Wait, wait... let me understand this.
"Pulling out" before the "job is finished" is the equivalent of "defeat"?
What's the job, again? I forgot. Or maybe I never knew.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Wait, wait... let me understand this.
"Pulling out" before the "job is finished" is the equivalent of "defeat"?
What's the job, again? I forgot. Or maybe I never knew.

Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a central part of their war against us. If we leave before we finish the job (establishing a Democracy able to sustain itself), the terrorists will view it as a victory for themselves.

 

[Kandahar]

All dictatorships are bad. Democracy is the only way to truly advance. One guy running everything doesn't help imo.

I don't think I agree with that. Dictatorships are good if the dictator is A) genuinely interested in helping improve his country, and B) smarter than the electorate. I can think of several examples of countries that have dictators that are probably superior to what they would elect: Jordan, Russia, Singapore, Malaysia. Hell, even the Saudi dictatorship is better than the Taliban-like government they would elect.