• 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

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
We have to leave Iraq. That is our only choice. We shouldn't be there in the first place. We attacked illegally. And have contributed to the destruction of that country with possible over 600,000 people losing their lives. The longer we stay, the more terrorism will flourish, the more we will lose our humanity, the more danger (in terms of the United States security) the world will be, and the less we will be as a nation that we thought we once were.

We have to bring home all US troops from all country's in the world and stop this madness of US aggression. This is causing terrorism. It is not the only cause, but it is part of the problem. We have a leader of this country that in some respects is just like Hitler, just like Saddam Hussein, just like Stalin, with the only difference being a better military than the other three. But what is much worse than Bush, are the citizens that put him in office. The stupid, ignorant, wanna-be American citizens that threw their vote into the garbage because they believe in the dumbs.hit wisdom of O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Limbaugh. Why? Many reasons. With the biggest probably being their just mentally lazy and it was convenient to adopt someone else's point of view without doing the analytical work ourselves.

At no time, in the history of this planet, has a conventional army won a guerilla war. And it's not going to happen now.
 
Yeah, screw that region of the world. Let's just take our toys and go home. :roll:
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Yeah, screw that region of the world. Let's just take our toys and go home. :roll:

I think we already have screwed that region of the world.
 
Iriemon said:
I think we already have screwed that region of the world.
Perhaps. My mother always told me to clean up my own messes.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Perhaps. My mother always told me to clean up my own messes.
Yes, do this. Get your troops out of Iraq immediately and start to clean up your own messes by finding out about the crimes Americans committed there and bring them all to justice, your politicians, your soldiers, your contractors and your war profiteers.
 
Volker said:
Yes, do this. Get your troops out of Iraq immediately and start to clean up your own messes by finding out about the crimes Americans committed there and bring them all to justice, your politicians, your soldiers, your contractors and your war profiteers.
Maybe I should have used this quote from my mother instead: Always finish what you started. Don't be a quiter.
 
CurrentAffairs said:
Maybe I should have used this quote from my mother instead: Always finish what you started. Don't be a quiter.
Didn't your mom also tell you to come home on time :mrgreen:
 
Billo_Really said:
With the biggest probably being their just mentally lazy and it was convenient to adopt someone else's point of view without doing the analytical work ourselves.

Hey was that a Freudian slip Billo?
 
Billo_Really said:
We have to leave Iraq. That is our only choice. We shouldn't be there in the first place.

We should have never left in 1991.

We attacked illegally.

No we didn't Saddam violated every single U.N. resolution levied against in complete and total violation of the cease fire agreement.

And have contributed to the destruction of that country

No we haven't that would be Saddam he built palaces while he let his infrastructure go to sh!t, the electricity levels are now at or above pre-war levels.

with possible over 600,000 people losing their lives.

That's a complete bullshit figure and has been proven to be so.

The longer we stay, the more terrorism will flourish,

Actually if we stay and finist the job it will sound a death toll for the jihadist movement and to the contrary if the jihadists sense a victory in Iraq it will inspire them to carry out attacks elsewhere.

the more we will lose our humanity, the more danger (in terms of the United States security) the world will be, and the less we will be as a nation that we thought we once were.

Pure sophistry. The world will be far less safe if the jihadists are allowed to aquire the resources contained in Iraq.

We have to bring home all US troops from all country's in the world and stop this madness of US aggression.

Look everyone Billo's ground breaking solution is to give into OBL's 1996 Fatwa demands to pull out of the rest of the world and allow AQ to fill the power vacuum. Good idea kid genious.

This is causing terrorism.

No it's not, a hateful ideology based on the tenants of Qutb and Wahhabism coupled with repressive regimes are causing terrorism and the only way to end terrorism is to free the region from despotical rulers who give their people no voice for political change other than violence.

We have a leader of this country that in some respects is just like Hitler, just like Saddam Hussein, just like Stalin, with the only difference being a better military than the other three.

Reductio ad-hitlerum and reductio ad-stalinum all in one.

But what is much worse than Bush, are the citizens that put him in office. The stupid, ignorant, wanna-be American citizens that threw their vote into the garbage because they believe in the dumbs.hit wisdom of O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Limbaugh.

Yes we know everyone who doesn't think that appeasment, surrender, isolationism, and negotiations with terrorists and the nations that support them is an idiot. People who think the aforementioned things are the solution are not just idiots they are useful idiots.

Why? Many reasons. With the biggest probably being their just mentally lazy and it was convenient to adopt someone else's point of view without doing the analytical work ourselves.

At no time, in the history of this planet, has a conventional army won a guerilla war. And it's not going to happen now.

lmfao ya sure thing.

