- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Then why do we still have 150,000 troops there?
Most untrue!!
i liked the source of the WH on the sign Mission Accomplished on the ship. of course the WH never lies about something to cover that inept bastard Bush's ass when he makes a complete fool of himself internationally. that is the best joke i have heard in years. Bush was and is a liar. he lead your troops to war for anything but the right reason. how is it possible for anyone to defend that clown. i will never understand that. not if i live to be 10000. the defense of a complete idiot. maybe you just feel sorry for him.
Can we stop with the Kool Aid nonsense now?
What would be the moral response to watching 3,000 of our own citizens killed on 9/11?
The majority of all the terrorists that attacked us were Saudis. The majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq were Saudis and the majority of funding for the terrorists come from Saudis.
Catawba said:Yet still we killed more.I'd like to just take your word for it but the numbers at IraqBodyCount say different.reefedjib said:No we didn't.
They made concession to the citizens to avoid being murdered. You won't know if we made in success in installing a pro-west government in Iraq until our all our occupation forces withdrawn and we stop paying the bad guys to behave.
And what happens when we stop handing out stacks of hundred dollar bills to the bad guys?
The only successes we can point to are dependent on our heavily armed full occupation forces being there to prop up the government from its own people, and the payola to the bad actors.
Yeah, we have been saying that for 6 years and yet we still keep our full occupation force there to keep the peace. Saddam did that with just a bluff.
Just because we have done it in the past doesn't make it right. We should have learned that from Vietnam.reefedjib said:We most certainly have the right to enforce our way of government on others at the end of a gun. We have along history of doing so. It is in their interest.
I blame the Democrats that supported our war with Iraq as much as I do the Republicans. How is that being biased?
Before he places our youth in harms way, the Commander-in-Chief has the responsibility to confirm and double confirm a threat. That was not done. Either that or the intel was doctored, which seems to be the case as indicated by disclosures since then. Either way, it was wrong.
But Saddam had kicked out the US oil companies and had threatened to switch the Euro, and they had attacked our oil spigot in Kuwait.
That is a BS excuse for attacking and occupying a country that was of no threat to us. Democracy does not work when you force it on others at the end of a gun.reefedjib said:I think it was in our interest to spread democracy. This is something that liberals should support.
And don't forget that the majority of the funding for the Taliban in Afghanistan comes from Saudi Arabia.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Still, it is not Saudi Arabian government policy to do this. The other items I mentioned still apply. We had no interest in invading Saudi Arabia. Likewise, we have no interest in invading Iran. But we did in Iraq.
Not officially anyway! After being asked to move most of our forces out of Saudi Arabia, we needed another place to set up military control of the region. Since we knew Iraq was no threat after we bombed them back a century in Gulf War !, they were chosen.
Do they distinguish between civilians killed by terrorists/insurgents and civilians killed by American/Coalition forces?
Did we?
I agree.
Hopefully, a) the Iraqi government will pay them and b) they find civilian jobs - grow the economy.
So you do not believe the civil war will resume, when we are not there to prevent it? I think you are not being honest with yourself.
It is encouraging that mass violence on a broad scale has not broken out now that we have disengaged from their cities.
We still have 150,000 heavily armed troops there, and paying off the bad actors, what are they going to do?
I am not sure what you mean here. Saddam enforced security through murder, rtorture and rape. Lovely.
Saddam kept al Qaeda and Iran at bay through murder, torture and rape???
In Vietnam, we weren't exactly promoting democracy, now were we?
What the hell were we doing then? All I heard about was the fear that Vietnam would fall to communism if we didn't intervene.
We do business with many communist countries today, including Vietnam!
I think it is right to spread democracy - it is in our interest.
As I have mentioned this opinion of mine is currently being challenged and I may change my mind. I am going to read "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer. I think the crux of the situation is that he claims National Defense is the only justification and I am claiming National Interest is justification. Vietnam is a bad example of National Interest. There are many others like Mexico and the Phillipines.
I do not happen to believe in our foreign policy of might makes right.
I wasn't talking partisan wrt Democrats or Republicans. I was talking about being partisan in your anti-war stance against realists or outright pro-war folks. Maybe partisan is the wrong word for it.
You mean my unrealistic stance that I cannot morally condone the trading of human lives to drive a hummer to the store and back?
There are still tremendous challenges and it could all fail when we leave and stop paying, as you point out.
That is the likely outcome from my observations.
There is disagreement on the motivations and justification of invading in the first place. However, there are successes and we are there, involved, right now.
The only successes relate to our occupation.
So what is our best move? In this area, you could be more objective/realistic, in my opinion.
To do what the Iraqi people are demanding, that we leave!
Give some credit, the troops are working their ass off to make it a success. They do their best at avoiding civilian deaths. They work with Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides. They work 18-hour days, 7 days a week for months in theater. It is no wonder they come home with PTSD. They are real heroes.
Then why do we still have 150,000 troops there?reefedjib said:Most untrue!!Catawba said:We overthrew their government and helped select those they would vote on under our military occupation, and we use our full-occupation force to prop them up and protect them from their own people.
You have a funny notion of freedom.
