Would imediate withdrawal from iraq result in a third world war?

[VTA]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

How so? Surely Sunni and Shia can kill each other more effectively if we are not there to stop them?

A survey was conducted back in '79 or something around that time. It said a Sadaam-less Iraq would degenerate into civil war. The two factions being very prejudiced, the Sunni's and the Shi'ites would kill each other, with Kurds in the middle.

Knowing this, or at least with the administration should having this knowledge, a better plan should have been put in place for this eventuality. It certainly wasn't. Unless chaos was the goal, it being easier to rule with division, so some think.

At that time ('79) Iran was in no position to make a play at another country. Now, on the other hand, they are and America has to stay to keep them from growing. Or mend diplomatic ties and work it out.

If America were to leave, Iran would hold dominance in Iraq, and whether or not it would start trying to eliminate Sunni's is really in question. Aside from sponsoring terrorism against mostly Western and Israeli interests, Iran doesn't have a history of doing such things. They have their own communities of Christian, Jewish and Sunni living quite peacefully (though not admittedly on the same level of equality) in their own country and seem more than content to direct their hate at us and Israel.

To some extent a world war is already happening, just not in the traditional sense that we think of it. It's mostly maneuvering and positioning oneself to advantageous bargaining power. Russia obviously backs Iran. So does China. They're not out and out talking about physical war and where they stand, but by their actions and relationships they're making it clear.

Syria and Iran (and Venezuela) are certainly standing shoulder to shoulder making enough noise to the end of trying to appear to have some leverage against the West.

The UK and the U.S.A., along with Australia, Japan and Germany have made their positions clear.

But neither of the big countries wants to start trading blows. No matter what physical damage they can inflict, they know their going to receive their fair share of pain in return. Not only is it bad for business, but it's a step backward for a progressive nation. Hopefully this means we really are evolving away from the necessity for war and conflicts such as WWI & II will really be a thing of the past.

Or it could mean hoping nuclear terrorism can become a reality and can weaken an opponent to the point of taking away all possibilities of any real retaliation.

I think both sides should knock of the posturing and start talking. What can be more noble than offering the olive branch first? And if in return you're hit, what can be more legitimate than an act of real self defense?

I do believe that America is acting in it's own defense against real acts of war commited in recent history. But I also it has it's own complicity in this situation.

A bit long-winded, I know. Appy Polly Loggies.:2wave:

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Originally posted by Red Dave:
How so? Surely Sunni and Shia can kill each other more effectively if we are not there to stop them?

Excluding your sarcasm, "armageddon" would involve a few more groups than just Sunni and Shia.

Now, in response to your sarcasm...

Blogging from Iraq
Interview: Four Iraqi bloggers describe what the war has done to their country—and to them.
By Paige Austin September 4, 2006

MJ: How about the sectarian differences that the fighting seems to be exacerbating?

Sunshine: Personally, I didn’t know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis until three years ago. My best friend is Shiite; we have been friends since we were 6 years old. Neither of us supports what is happening now. My grandparent's neighbors are Shiite; the mother has been my grandma's friend for over 35 years. We like their family very much, and we both feel very angry about this ridiculous segregation. You see Shiites and Sunnis married and living in the same house—many relatives of mine are married to Shiite men or women, and they won’t get divorced because of this silly segregation. They are Muslims before they are Shiites or Sunni, and in the end we are all Iraqis, no matter what our religion or denomination.

Next question (or quip)?

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Originally posted by VTA:
A bit long-winded, I know. Appy Polly Loggies.

You crossed the line with this one!

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

I don't really have an answer. I wouldn't want to be the President.

No solutions and plenty of criticism. Are you sure your name isn't John Kerry?

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Originally posted by galenrox:
I think it's funny that you assume I haven't. I have lived in 3 different cities in my life, Evanston, Chicago, and Iowa City, all three of which are notorious liberal enclaves, so chances are there's nothing you've got to say that I haven't already heard. Just because I've gone through it and seen that the argument is obviously bullshit does not mean that I have not considered it, I considered it, weighed the merits of the argument, and the obviously conclusion of such consideration is that this argument is bullshit.