Columbia, Peru, Chile, Irish Civil War 1922-23 ,Border Campaign (IRA) 1956-62, Spanish republican guerrillas after the Spanish Civil War, Second Boer War, Greek Civil War, Malayan Emergency, Bolivia, Congo, Philippine American War 1899-1902, Poland 1939-1944, unsuccessful up till USSR liberation from German occupation, Uruguay 1965-1973, the Tupamaros were suppressed by the army forces that later took power, Dominican Republic US forces suppressed Dominican guerrillas, Lithuania 1944-1956, Forest Brothers war et al, the only thing necessary to defeat an insurgency is to build up the security forces and government of the nation in question infact insurgencies more often than not are unsuccessful.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
We attacked illegally.
There was nothing illegal about it. Even your own party gave up on this rhetoric crap years ago.
 
The longer you stay there, the higher is the resistance (within US first of all).
Official death rate of 3 a day is very decent, these figures are good but take into consideration that the number of killed in this war is only about7% to those of wounded, so it is about 3 dozens of maimed physically and mentally daily. Some of them of course also die in planes, in Germany, in US, US citizens out of army not counted, non-US citizens within the army as well, etc.
People begin asking sooner or later what are they dying and being maimed for?
For the sake of US being hated all over the world? Or may be for the sake of additional $2 trillions of economical burden? (as Nobel price winner Stiglitz has counted the total cost of Iraq war).

You risk finally to run from Iraq the way you did it from Saigon. Jumping into the leaving choppers and kicking out hanging local traitors.
 
arussian said:
The longer you stay there, the higher is the resistance (within US first of all).
Official death rate of 3 a day is very decent, these figures are good but take into consideration that the number of killed in this war is only about7% to those of wounded, so it is about 3 dozens of maimed physically and mentally daily. Some of them of course also die in planes, in Germany, in US, US citizens out of army not counted, non-US citizens within the army as well, etc.
People begin asking sooner or later what are they dying and being maimed for?
For the sake of US being hated all over the world? Or may be for the sake of additional $2 trillions of economical burden? (as Nobel price winner Stiglitz has counted the total cost of Iraq war).

You risk finally to run from Iraq the way you did it from Saigon. Jumping into the leaving choppers and kicking out hanging local traitors.

We can not leave until the Iraqi government can provide for its own security, if they can provide their own security the insurgency will be defeated because Guerilla forces have a bad track record of going up against native regimes, because the native regimes have nowhere to surrender to thus they are posed with two choices "fight or die."
 
There was local government in Vietnam but when US left it was overthtrown immediately. In Afghanistan after USSR left Nadjhibullah's regime existed about one or two years, but was overthrown by Talliban.
I wouldn't bet a dollar for Shia's Iraqi government after US will go. Such regimes are always "collaborators" in the eyes of local people they can not be popular.
 
arussian said:
There was local government in Vietnam but when US left it was overthtrown immediately.

Yes because they were not strong enough to defend themselves and also there was a regular army of North Vietnam backed by the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea etc.

In Afghanistan after USSR left Nadjhibullah's regime existed about one or two years, but was overthrown by Talliban.

It was actually overthrown by the Mujahadeen the Taliban didn't come until later. And the reason Nadjibullah's regime lost is because of the collapse of the Soviet Union IE the ideology that gave regime legitimacy was repudiated and proven to be a failure, and secondly the Mujahadeen was financed and supported heavily by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc.

I wouldn't bet a dollar for Shia's Iraqi government after US will go.

It's not a Shia government it is a coalition government much like Lebanon where certain hierarchy positions must be controlled by certain ethnic sects IE Christian, Sunni, and Shia where as in Iraq the Constitution is constructed in such a way that the President will always be Kurdish, the Prime Minister will always be Shia, and the Assembly speaker is always going to be Sunni.

Such regimes are always "collaborators" in the eyes of local people they can not be popular.

The people of Iraq support the Coalition government they came out in mass to vote for the government and ratify the Constitution.

Furthermore; your examples where insurgencies have been successful are the exception not the rule, Guerilla forces more often than not unsuccessful for example in:

Columbia, Peru, Chile, in the Irish Civil War 1922-23, in the Border Campaign (IRA) 1956-62, the Spanish republican guerrillas after the Spanish Civil War, the Second Boer War, the Greek Civil War, the Malayan Emergency, in Bolivia, in the Congo, in the Philippine American War 1899-1902, in Poland 1939-1944, unsuccessful up till USSR liberation from German occupation, in Uruguay 1965-1973, the Tupamaros were suppressed by the army forces that later took power, in the Dominican Republic US forces suppressed Dominican guerrillas, in Lithuania 1944-1956, and the Forest Brothers war et al.
 
Last edited:
...backed by the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea etc
was financed and supported heavily by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc.

You think that Iraqi Resistance is not backed and supported by different forces of the region?