Are you seriously saying that because we have 150,000 troops there (actually I think it is 128,000 now), that that is evidence that we selected the candidates the Iraqis would vote on??? Get real.
i liked the source of the WH on the sign Mission Accomplished on the ship. of course the WH never lies about something to cover that inept bastard Bush's ass when he makes a complete fool of himself internationally. that is the best joke i have heard in years. Bush was and is a liar. he lead your troops to war for anything but the right reason. how is it possible for anyone to defend that clown. i will never understand that. not if i live to be 10000. the defense of a complete idiot. maybe you just feel sorry for him.
No, I am saying the only reason the government we helped set up is still standing is because of our heavily armed occupation force.
If that were not the case, why would they still be needed there?
We overthrew their government and helped select those they would vote on
i liked the source of the WH on the sign Mission Accomplished on the ship. of course the WH never lies about something to cover that inept bastard Bush's ass when he makes a complete fool of himself internationally. that is the best joke i have heard in years. Bush was and is a liar. he lead your troops to war for anything but the right reason. how is it possible for anyone to defend that clown. i will never understand that. not if i live to be 10000. the defense of a complete idiot. maybe you just feel sorry for him.
Which countries don't teach the use of capital letters?Its when i see posts like this, i just shake
my head at the lunacy of somes seething partisan hatred.
Do they distinguish between civilians killed by terrorists/insurgents and civilians killed by American/Coalition forces?
Did we?
So you do not believe the civil war will resume, when we are not there to prevent it?
We still have 150,000 heavily armed troops there, and paying off the bad actors, what are they going to do?reefedjib said:It is encouraging that mass violence on a broad scale has not broken out now that we have disengaged from their cities.
Saddam kept al Qaeda and Iran at bay through murder, torture and rape???
You mean my unrealistic stance that I cannot morally condone the trading of human lives to drive a hummer to the store and back?
To do what the Iraqi people are demanding, that we leave!
Ok, so your statement:
is WRONG.
Selected was the incorrect term. I should have said supported. After all, Malaki would never have been able to return to Iraq had we not toppled the government there. And we supported him when we put together the Iraqi Interim Government.
"Returning home after Saddam's fall, he became the deputy leader of the Supreme National Debaathification Commission of the Iraqi Interim Government, formed to purge former Baath Party officials from the military and government."
Nouri al-Maliki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This has been shown to be nonsense. He would work with ALQ as much as Cleopatra would work with an asp.al Qaeda: Saddam was working with al Qaeda.
It's not about democracy, it's about a stable govt with a standing army that can do our bidding. We'd be happy with what will happen anyway: a return of the usual ME dictatorship that won't go off the reservation.I told you it is about spreading democracy, not getting oil. Now that we are there, we need to be successful.
reefedjib said:al Qaeda: Saddam was working with al Qaeda.
This has been shown to be nonsense. He would work with ALQ as much as Cleopatra would work with an asp.
Yes. Perhaps you just don't realize the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians. You need to ackowledge that.
You mean excepting when we strike water treatment plants and electricity plants that result in the deaths of a hundred thousand innocent civilians?
It is definitely one possible outcome. We must do what we can to avoid this, especially since "we broke it, we fix it". This means pulling out some of the troops, to allow them to establish their own security, but not all of our troops. I will now invoke Germany and Japan and Korea as cases where we helped establish democracies and we still have significant troops there today. We need to do the same with Iraq.
Apples and oranges. The difference being that Germany and Japan were attacking other countries. Iraq was not, in fact did not the capacity to be a threat after Gulf War 1 and 10 years of sanctions. Iraq was already defeated.
I don't understand. Do you mean what are the terrorists/insurgents going to do or do you mean what are our disengaged 128,000 troops going to do?
Sorry, it appears I did not complete my sentence. What I was trying to say is that the pro-west government we helped set up there will not stand against its own people once our heavily armed occupation force is withdrawn.
al Qaeda: Saddam was working with al Qaeda.
Iran: Did you miss the part about the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war?
Saddam and al-Qaeda did not get along. There were almost none in Iraq before we ousted Saddam according to the Pentagon report. They determined there was no Iraqi-al Qaeda connection.
I told you it is about spreading democracy, not getting oil. Now that we are there, we need to be successful.
Than you have changed your opinion, because earlier you were indicating that it was partly about the oil. We need to be successful in what? It is up to the Iraqis to determine their fate and how they handle their own oil resources.
They are not demanding that. They are demanding that some of our forces leave, and leave the cities, but not all of them.
We searched for capability in the interim government. .
Not true. There was collaboration and meetings. One held in Hungary I think. Nothing to do with 9-11, though.
Saddam had relationships with several terrorist groups. Remember Ansar al-Islam?
Not true. There was collaboration and meetings. One held in Hungary I think. Nothing to do with 9-11, though.
Saddam had relationships with several terrorist groups. Remember Ansar al-Islam?
Ansar al-Islam is a Kurdish terrorist group not linked to Al Qaeda.
Saddam certainly did not harbor them; nor had relations with them.
Well let's see, I can go with your opinion on this or the Pentagon's investigation that determined there was no al Qaeda connection?
Think I have to go with the Pentagon. Sorry!
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?