Do you accept defeat?

[1069]

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.

Cuba?


____________

 

[mikhail]

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

In civil war you have to back a dictator a dictator will take a developing country into a developed country faster than democracy.Besides people only believe in democracy when everything is basically ok in their country.

 

[Kandahar]

Cuba?


____________

Nah, the Cuban electorate is certainly much smarter than the Castros. It'd do much better as a democracy.

 

[jfuh]

really hundreds?

I'll concede not hundreds but enough that we'd need to invade just about a good majority of the earth's land masses.

 

[jfuh]

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.

Only one problem. AQ is Sunni where as Iraq is predominantly Shiite, They don't exactly have a united front against us in particular but more so against each other. So if we are to pull out immediately, OBL's threat is an empty one and the AQ "fighters" would be quite slaughtered by the Iranian funded (if true) Shiite militia.
Seems only more reason to leave than to stay and fight for a country who's residents don't want us there.
BTW since when was it liberals to accept defeat when it was not liberals that got us into this war in the first place? The thread question itself is self-discrediting and degenerating to partisan slander.

 

[DeeJayH]

Cuba?


____________

why doesnt it surprise me that you are a fan of cuba/Fidel :roll:

 

[conserv.pat15]

Only one problem. AQ is Sunni where as Iraq is predominantly Shiite, They don't exactly have a united front against us in particular but more so against each other.

They are united against us... Remember, to them, we are the "infidels" and "the great satan." Are you saying that they hate each other more than us?

So if we are to pull out immediately, OBL's threat is an empty one and the AQ "fighters" would be quite slaughtered by the Iranian funded (if true) Shiite militia.

If we were to pull out immediately, Osama bin Laden and all other Islamic terrorists would consider it a victory for them.

Seems only more reason to leave than to stay and fight for a country who's residents don't want us there.

If they don't want us there, then why hasn't the Iraqi government told us to leave?

BTW since when was it liberals to accept defeat when it was not liberals that got us into this war in the first place? The thread question itself is self-discrediting and degenerating to partisan slander.

Most Liberals were for the war. Now they are the one's who want to leave before the job is done.

 

[Kandahar]

They are united against us... Remember, to them, we are the "infidels" and "the great satan." Are you saying that they hate each other more than us?

If our soldiers aren't in Iraq acting as target practice for them? Then yes, they absolutely would turn their hatred toward each other before they'd worry about crossing the Atlantic Ocean.

If we were to pull out immediately, Osama bin Laden and all other Islamic terrorists would consider it a victory for them.

They can "consider" it whatever they want, but the reality of the situation would be that al-Qaeda would be worse off if we left. It would eliminate their biggest recruiting tool in Iraq, and it would free the Shiite to do what they will to al-Qaeda.

If they don't want us there, then why hasn't the Iraqi government told us to leave?

Because the Iraqi government wants us there.

Most Liberals were for the war. Now they are the one's who want to leave before the job is done.

Even at it's most popular, this war only had about 70% support from the American people.

 

[jfuh]

They are united against us... Remember, to them, we are the "infidels" and "the great satan." Are you saying that they hate each other more than us?

That's exactly what I'm saying. and I have the ability to back up this claim as well with the current news reports of infighting and civil war. If they "hated" us more than each other, they wouldn't be killing each other far more than they are killing us.

If we were to pull out immediately, Osama bin Laden and all other Islamic terrorists would consider it a victory for them.

I don't know OBL and neither do you. However I do know that our invasion of Iraq was a wet dream come true for OBL and members of AQ. 1. we proved them right; 2. we've provided them with the perfect recruiting ground.

If they don't want us there, then why hasn't the Iraqi government told us to leave?

Well that's changing my argument a bit, from the people to the government.
The government can't afford for us to leave now because they don't have control and wish not to be overthrown as soon as we leave.
But since you bring it up, what if they ask us to stay indefinitely to fight their war for them? Will we stay?