It's not a Shia government it is a coalition government much like Lebanon where certain hierarchy positions must be controlled by certain ethnic sects IE Christian, Sunni, and Shia where as in Iraq the Constitution is constructed in such a way that the President will always be Kurdish, the Prime Minister will always be Shia, and the Assembly speaker is always going to be Sunni
.

Oh, this model is promising... especially taking into consideration "sectarian violence", Sunni reluctantness to cooperate, and the fact that US Greater Middle East plan (in various editions) doesn't imply integer Iraq, as I've mentioned in a parallel thread. http://www.debatepolitics.com/430018-post55.html

As for the possible future oil-reach Shia state it clearly will be Iran's and not US ally.
 
Last edited:
arussian said:
You think that Iraqi Resistance is not backed and supported by different forces of the region?

To an extent but nothing like the Assistance that the North Vietnames got from the Soviet Union and the Mujahadeen got from the U.S. and like I said Guirella forces obtaining victory is the exception not the rule and it only occurs when their enemy lacks resolve.
.
Oh, this model is promising... especially taking into consideration "sectarian violence", Sunni reluctantness to cooperate,

Wrong the Sunni's have cooperated and they are participating in the coalition government and voted to ratify the Constitution and Sectarian violence is a problem but it is mostly relegated to the three provinces in the Sunni Triangle, the remainder of the provinces are for the most part totally secure.

and the fact that US Greater Middle East plan (in various editions) doesn't imply integer Iraq, as I've mentioned in a parallel thread. http://www.debatepolitics.com/430018-post55.html

LMFAO that is the proposed three state solution and the U.S. has made it clear that it rejects that plan because it would only cause further tensions and battles over natural resources, you said that we were supporting sectarian violence in that post. WTF do you come up with this sh!t?

As for the possible future oil-reach Shia state it clearly will be Iran's and not US ally.

Except that the Coalition and the Iraqi government have totally rejected the three state solution, and show me where the Prime Minister said they will not be an ally of the U.S.? The Iraqi Government does wish to have a peaceful relationship and commerce with Iran, but we want that too.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
Perhaps. My mother always told me to clean up my own messes.
What the hell does that mean? "Clean up my own messes". What do you mean by that? What mess are you going to clean up? Specifically! Don't give me more bullshit, hollow buzzword phrases that mean absolutely JACK S.HIT! I am sick of hearing this garbage!
  • stay the coarse
  • support the troops
  • we leave, terrorists win
  • war on terror
This s.hit means absolutely nothing! There isn't a person on this planet that can specifically define and qualify what these terms are using real world tangibles.

So you can add
  • clean up the mess
to the list above. Because all it is, is more fluff.
 
Originally posted by Volker:
Yes, do this. Get your troops out of Iraq immediately and start to clean up your own messes by finding out about the crimes Americans committed there and bring them all to justice, your politicians, your soldiers, your contractors and your war profiteers.
Ya know, for a f.uckin' Nazi, that's a pretty right-on statement that I agree with absolutely 100%. I don't agree with the rest of your ideology, but I would definately love to goose-step in this direction. Unfortunately, I think we forgot what being held accountable for our actions really means.
 
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
Maybe I should have used this quote from my mother instead: Always finish what you started. Don't be a quiter.
Why do you feel the need to "finish" something you never should have started in the first place? I'm sure your mother would not want you to quit killing 2900 more GI's and 600,000 more Iraqi civilians? Oh, let's not quit that!
 
Originally posted by VTA:
Hey was that a Freudian slip Billo?
No slip there, that was deliberate. I put myself in the same boat as everyone I'm bitching about. I'm not above the problem. I too, am part of the problem.
 
Originally posted by TOT:
No we didn't Saddam violated every single U.N. resolution levied against in complete and total violation of the cease fire agreement.
Israel's violated 33 UN resolutions! We didn't attack them!

So go f.uck yourself, a.sshole!
 
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
There was nothing illegal about it. Even your own party gave up on this rhetoric crap years ago.
We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Something our Congress ratified. Which makes it part of our own Constitution. It only gives two reasons a country can launch a military attack on another sovereign nation.
  1. If we are attacked first with a significant force
  2. If we receive UNSC authorization
We had neither!

DO THE MATH!
 
Billo_Really said:
We attacked in violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Something our Congress ratified. Which makes it part of our own Constitution. It only gives two reasons a country can launch a military attack on another sovereign nation.
  1. If we are attacked first with a significant force
  2. If we receive UNSC authorization
We had neither!

DO THE MATH!

Tell me where it says that in Article 51:

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
 
Article 51 of the UN Charter
  1. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
  2. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
When the UNSC said they remained siezed on the issue of Iraq in Resolution 1441, they were saying that their "authority and responsability" on that issue was to still call the shots and any action would be decided by them (1/5 US). But Bush called 5/5's US. Not cool.
 
Back
Top Bottom