• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

We must leave Iraq

I'm glad you can handle things. But you didn't answer my question. What was the point in my post you were responding too?

Let me refresh your memory...

After I posted my little quiz... you felt the need to respond with this...


Originally posted by billo:
Because history seems to be repeating itself. One would think you'd learn from the mistakes of the past. I guess you haven't.
Click to expand...
And this was my point. Can we as a nation, learn from the past to prevent the mistakes of the future? We are doing what the Nazi's did then (to a point). Were not THAT evil! But there are similarities that paint a picture that is not too cool for us. If you consider yourself a responsible citizen, then don't rubber-stamp everything the Administration says.

If you think we should be in Iraq, tell me specifically WHY.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
I'm glad you can handle things. But you didn't answer my question. What was the point in my post you were responding too?
Click to expand...

I wasn't responding to you at that point. I was asking what these War and Peace like tomes have to do with the current topic. Your topic of America in Iraq.

In response to you snide remarks about learning from history, I asserted, that WWII/Hitler is a bad analogy to today's conflict.


As far as I can remember, Germany wasn't being attacked and having war declared against it... America isn't in the Middle East to ethnically cleanse a people and make it America Part II... There are no similarities to Nazi's.

Billo_Really said:
If you think we should be in Iraq, tell me specifically WHY.
Click to expand...

I have already. Multiple times. Follow the rolling up the pant legs comments...
 
Originally Posted by VTA
As far as I can remember, Germany wasn't being attacked and having war declared against it... America isn't in the Middle East to ethnically cleanse a people and make it America Part II... There are no similarities to Nazi's.
Click to expand...
Iraq didn't attack (or declare war on) us either.

Iraq is our Poland!
 
Billo_Really said:
Iraq didn't attack (or declare war on) us either.
Click to expand...

True... But the advantages of using it as a staging ground for the war were numerous. Get rid of a dictator. Put an end to the Oil For Food scam and give our 'allies' a quiet out... until they act high and mighty. Fight the people who declared war on America.

In reality Sadaam could have made a fool of America and allowed everyone in to see that he had nothing and America's whole premise would have been down the drain. Instead he gambled and banked on his Oil For Food pals to keep him safe.

Right or wrong, it's a strategy that had some merit, until it was allowed to get out of hand. Picking up our toys and leaving now is next to impossible.
 
I'm sorry, but this war flys in the face of everything this country stands for. And I am just as mad as anyone else about 9/11. However, I don't see any effort being made to get to the root of the problem. Which is why the hate? What makes someone so mad that they are willing to fly planes into our buildings. That's serious hatred. But were not going to get the answer to that as long as we have the mindset that the problem is out there! Which is not to say the problem is all in here. But we do need to look at that aspect before we can move on and starting dealing with the external factors. A good place to start would be our foreign policy. There may be some things in there that we could revise. We won't know until we look. That's all I'm saying. Because this entire argument about blaming some psycho terrorist, Islamo-facist group for all the problems were having is just a little too convenient for me to swallow. There is definately bad people in the world, I just don't want them to be Americans.
 

Part of getting to the root of the problem is why America is in the Middle East. True, America has it's own share of the blame, but in the face of similar events that don't correlate with American policy as a catalyst, how else can they be explained? Bad people doing bad things.

The events in Asia have nothing to do with American policy. Islamic extremists are creating havoc in Thailand, Indonesia for what? American Imperialism? They're trying it in some provinces of China? Why? American consumption of oil? Not likely.

America has a legitimate reason to be concerned and all the self evaluation isn't going to change these people.

Taking care of the issue is a multi-pronged task: Policy changes, which they've admitted to and dealing with the reality of the people using it for an excuse to act the way they do.
 
I had a big post, but I will address the Revolution in a new thread in History next week! See you there, as to the rest, Iwill finish it here.

. I understand what you are saying about Russia better, though I totally disagree that they “put” their necks on the line. It was “forced” there. And the casualties are due to the fact that they had poor supplies and tons of men to just toss into the line of fire in order to wear the enemy down. We did not engage in that type of war. We were about precision compared to them. The argument of numbers is Irrelevant to who contributed more to the war.

Lastly, you have yet to clarify this point.

Originally Posted by LightDemon
The US is known for staying out of wars
Click to expand...