Most Liberals were for the war. Now they are the one's who want to leave before the job is done.

Not this liberal, nor any other liberals I know of. Neither was I aware that we had a liberal executive branch today that pushed for the war with Iraq.
Job is done? Just what is the job? I remember something about WMD's, AQ and Hussein, removing Hussein. WMD proved false as did the AQ Hussein tie Saddam is dead. So what's the job now?

 

[Duke]

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?

No, we accept reality, something that has bedeviling conservatives since the beginning of this imbroglio.


Duke

 

[Gardener]

Not this liberal, nor any other liberals I know of. Neither was I aware that we had a liberal executive branch today that pushed for the war with Iraq.
Job is done? Just what is the job? I remember something about WMD's, AQ and Hussein, removing Hussein. WMD proved false as did the AQ Hussein tie Saddam is dead. So what's the job now?

For what it's worth, I did not support the war in Iraq since I wanted us to focus on al queda, instead. From a liberal perspective, though,I would think the job is now to prevent the loss of life, and that would include Iraqis caught in the turmoil as well as our own. Focusing solely on our own certainly shows a sense of national self-interest, but it isn't necessarily a liberal trait.

Every time there is a discussion of Iraq, too many of the arguments advanced by self-described liberals revolve around endless recriminations as to why we went in. The thing is -- the reasons for us going in are not necessarily relevant when it comes to determining what to do now IF we wish to limit further bloodshed,and limit it for all concerned. We are there. We can't rewrite history, so we need pragmatic solutions of the here and now rather than the endless rehashing of what might or might not have been.

If we leave immediately,and there is bloodbath of reprisals against anybody seen as allied with us, we are abandoning the liberal perspective if we say "who cares". If we stay and there is endless sectarian violence because of our presense and we say "who cares", likewise. I wouldthink that anybody who can see beyond the tip of their own nose would want a free and prosperous Iraq just as they would want the same for any country or people, so in essense, the arguments boil down to how that is best acheived -- with or with out us?

If "conservatives" want a free and prosperous Iraq, and think our being there is the best way to go, they are agreeing on principle with those "liberals" who share this same desire, but differing in approach, since the same liberals think the best approach is to leave and remove the catalyst for the violence. Likewise, the"liberals" who don't give a rats patootie what happens as long as it doesn't happen to us argree in principle with the "conservatives" who would just as well bomb the whole middle east back into the stone age, since neither are motivated by any consideration for the people involved.

 

[MSgt]

See I don't agree with this sentence. To me it's very clear how this situation is going. I think the moment we leave the Iraqi government will fall and a new strong man will take power. I don't have much faith in a people that have never known anything even remotely close to democracy. It happened in Africa and it'll happen again here. Now people will say "Yes but Hatuey America struggled in it's infancy. You cant expect them to become like the U.S. after what they've been through". I agree. However one can't compare Iraq to the U.S.. Main reason is we actually fought for our freedom. We wanted it. We managed to get over our differences and came together as one nation. As Americans. The list of religious issues between the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq are way too long. They wont just forget these differences and come together as Iraqis. I'm starting to think the best option is to separate them into 3 different nations(Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) and then hope for the best.

You are absolutely correct. We can't place unrealistic expectations upon this. American democracy is a culture. We were united at the start and we have been struggling as a group to grow our social dynamics all along. People on the outside may scoff at our society, but we prosper because we have a Liberal population and a Conservative population that keeps each other honest. This is why we haven't seen our Hitler or seen the Native American slaughter carried over to other minorities or seen stagnation. Our population keeps us honest.

And we have to understand that our democracy and our sense of freedom is not the only definition. Everyone wants freedom, but everyone defines that freedom according to their cultural roots, religion, and environment. Iraq's sense of freedom will involve a surrendering of select individual freedoms, because that is their religious culture. Muslims, especially in the Middle East, have always felt that as long as the government was making the right decisions for them and caring for the Muslim community according to the laws of Islam, then all was well. This will not change just because they vote.

