democraticandidate
New member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2005
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- The boondocks
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Supporters of the war in Iraq, as well as some non-supporters, warn of the dangers if we leave. But isn't it quite possible that these dangers are simply a consequence of having gone into Iraq in the first place, rather than a consequence of leaving? Isn't it possible that staying only makes the situation worse? If chaos results after our departure, it's because we occupied Iraq, not because we left.
We should remember that losing a war to China over control of North Korea ultimately did not enhance communism in China, as she now has accepted many capitalist principles. In fact, China today outproduces us in many ways – as reflected by our negative trade balance with her.
We lost a war in Vietnam, and the domino theory that communism would spread throughout southeast Asia was proven wrong. Today, Vietnam accepts American investment dollars and technology. We maintain a trade relationship with Vietnam that the war never achieved.
We contained the USSR and her thousands of nuclear warheads without military confrontation, leading to the collapse and disintegration of a powerful Soviet empire. Today we trade with Russia and her neighbors, as the market economy spreads throughout the world without the use of arms.
We should heed the words of Ronald Reagan about his experience with a needless and mistaken military occupation of Lebanon. Sending troops into Lebanon seemed like a good idea in 1983, but in 1990 President Reagan said this in his memoirs: "…we did not appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle…In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave…yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there."
During the occupation of Lebanon by American, French, and Israeli troops between 1982 and 1986, there were 41 suicide terrorist attacks in that country. One horrific attack killed 241 U.S. Marines. Yet once these foreign troops were removed, the suicide attacks literally stopped. Today we should once again rethink our policy in this region.
democraticandidate said:As I understand it, the president wants us to stay in Iraq until the new government's military is capable of defending themselves and showing the resolve to fight. In a recent article, U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas asks us if this is truly a practical thing to do. Here is a smattering of some of the more important points that he makes.
-in regards to the "if we leave, all #@%% will break out" theory.
-As well as some historical examples that show otherwise.
When should we pull out of Iraq?
Do you favor Rep. Paul's views? Why or why not?
What other options are available to us at the moment?
If chaos results after our departure, it's because we occupied Iraq, not because we left.
Connecticutter said:I like Rep. Paul, and I support the view that we need to remove troops from Iraq, but I don't think we can do an immediate withdrawl. I think we need to withdraw from certain areas and let the Irawis toughen up while removing ourselves as targets. After all, the Insurgent strategy is to kill enough Americans so that we withdraw and they have free reign - so they need to be dealt with first. I wish I was a military expert so that I could give an exact answer, but I'm not.
That's the only thing I take issue with. It's sort of irrelevant at this point, is it not? Is Ron Paul saying that its okay to withdraw even if it leads to chaos? Maybe before the war there was "order," but that wasn't exactly the kind of order anyone wants to see.
I wish that we can have an Iraqi government soon, and that our troops can come home. It's clear that our patience is running out. Unfortunately, the patience of the insurgence is not.
cnredd said:Pulling out-when and under what circumstances?
I think some here need to work on their thread titles...
Iriemon said:But just staying there indefinitely send the message that we want to control and dominate Iraq. Which I'm sure is this Administration's goal.
Lucidthots said:The situation will sort itself out, someone will come to power and the country will come to order again under its own devices.
Iriemon said:Telling the Iraqi people that we are not staying their indefinitely would be the best way to take some of the wind from the insurgent's sails.
The relationships that have formed between the men on the ground and the locals that have put their trust in them is more important than anything else.
[Lucidthots said:The way I see it, there is chaos now.
There will be chaos if we leave immediately........however,
The situation will sort itself out, someone will come to power and the country will come to order again under its own devices.
The only reason for us to stay is to create permanent bases like we have in Korea, Japan, Germany etc. which just so happens to be exactly what is called for by the PNAC.
Canuck said:[
Alert there is a wise man among us
Alert there is a wise man among us
Alert there is a wise man among us
There is more chaos /Terror now ,than there will be when America stops it's terror, that even Canada , America's closest of allies says no to. when America stops it's terror on Iraq there will be a brief ajustment period and all will be ok
But why would America leave they are bent on globalization not freeing IRAQ
anyone that thinks George doublw scr*w u Bush wants Iraq to be free
needs a straight jacket
him ,his father head of the cia at the the time,and rummy dummy rumsfeld ,gave sadam a set of golden spurs, at the very height of the atrocites , that sadam comited.
take a look at the photo on bottom to see how bush in younger times had only disrespect for a foreign leader at the time
Americans have their heads in the sand
Connecticutter said:I'm sorry. I would very much like to debate something with a different opinion, but I just have no idea what Canuck is trying to say. Can anyone help me out?
oldreliable67 said:VTA,
Totally agree. For a view of that, see this post...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=4649
When your best of Allies says no to Iraq it should clue you in a bit
As ussual Americans dumbed down to a sly remark and quick strawman tactic
your attempts only prove how dumbed down America really is.
cnredd said:Pulling out-when and under what circumstances?
I think some here need to work on their thread titles...
oldreliable67 said:CanDuck,
And just who would these 'best of Allies' be? If you're thinking of the French, you should think again.
Question: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
Answer: No one knows. Its never been tried.
Purely in jest...democraticandidate said:LOL-my complete and total apologies if I have earned a watchful eye for posting inappropriate or "graphic" material on a debate board.:doh Hopefully a heartbeat or two was only slightly skipped in a few moderator's hearts upon viewing the title.:mrgreen:
Ever heard of Napolean?
VTA said:I checked it out earlier, and unfortunately it's a part of the largely unreported positives that do occur in Iraq. There're lives being lived in Iraq and not just the numbers and negatives that are spoon-fed to us on a daily basis.
Anyone can say what they want, it won't make a bit of difference on the outcome; history will tell how good or bad things are in/for Iraq.
Canuck said:get the body bag company on overtime
AS long as you stay there you are terrorists
As Long As You Stay there There will Never Be Peace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?