Here are the problems with this argument
a) It is using a historical argument (an argument about the classification of a past decision) in attempts to justify a strategic conclusion. We're not deciding whether or not we should go to war with Iraq, I don't know if you've been paying any attention at all, but we sent in the troops a while ago As a product of this, arguments for why we should not have gone to Iraq, free of an argument which shows these to be relevant to discussions of what we should do NOW, are absolutely irrelevant.
Strategic conclusions are justified in this way:
You explain what the alternatives are, and why these alternatives are the only alternatives worth considering
You explain why one particular alternative is superior to all of the other ones

Which of these did you do? Neither, and thus if anyone gives a damn about logic and reason they should immidiately recognize that this line of argumentation exists for the sole purpose of eliciting an emotional response over a logical response.
b) The classification of the enemy in the WOT may be vague, but one who denies the threats we face cannot under any circumstances be expected to be taken seriously on any issue dealing with national security.
c) As there are more forces fighting against us other than the insurgents, the fact that the insurgents won't be following us is irrelevant, as it is not attack from the insurgents that we are worried about or attempting to prevent, but other forces in Iraq, such as Iranians and members of al Qaeda, are groups that we are worried about, and thus any strategic discussion that does not involve the analysis of the effects of said alternative on said forces cannot be expected to be taken at all seriously as a strategic argument (as it shows clearly that the assessment of value for the various alternatives is invalid)



I know you care a whole lot more about seeming right to your fellow liberals than actually being right, which is why this is not the first time I've said this exact same **** to you. But don't expect for me to pretend as if your conclusions are anything short of nonsensical bullshit free of any logical justification until you stop trying to justify your conclusions with arguments that provides absolutely no logical justification for your conclusions.

Get your head out of your a.s.s and stop acting like your above it all! All your statement reflects is "ego" and "conceit". That doesn't wash in my book. You jump to a lot of conclusions that are about as illogical as reason and deduction can be.

You don't have a clue as to who I am, what I am or why I post. You are too smug in your own air of arrogance and like to listen to yourself talk way too much to say anything about my motives. Anyone who has ever known me for any length of time knows I don't give a rat's a.s.s what people think of me and I certainly could care less about looking good to anyone. This "point" you were trying to make has never entered my mind.

As for the war, you don't seem to want to address the fact that we [the US] are causing a lot of these problems with our foreign policy. That is what I am getting at. And that is the basis of my argument. That we should be doing the things we need to do that stops the proliferation of our enemies. We are "creating" enemies. And since no one can change anyone else, we need to work on changing the things we can do to stop getting people so mad they want to fly planes into our buildings. You don't do that by attacking a country that did not attack you first. If you do not see just how wrong that is, then you are in severe need of re-education (of American values). It is no secret we are the most hated nation on earth. Unfortunately, people with the type of arrogance you have, either cannot recognize how destructive this may become or they just refuse to deal with it.

Your like that bumpersticker:
I wish I had all of lifes problems when I was a teenager and knew everything!

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
No solutions and plenty of criticism. Are you sure your name isn't John Kerry?

FUCA...............

 

[cherokee]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Excluding your sarcasm, "armageddon" would involve a few more groups than just Sunni and Shia.

No it wouldn’t billo. (armageddon in iraq or its version) Those two moronic groups have been at each other’s throats for over a thousand years. Each truly believes they are the true Islamic faith, each believes they are following Allah’s will.

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Originally posted by galenrox:
Once again, it would be nice if there was a way things could be done in which the end result would be us all holding hands and singing "Kum bay yah", but once again, this is THE REAL WORLD!!!

In your fantasy world, maybe there is a way that the United States can conduct itself that doesn't make people want to kill us, but in reality, that **** does not exist. We are the most powerful nation with the largest economy in the world, meaning that everything, ABSOLUTELY everything we do has massive global implications. It is 100% impossible for any nation as powerful as ours to not **** over some, either as a product of action or inaction. So it is absolutely impossible for us to ever expect to stop ******* people off to the point that they want to fly planes into our buildings. As a product of this, we have to defend ourselves, and when it comes to issues of our defense we must behave strategically, making rational strategic decisions. Now rationality is loosely defined as if A>B>C than I will choose A over B, B over C, and A over C. Your argument has been largely focused on explaining why one of these alternatives is bad, but you haven't focused at all about what would happen if we pulled out, and without that, you are ABSOLUTELY not in a position to make such value judgements, as you're just ASSUMING, as a product of not liking one alternative, that the other one is better. That is a shitty way to make decisions as to the public defense.