A very viable option is the partitioning of Iraq. For too long we have behaved as Europeans as we honored unnatural borders and forced unlike people to live together. During the colonial period, millions, that did not want to, were forced to live together and hundreds of millions, that wanted to, were forced to live apart. We have foolishly maintained these borders and supported over expired governments for "stability." If we are to stand up for what we are supposed to be standing up for, then we will be going along way in this generational "War on Terror" by listening to the will of the people. A seperation may not be in their best interest, but it is their decision. In all of the world, if we don't stand up for free will, who will?

 

[dragonslayer]

I answered the question, yes I accept defeat.

We were defeated the first time our military were sent to the Gulf to prepare to invade Iraq. Bush's decision to support big oil and invade Iraq, was our unduing. We need had no business ever going into Iraq. Bush and his corporate bosses were looking for profits and control of some oil. Since big oil are not American oil companies any longer, there concern was profit and Bush and his corporate puppet masters, said screw the United states and invaded Iraq. Get our troops out of Iraq and have them start helping against the war on terrorists.

We were defeated morally and ethically when we invaded for nothing.
:twocents: :boom

 

[MSgt]

Do you feel we should stay in Iraq for another 10-15 years as it stands now?

No. This 10~15 years will be on their own terms and on their own strengths and convictions. We are at the beginnings of our end. There may be more, but there is only one more phase that I'm aware of after this troop surge.

What I don't like about the situation in Iraq is that we are on their terms. It is up to the Iraqi soldiers and it's government when we get to leave.

In a sense you are right. About a year and a half ago, Rumsfeld finally acknowledged that our training efforts weren't good enough. He had this inexperienced idea that all we had to do was train the Iraqi army how to fight. Despite the requests from higher Marine and Army officials, we were not allowed to train their forces in the aspects of communications, supplies, administration, and intelligence. This was an error in Vietnam. We became too comfortable just training infantry and catering to their needs in other aspects. And despite the former OSD, we were determined to not repeat this error.

This was finally corrected, but ultimately we are at the mercy of Iraq to step up. This patience is running out, which is why we are seeing our government push the Iraqi government to get as much political diplomacy done during this troop surge.

We accomplished the goals we set for Iraq. Now it is up to Iraq to make what it wants with itself. You can't force a specific outcome of democracy onto people. They will make with it what they will.

Exactly. Which is why I stated earlier that we have to be careful and fair about what is a success and a defeat. Any measure of democracy and maintained stability is a success for these people. As long as they are able to hold on and the Sunni hardliners relax their stubborn grip on the past, they will grow. And that will be the time we start seeing a difference. (Assuming that it won't all fall apart the day we step out).

 

[MSgt]

Success as an objective but failure in the war on terror. Hussein was not a radical Islamist terror supporter. He was relatively secular, who had a Christian as his top minister. Iraq was relatively stable under his brutal rule and he served as a check against Iran and radical terrorists. Removing Husseins Govt destablized Iraq, removed it as a check against Iranian hegemony and created a lawless civil war environment where terrorists could thrive. Iraq will in all probably either end up under Iran's influence or devolve into warring separate states as a perfect breeding ground for terrorists.

A net big loss in the war on terror.

It doesn't matter who he was. It wouldn't ewven matter if he was a Buddhist. Toppling Saddam had nothing to do with addressing the current day religious terrorist. It had everything to do with future terrorists that will be the creation from an unchanged Middle East.

Saddam was mere opportunity. And a very biog step towards the end of this "War on Terror." Anyone that expected this to get better before it got worse, no matter what we did or do, is naive. There is no magic wand. And there is no "safe" way to deal with this enourmous problem. Either we stop limping along and pretending that all is well as Americans die or we do something once and for all.

We killed an Al-Queda leader in Iraq. Meanwhile, to use your phrase, the illegitimate US attack on Iraq has fueled the fire of anti-American radicalism throughout the ME, helping to lead an explosion of terrorists groups and radical governments in Iran, Palestine, and Lebananon.