They are not known for staying out of wars and this statement is false. It is ethnocentric because that is how all nations conduct war, by engaging in the wars in which they have interest.
 
I will be very happy to participate in that thread Johnny Utah.

But let me address my quote "The US is known for staying out of wars, this is where the US makes a lot of profits."

I am not saying the US did not go to any wars. Obviously they have, I'm not going to dispute that. The implication of what I was saying has to do with wars that the US has stayed out of, and have made profits because of this. Originally I was responding to GySgt about why the US came out on top of WW2. Why we became the superpower that we are today.

During the Napoleanic Wars, the US supplied a lot of grains to both Britain and France. In the Iraq-Iran war, the US again supplied both sides with weapons. In WW2, just look at the Neutrality Acts, the Lend-Lease Act, and the Cash and Carry Act. The US, still remembering the mistakes of WW1, did not want to engage in a second world war, and so wanted to stay out of foreign affairs. However, it was imperative that it maintains it economic status. So it still had to participate in the world market.

And what better time to sell weapons? or to lend money? This is how the US made money. Notice that these Acts are prior to Pearl Harbor. But even after Pearl Harbor, what was the US's critical role in the war? I think it is safe to say that the main support the US gave to the allies was economical support.

Tashah even said:

And according to what OldReliable said:
According to energy expert Daniel Yergin, "out of seven billion barrels of oil used by the Allies in World War II, six billion were produced in the U.S."
Click to expand...

The US basically was the supplier. That also means we make a lot of money because we were the suppliers. If the US had managed to stay out of the entire war, we could have made even better profits because we didn't have to spend on our own military. But by staying out of the war until 1941, the US had already made a good amount of profits.

If you dont agree with me that the US has tried to stay out of wars, that fine. But you cannot dispute the fact that the US's motivation in WW2 was an economical one. Pearl Harbor may have made the populous demand revenge, but the ones in office used this prevailing sentiment to make profits because this was, whether you like it or not, a great business opportunity for the US.
 
I think that I get you now LightDemon...

See, if you had said, "Switzerland is known for staying out of wars". Everybody would have said, "Yeah" "Sure"...because Switzerland is always neutral.

But when you take a nation like the USA. A nation that has been in TONS of wars and say, "the USA is known for staying out of wars". Everybody goes, "Huh?" "What about WWI and WWI and Vietnam and Korea and Iraq and this and that". It makes no sense.

A couple of times now, you have not prefaced your statements with, "I understand that the USA has been in a ton of wars, but they also stay out of many wars in order to make a profit". If you had, everybody, and especially me, would sit back and say, "Heck yeah" "Sure". Because that is MORE ACCURATE.

Look, I can only go off of what you say. IF you say that the USA is KNOWN for staying out of wars and don't preface it with your understanding that they also engage in many wars, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you don't understand. So, I tell you. You then ignore that and AGAIN you don't clarify... see where I am going with this?

Now that Utah practically dragged this out of you, we understand better, at least I do.

Anyway, I will look forward to the Am. Revolution thread...
 
I do. I can relate it to my own arguments against the war. Maybe when I argue the US is doing some very bad things right now people get the misconception I think the US is a bad nation. The fact is, the US has done many great things the world has benefited from. As an example, the sacrifices this country made to defeat the Axis powers in WWII. As the saying goes, "If it wasn't for the US, we'd all be speaking German right now".

I will just say I didn't preaface my arguments with pro-US statements or disclaimers because I felt they went without saying. I felt everyone knew the great things our countryman have done. The contributions and sacrifices they have made (and are making). Even our soldiers today (with the exception of a small percentage that make up the criminal element of the group), serving their country's leaders, are making sacrifices in spite of the fact the war is illegal and immoral. Yet they do it because of their duty to our flag. Right or wrong, that is the nature of their work. We, as citizens also need to do our duty when our elected leaders make decisions that are detrimental to our nation as a whole. We need to hold them accountable for the wrong decisions and stand behind them for the right ones. Currently, I'm in the "hold them accountable" mode.

That was a good post Bodi...
 
I'm not excusing terrorist actions when I say we need to look at our role in enabling the situation. Even though they have legitmate complaints against the US, flying planes into buildings is not how you solve problems. That is how you get removed from society for the rest of your life. That is how you lose your liberty.

