FiremanRyan said:
your right, which is why i said two things...1. i think this war should be re-evaluated and handled more efficiently to succeed in defeating the insurgents, and 2. a steady number of insurgent attacks is just another reason to remain in Iraq because their security forces arent able to combat these terrorists yet. but even you can admit that 'democracy is progressing' so you cant truely believe that 'we arent making any progress.
I guess we don't measure progress in the same way. The primary justification for spreading democracy under the barrel of a gun - according to George Bush - is because democracies are supposedly more peaceful than dictatorships. While this is true in the sense that democracies don't generally fight each other, it is not true in the sense of preventing terrorism (which is what we're really concerned with here). There's no evidence that the advancement of democracy will be accompanied with a decline in terrorism, and that's really the only justification to impose democracy on Iraq during an occupation. We can make emotional arguments about the ethics of allowing them to remain under a brutal dictatorship, but the American government/military has never really been concerned with that (nor should they be).
FiremanRyan said:
just like what i said above, we need to pull our heads out of our asses and focus on training Iraqi's to do the job themselves. that still doesnt mean we should cut and run.
I don't think it's that simple. We have some very intelligent people commanding our troops in Iraq, and they can't seem to figure it out. That indicates to me that the problem is more fundamental than simply needing to "pull our heads out of our asses."
FiremanRyan said:
not true. our government has clearly said that the stabilization of Iraq will aid in the war on terror, but never said it was our sole reason for being there. if anything, i think we've made our main reason for staying as long as we have to establish a solid democratic system of government, and access to schools and hospitals is clearly a part of a working democracy.
Let me ask it this way. Which of the following conditions would you consider more ripe for American withdrawal:
A) A neutral/friendly democracy that was still constantly being plagued by terrorist attacks.
B) A friendly dictatorship that was relatively terror-free.
FiremanRyan said:
if it were a stalemate, we wouldnt have won the war and no government would be in developement. casualties are one of many factors when determining the progress of a war.
The primary reason for staying in Iraq (for most people who support it) is the elimination of terrorism. The steady number of casualties indicates that we are not accomplishing that goal.
FiremanRyan said:
not quite. Iraq is on the edge right now as i see it. if we get our act together and maybe get some support from the rest of our country, we can equip them to make that leap on their own, hopefully sooner than later. but if we just give 'em a slap on the back and wish them luck while we pack up and leave, theres no doubt they'll crash and burn.
It seems to me that Iraq is already well past the edge. If we pack up and leave, there's a good chance that it would take a bite out of the insurgency. While I'm sure it wouldn't completely die overnight, it would take away the main reason that young Iraqis have for joining the insurgency.