Big loss in the war on terror.

Was this not already an occurrence throughout the Middle East? Saudi Arabia didn't mind the violent outburst in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, because they were more than happy to get rid of their Radical trash. The same is true for Syria. Now, the only thing they fear more than a truley democratic Muslim nation that caters to the basic human rights of all Muslims is a bordering terrorist state.

We cannot fear angering people that already hate us and we cannot expect that what we do will not feul an immediate response from this already indoctrinated hatred. It's the same thing with everything.

We are *far* worse off having invaded Iraq that we would have been otherwise.

No we are not. You are living in the day. We would have been just as hated had we taken out the House of Saud in Muhammed's sacred homeland. Just as hated if we decided to bomb out nuclear questing Iran. Radical Pakistanis travel into Afghanistan to prove to us how much they hate us as well.

Doing nothing, doing something. Either way we are hated and all we need to do to place guns in their hands is to breath in their direction (or draw a cartoon). At least now, the Middle East has an opportunity if Iraq can become that beacon (already seeing this in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon). At least now we don't have to deal with a Saddam Hussein while we deal with a nuclear questing Iran. At least now, no matter what we do next, the most militant and ruthless leader in the Middle East no longer exists.

The answer to peace in the Middle East (and the rest of the third world) is no longer the select dicatator.

 

[MSgt]

I answered the question, yes I accept defeat.

We were defeated the first time our military were sent to the Gulf to prepare to invade Iraq. Bush's decision to support big oil and invade Iraq, was our unduing. We need had no business ever going into Iraq. Bush and his corporate bosses were looking for profits and control of some oil. Since big oil are not American oil companies any longer, there concern was profit and Bush and his corporate puppet masters, said screw the United states and invaded Iraq. Get our troops out of Iraq and have them start helping against the war on terrorists.

We were defeated morally and ethically when we invaded for nothing.
:twocents: :boom

Let's look at this without partisan pom poms on. You state that we were defeated "morally and ethically" when we invaded for "nothing."

First, you elect to decree an invasion to topple a brutal dictator, who invaded two of his neighboring countries and managed to terrorize Iranians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Israelis in the process, as less than morally and ethically sound. This implies that our behavior in the past, where we maintained "stability" at all cost for American thirsts for oil, as the more desired definition of morallity and ethics. Of course, while you state this, the subject of oil greed is only mentioned as a Bush thing. You are aware that the next President will cater to the Lords of Terror in Saudi Arabia so that you can enjoy lower gas prices than Europeans?

Second, you are assuming that it is for "nothing," which insults not only every single troop that laces up a boot, but every single politician, which was voted in by the American population, that gave the thumbs up. The UN was informed exactly what this was about before we kicked off the event. And it wasn't for "nothing."

Partisan slaves are quick to blame it all on Bush oil as they whine for a return to their former America. This is rediculous. Their former America did everything possible to maintain "stability" for oil no matter what it cost our futures. This meant, "supporting" the dictator that is also thrown in our faces and selling weapons to all factions to maintain a sense of balance. Of course, in the mean time we smile at our Arab "friends" in Saudi Arabia for low gas prices as they use us to explain away every social failure in the Middle East. Taking in the fact that we have not seen any oil return for Iraq and that it would have been entirely cheaper just to buy it, a war for oil is not what occurred.

 

[Iriemon]

It doesn't matter who he was. It wouldn't ewven matter if he was a Buddhist. Toppling Saddam had nothing to do with addressing the current day religious terrorist. It had everything to do with future terrorists that will be the creation from an unchanged Middle East.

Saddam was mere opportunity. And a very biog step towards the end of this "War on Terror." Anyone that expected this to get better before it got worse, no matter what we did or do, is naive. There is no magic wand. And there is no "safe" way to deal with this enourmous problem. Either we stop limping along and pretending that all is well as Americans die or we do something once and for all.