I believe a responsible adult always accepts responsibility for their own actions and critique's those actions before moving on to discuss the actions of others. That's all I'm saying. Even if it is determined we are at fault for 1% of the problem, that is the 1% we need to deal with before moving on to the 99% we need to fix.

This country was not founded with bad people. Unfortunately, due to the deteriorating intelligence of our un-educated population, we have elected bad people to run our government. An indication of this is 90% of the world hates us. And according to a recent poll, the biggest reason for the hate, is the fact that we are hypocrits. We are doing things that we used to fight against. That is what is so shocking to the world. And that is why I get so angry at times. We are a better nation than this. We used to be a great nation.

But were starting to turn it around...
 
I agree, the troops need to come home. But you can't ignore the fact that American departure at this point may leave Iraq in a far worse position that it was in when the war started. You may believe that the U.S. is in Iraq illegally, but the fact remains that we ARE THERE. Let's bring our boys home as soon as possible by WINNING THE WAR and giving the new Iraqi government a fighting chance. I don't want to watch Baghdad fall in 2008 like Americans watched Saigon fall in 1975. You may not agree that our troops should be spilling their blood on foreign soil, but now that we are there I think we owe it to our boys who fought and died to finish what they started.

God Bless America.
 
Welcome to Debate Politics!
 


Aren't the boys fighting over there supposed to be working for us? Isn't it backwards to set foreign policy on what some thing we should do for them?

The problem with an indefinite occupation is that our occupation is defeating our objecting against anti-American radicalism. The longer we unjustly are occupying their holy lands, the greater anti-American hatred and the stronger the radicals.

In balancing the benefit of the very slim to none chance of accomplishing a stable democtratic Iraq, against the continued cost in terms of lives, treasure, and helping our enemies, the slim chances of success isn't worth it, and hasn't been worth it.
 
Not only that, Bush is going against the wishes, recommendations and reports of:
  • the American people
  • Iraq Commission report
  • the latest NIE report on Iraq
Why does anyone support a President who doesn't consider the opinions of the experts (nor his constituancy?) when making important decisions? What kind of fool defends someone who could care less about them?
 
Our foreign policy was created in Iraq when we decided to invade. I too question the validity of our presence there. While I was glad to see an oppressed people freed from despotic rule, the fight was never ours to fight. Kuwait in the early 90's was more clear--defending a helpless democracy against an aggressor--but the fight we are now engaged in should have been fought by the Iraqi people.

You say it is backwards to allow the presence of troops in Iraq to guide our foreign policy, but the fact is that they are there. The fact that troops are engaged in battle at this very moment had better be a factor in the determination our foreign policy. If those troops are instantly withdrawn, Iraq will fall prey to whatever group Iran chooses to side with and you can bet they won't be friendly to those who are not of their ethnicity, and in a few years they may regroup and make an attack on the U.S. that will make 9/11 look like a 4th of July children's parade.

Tucking our tail between our legs and running will leave things in Iraq worse than they were when we arrived. To draw another parallel to Vietnam, the war needs to be "Iraq-ized". Do you really believe that if we leave now, it will slow the increasing anti-Americanism in the middle East? They will never, never forget our presence there and as long as there's an America to attack, they'll attack it. Since we're going to face that anyway, we might as well try to finish the job we went to Iraq to do.

I think we need to set a realistic timeline (say 2 years, since the end of the Bush administration will likely be the end of our nation's commitment to the war anyway). We know the region will never be stable, but if we supply and train an Iraqi army that has a fighting chance, we will at least have kept some faith with the Iraqi people and made sure that the sweat, blood and tears of our soldiers was not in vain. We may still see Baghdad fall into enemy hands, but it won't be inevitable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by strategos
To draw another parallel to Vietnam, the war needs to be "Iraq-ized".
Click to expand...
I don't see how you can draw parallel's with Vietnam since we were there for 15 years! If your there for 15 years and you can't get done by then, there ain't no reason to stay any longer.

Originally posted by strategos
Do you really believe that if we leave now, it will slow the increasing anti-Americanism in the middle East?
Click to expand...
Things just could get better with the biggest reason for the condition of the country gone. Al Qaeda is even afraid that if the US leaves, they'll be kicked out of the country or jailed. If the US leaves, they won't have a reason to stay.

