More Troops to Iraq

[jfuh]

I think the prospect of adding another couple hundred thousand troops raises practical concerns. Despite the fact that defense spending has been increased by 2/3 annually since the Bush Administration took over, I don't believe troop levels have increased at all. I'm not sure where the extra $200 billion a year is going; my guess is there are a lot of happy defense contractors out there.

Just business as usual for these guys. Haliburton seems to get the money then loose it without any idea of where it went.

What is your point? That gives the US legitimacy for any military action to a country keeps its oil flowing?

It doesn't give legitimacy at all. Nor does it validate the US involvement within these regions. What it shows is that the US is still going to be there regardless of because of it's reliance on the black crude. Being that it is a vital interest, legitimate or not, don't make any mistake about it, the US will go to war over vital interests regardless of who is president.

If it is a definite time, when is the date for withdrawal? Indefinite means there is no definite time set.

Being so of the definition, indefinte is also relateable to permanence. I acknowledge that it's currently "in-definte" and will be for probably at least the next year or two. But again if we set a time now or make public a time now, it's probably going to spell bad news for the out come of this conflict. It was a failure to go in, it was a failure to go in with half the effort, it was a failure to go in with no exit plan, and it's a failure now that we have to debate it at all. I do not wish for all those lives lost to be in vain, at least amount to something positive, more than just purple fingers.

1. I find it questionable about how soon Iraqi oil will be flowing, we have been told this from the get go.
2. What does Iraqi oil production have to do with whether we should continue to occupy?

It's doubtful it'd be any time soon. Afterall, Haliburton needs to get full control first:lol: Just kidding, seriously though, it's a very difficult question to answer. Because you're right, it will be a while before Iraqi oil starts to flow. However with our occupation we would in essence "get" more leverage with oil availability, or at least our coorperations would have priority over any foreign competitor over aquisition of oil rights.

You cannot base continued occupation on the fact that people have died and billions have been spent. That is a self-justification. If that was the justification we'd still be fighting in Vietnam. The question is whether continued occupation is the right thing to do.

It's not justification, there's no justification for invading a country unless we got invaded in the first place. But as you bring to light, it is the right thing to do and it's what ought to be done. If I had it my way, we'd be independent of oil by now.

Upon what do you base the belief we are on the final legs of the war?

Major operations have ceased, the former government was toppled. Now we're rebuilding what we toppled. The final leg is always the more difficult.
Now a distinction between the IRaq war and the larger war on terror must be made. The Iraq was has nothing to do with the war on terror. I think even the most conservative of ppls realize that by now.

That is a questionable proposition. More troops my provide more security. They do not necessarily the underlying issues driving the resistance.

Excellent point. Yes more troops indeed provide more security, however in order to quell the underlying issues of the resistance requires a rational strategy that would show these that we're not trying to steal from them or take advantage of them. This is very difficult, because it is this same sentiment that is causing the hatred towards the US. However, one step at a time, first secure the area and prevent further instances of our troops and thier's being picked off like sitting ducks.

Same argue applies to the people who are dead and the hundreds of billions spent.

That's quite a slippery slope there. The argument would be very different because the conflict is still occuring right now. Pulling out now would be quite devastating for the stability of the region. Success however would have far reaching resonnance with the ppls there prooving that we're not the extremists that the Mullahs make us up to be.

That is not the only way out of it. Just leave.

Sure we can just leave, but that would be irresponsible, and the ending there would only lead to more extreemism rising to "counter" the US.

Unless cleaning up the mess creates more damage than leaving it. It appears to me that is what our continued attempt to clean up the mess is doing. It is our presence in Iraq that is making the mess -- drawing in foreign radicals and fueling the insurgency. It may be the best way to clean up the mess is simply stop making a mess.

Thus far that has been the case. Because we have little presence there. The enemy is saying essentially hey look, we can pluck them off like ducks. You bring that number up 10 times then see if they still think that. In war, numbers mean everything.
Another cause of increased insurgency is completely due to us going in there with questionable intel and the ppl's of the middle east never wanted us there anymore then they wanted Saddam in power. To them it was trading one dictatorship for another.
Look at it this way, we leave, it's deffinetely a mess. However we stay we still have a chance of cleaning up the crap WE caused.
But in order to do that, we need to simultaneously start within our own borders. In the cold war we won that because we held true to the principles of our constitution and bill of rights. However now going to war there we've tossed out all the rights of our own ppls and are no better then the enemy we are fighting. It is the image which we are projecting which is no longer that of a free, just, and lawful nation. We preach to them the dangers of sectarianism while at home we're saying vote for me because I'm of the same faith as you. We have a president that does not listen to public opinion or respect dessent. Why would anyone listen to such hypocrisy? All the while they only see our major coorperations going in and taking over thier oil fields and so on. In order to lead, we need to show that ppl would want to follow us and are willing to follow us through trust. Right now, this country has 0 credibility internationally, which is why the war in Iraq is failing.

 

[hipsterdufus]

In 2007 they will say it will last until 2008. In 2008, with the elections, they will say we are really winning and withdraw a token number of troops to prove the point.

Right - it's like every few months Bush says we're at a major "turning point" in Iraq. Turn 3 times, and you're right back where you started, turn fast enough and you're running in circles.

 

[jfuh]

Right - it's like every few months Bush says we're at a major "turning point" in Iraq. Turn 3 times, and you're right back where you started, turn fast enough and you're running in circles.

Interesting point. However I disagree. I don't think we've moved forward at all, just kept turning in the same place over and over, creating a downward spiraling hole if you will.

Add more troops before the elections and withdraw those troops right before the elections and claim look how many thousand troops we've withdrawn! Unfortunately the general public is indeed dumb enough to believe such crap