I disagree with your contention that attacking a nation lead by a Buddhist that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the US would an effective step in reducing the risk of a terrorist attack. That's like saying we should have invaded fascist Spain in response the declaration of war against the United States by Germany.

Our focus needs to be on reducing the number of anti-American radicals. Going around and unjustifiably bombing the **** out of and occupying Islamic countries that had nothing to do with the attack on 9-11 is not forwarding our objective, but is retreating from it.

If you think getting rid of Saddam and occupying Iraq has been "a very big step" towards the end of the "war on terror" IMO you are very mistaken and not realistically looking at what is going on.

Was this not already an occurrence throughout the Middle East? Saudi Arabia didn't mind the violent outburst in Iraq after Saddam was toppled, because they were more than happy to get rid of their Radical trash. The same is true for Syria. Now, the only thing they fear more than a truley democratic Muslim nation that caters to the basic human rights of all Muslims is a bordering terrorist state.

True of every despot. The best thing they can hope for to keep in power is an external threat, which we are providing. Witness the elections of the most radical regimes in Iran, Lebanon and Palestine.

The good news is that radicals are seldom effective administrators. Remove the external threat and their support will erode.

We cannot fear angering people that already hate us and we cannot expect that what we do will not feul an immediate response from this already indoctrinated hatred. It's the same thing with everything.

We should fear angering those who were not previously angry at us. Which the evidence shows this administration has done quite effectively.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
We are *far* worse off having invaded Iraq that we would have been otherwise.

No we are not. You are living in the day. We would have been just as hated had we taken out the House of Saud in Muhammed's sacred homeland. Just as hated if we decided to bomb out nuclear questing Iran. Radical Pakistanis travel into Afghanistan to prove to us how much they hate us as well.

Doing nothing, doing something. Either way we are hated and all we need to do to place guns in their hands is to breath in their direction (or draw a cartoon). At least now, the Middle East has an opportunity if Iraq can become that beacon (already seeing this in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon). At least now we don't have to deal with a Saddam Hussein while we deal with a nuclear questing Iran. At least now, no matter what we do next, the most militant and ruthless leader in the Middle East no longer exists.

The answer to peace in the Middle East (and the rest of the third world) is no longer the select dicatator.

Your static view of how Muslims view the US is simply unrealistic. You are contending that it doesn't matter what the US does, the same number are angry at the US regardless of what we have done or do.

That is just malarky, GySgt. You recognized this yourself in another thread where you opined that an invasion of Lebanon would "fuel the fire".

No one is saying do nothing. But to embark on policies without regard to how our actions will be perceived by Muslims on the fiction that nothing we do matters is just plain foolishness.

 

[Iriemon]

Let's look at this without partisan pom poms on. You state that we were defeated "morally and ethically" when we invaded for "nothing."

First, you elect to decree an invasion to topple a brutal dictator, who invaded two of his neighboring countries and managed to terrorize Iranians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Israelis in the process, as less than morally and ethically sound. This implies that our behavior in the past, where we maintained "stability" at all cost for American thirsts for oil, as the more desired definition of morallity and ethics. Of course, while you state this, the subject of oil greed is only mentioned as a Bush thing. You are aware that the next President will cater to the Lords of Terror in Saudi Arabia so that you can enjoy lower gas prices than Europeans?

Second, you are assuming that it is for "nothing," which insults not only every single troop that laces up a boot, but every single politician, which was voted in by the American population, that gave the thumbs up. The UN was informed exactly what this was about before we kicked off the event. And it wasn't for "nothing."

Partisan slaves are quick to blame it all on Bush oil as they whine for a return to their former America. This is rediculous. Their former America did everything possible to maintain "stability" for oil no matter what it cost our futures. This meant, "supporting" the dictator that is also thrown in our faces and selling weapons to all factions to maintain a sense of balance. Of course, in the mean time we smile at our Arab "friends" in Saudi Arabia for low gas prices as they use us to explain away every social failure in the Middle East. Taking in the fact that we have not seen any oil return for Iraq and that it would have been entirely cheaper just to buy it, a war for oil is not what occurred.