Originally posted by strategos
They will never, never forget our presence there and as long as there's an America to attack, they'll attack it. Since we're going to face that anyway, we might as well try to finish the job we went to Iraq to do.
Click to expand...
The only reason they hate America is because we keep messing with their internal affairs. If we stay on our own side of the ocean, we'll be fine. Their not going to attack us for no reason.
 
Billo_Really said:
Things just could get better with the biggest reason for the condition of the country gone. Al Qaeda is even afraid that if the US leaves, they'll be kicked out of the country or jailed. If the US leaves, they won't have a reason to stay.
Click to expand...
The US presence is certainly a major contributing influence, but not the sole factor of all that ails Iraq (i.e. endemnic corruption, the infrastructure etc.). No one actually knows what would happen if the US withdrew completely, but most analysts predict continuing strife regardless of what the US does.

al-Qa'ida? Ansar-al-Islam (affilliated with al-Qa'ida) existed in Iraq long before the US invasion and remains a viable and potent terrorist organization. With a weak Iraqi central government and ineffective security forces, al-Qa'ida will most likely continue to thrive in such a chaotic environment.

Billo_Really said:
The only reason they hate America is because we keep messing with their internal affairs. If we stay on our own side of the ocean, we'll be fine. Their not going to attack us for no reason.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not Billo not all Muslims hate America. What most ME Muslims object to are certain aspects of US foreign policy. With the advent of globalism however, it is virtually impossible to disengage from the rest of the world and adopt an isolationalist mindset. You're thinking much too strictly in black and white terms and ignoring the much larger gray geopolitical corpus that resides between the extremes of occupation and isolationism.
 
Billo_Really said:
The only reason they hate America is because we keep messing with their internal affairs. If we stay on our own side of the ocean, we'll be fine. Their not going to attack us for no reason.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons why some Muslims (and many in the Mid East) hate America. Historically, this go back far longer than the war with Iraq, or any other American military intervention. The cause is mostly due to a clash of cultures, and a move towards extremism in the Muslim world which, culturally, completely rejects many of the mores of the West and sees them as a potential destruction towards their view of the Muslim way of life.
 
Tashah said:
...

al-Qa'ida? Ansar-al-Islam (affilliated with al-Qa'ida) existed in Iraq long before the US invasion and remains a viable and potent terrorist organization. ....
Click to expand...

Except for the training camps in the Kurdish region of Northern Iraq that Hussein was forbid to control, I have never seen credible evidence with substantiates this statement.


Believe it or not Billo not all Muslims hate America. What most ME Muslims object to are certain aspects of US foreign policy. ...
Click to expand...

I would agree. We need to devise our policy with this aspect in mind if we want to make progress in protecting the nation from terrorist attack.
 

I would add to that that not only have I not seen credible evidence of this, but that there is a certain illogicalness to the presumption that Hussein would have been assisting Al-Queda in Iraq.

Husseins objective was to retain control and power in Iraq. Hussein was not a radical Islamisist. He was relatively secular, and had a Christian as his chief foreign minister. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd guess that having Christians leading chief governmental functions would be incompatible with Al-Queda's objectives.
 

If Islamic radicalism is the main source of radical activities like terrorist attackes, shouldn't our objective be to reduce this hatred and extremism, as opposed to encouraging it by illegitimately invading and occupying their holy lands?
 
Iriemon said:
If Islamic radicalism is the main source of radical activities like terrorist attackes, shouldn't our objective be to reduce this hatred and extremism, as opposed to encouraging it by illegitimately invading and occupying their holy lands?
Click to expand...

Trying to rationalize with these types of terrorist extremists is often akin to trying to encourge Fred Phelps and his followers to soften their stance on gays.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Trying to rationalize with these types of terrorist extremists is often akin to trying to encourge Fred Phelps and his followers to soften their stance on gays.
Click to expand...
So bringing them new recruits by a stupid foreign policy doesn't sound like a good idea.
 
Volker said:
So bringing them new recruits by a stupid foreign policy doesn't sound like a good idea.
Click to expand...

Another way to look at it is disrupting them enough to make others not want to join their stupid organization or to reduce the power of that stupid organization or to make more moderate members of that stupid organization recognize the stupidity of that organization, take it over and make it less stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.