I agree. Past US policies in this regard, such as support for the brutal Shah of Iran came back to haunt us for decades. Our close support for dictatorships like that in Saudi Arabia will probably come back to bite us in the *** too.

But it is one thing to stand against dictatorships and not support them. It is quite another to decide you are going to remove them by force.

This is academic contention anyway. No one except the Bush apologists buys the story that Bush invaded Iraq because he wants to rid the world of dicatators. Sounds nice to say (especially since the real reasons were horse hockey) but outside the true believers it doesn't sell.

 

[MSgt]

That is just malarky, GySgt.

Ha. "Malarky."

 

[MSgt]

This is academic contention anyway. No one except the Bush apologists buys the story that Bush invaded Iraq because he wants to rid the world of dicatators. Sounds nice to say (especially since the real reasons were horse hockey) but outside the true believers it doesn't sell.

I don't think he made claims to rid the world of dictators, especially in just 8 years of office. Saddam was specific to a greater issue. I wouldn't have had a problem if we did this in Suaid Arabia instead. It would have been a tactical nightmare, but something of substance had to happen somewhere in this region.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't think he made claims to rid the world of dictators, especially in just 8 years of office. Saddam was specific to a greater issue. I wouldn't have had a problem if we did this in Suaid Arabia instead. It would have been a tactical nightmare, but something of substance had to happen somewhere in this region.

Given the Bush families relationship with the Saudi royal government, Saudi Arabia would not have been a politically viable target for this administration, dictatorship or not.

 

[MSgt]

Given the Bush families relationship with the Saudi royal government, Saudi Arabia would not have been a politically viable target for this administration, dictatorship or not.

Well, that's certainly true. This is an oil man's administration, after all. But in all fairness, our oil needs pretty much guarantee Saudi protection. They are one of those "long expired governments" I always talk about.

 

[conserv.pat15]

No, we accept reality, something that has bedeviling conservatives since the beginning of this imbroglio.


Duke

I'll take that as a "yes."

 

[Duke]

I'll take that as a "yes."

Then you don't understand the issue.


Duke

 

[dragonslayer]

Let's look at this without partisan pom poms on. You state that we were defeated "morally and ethically" when we invaded for "nothing."

First, you elect to decree an invasion to topple a brutal dictator, who invaded two of his neighboring countries and managed to terrorize Iranians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, and Israelis in the process, as less than morally and ethically sound. This implies that our behavior in the past, where we maintained "stability" at all cost for American thirsts for oil, as the more desired definition of morallity and ethics. Of course, while you state this, the subject of oil greed is only mentioned as a Bush thing. You are aware that the next President will cater to the Lords of Terror in Saudi Arabia so that you can enjoy lower gas prices than Europeans?

Second, you are assuming that it is for "nothing," which insults not only every single troop that laces up a boot, but every single politician, which was voted in by the American population, that gave the thumbs up. The UN was informed exactly what this was about before we kicked off the event. And it wasn't for "nothing."

Partisan slaves are quick to blame it all on Bush oil as they whine for a return to their former America. This is rediculous. Their former America did everything possible to maintain "stability" for oil no matter what it cost our futures. This meant, "supporting" the dictator that is also thrown in our faces and selling weapons to all factions to maintain a sense of balance. Of course, in the mean time we smile at our Arab "friends" in Saudi Arabia for low gas prices as they use us to explain away every social failure in the Middle East. Taking in the fact that we have not seen any oil return for Iraq and that it would have been entirely cheaper just to buy it, a war for oil is not what occurred.

would Bush be considered a brutal dictator? Look at all the death that he is reponsible for. Look at the patriot act, which was designed to create a dictator.