As long as we are the worlds pre-eminant super power, and as long as we participate in the global market place as such, we will always be the most hated nation on Earth. Pulling out of Iraq won't make it any better, so your argument relies on nonsense. Give me reason to stop being smug, and I can assure you I will.

You're making just as many assumptions as I am, so let's just refrain from those kind of accusations.

Do you research alternative forms of news? Do you see what is not American-based media? Do you read Iraqi blog sites? Or Iraqi news? Or anything that doesn't give a pollyanna view of what the US is doing? Because if you don't, don't consider yourself informed enough to draw an intelligent conclusion on this issue. I read both sides of this argument. I get the Iraqi version, I get the US version, I go to the Al Jazeerah website as well as marine.com website and I certainly do not have an answer to solve all the problems. So please do not come at me like you think you do. Because if there is one thing I do know, is that YOU don't know!

But you are right about there is nothing we can do 100% of the time without some group getting angry over our actions. What I am concentrating on are the things we do that go beyond what we consider American values. And world domination and visions of empire are not one of them.

All you seem to do in your arguments is the same bullshit Gunny's spews. And that is justifying this war. There is nothing you can tell me that will acheive those ends. Absolutely nothing! And the fact that you cannot deal with the possibility that a half million people are dead because of a decision made in our name, speaks volumes for your humanity (or lack thereof).

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Originally posted by Cherokee:
No it wouldn’t billo. (armageddon in iraq or its version) Those two moronic groups have been at each other’s throats for over a thousand years. Each truly believes they are the true Islamic faith, each believes they are following Allah’s will.

So if we left, it would just be business as usual. Thanks. We can go and there would not be any guilt we would have to deal with. Awesome!

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

Originally posted by galenrox:
What the hell is bullshit about saying that we need to behave strategically? Yeah, I get it, our presence creates new enemies, obviously. You don't need to read alternative news sources to know that.
But what the hell makes you think that pulling out wouldn't create new enemies? When the civil war makes it to the relatively stable parts of Iraq after our departure, do you really think that there won't be anyone blaming us for what happens? We come in, screw everything up, then leave, you think THAT'S gonna stop the creation of new enemies?

But I love that you attack me personally, as that is of such clear and obvious relevance to your point, and that in no way backs up what I said about you caring more about emotion than reason

You can't reject an argument on principle, that is intellectual cowardice. If you want to reject my argument, then you have to point out specific flaws, and if you can't find any, then you are intellectually obligated to accept it.

What do you expect when you post up with this "Kum bay yah" crap and act like I don't live in the REAL WORLD or just dismiss what I say as pure emotional nonsense? You get what you give.

There is nothing strategic for the United States in Iraq. And it is absolutely wrong for anyone to think that. This isn't about strategy. It's about aggression. Armed aggression. Nation building. What were doing there is un-American. Why we are there is just criminal.

You seem to forget this country used to be the beacon of democracy. Now we are the posterchild of hypocrisy. That's not a powerful nation. That's a nation where 50% of its population decided not to cast an educated vote.

 

[VTA]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

You crossed the line with this one!

Not a Burgess fan, I take it...:doh

 

[Billo_Really]

Re: Would imediate withdrawel from iraq result in a third world war?

You start by saying this.

Originally posted by galenrox
Well man, if you gave me any reason to believe otherwise, you can rest assured that you'd've elicited a different response.

And you end by saying this.

Originally posted by galenrox
So go ahead and get pissed off if you so choose, no skin off my sack, cause you and I both know that your arguments here are ****, and nothing you can say about me will change that.

So, what's it gonna be, galen? Do you welcome alternative points of view? Or is your mind made up and there is nothing I can say that will illicit a different response?

Originally posted by galenrox
And despite me pointing out that we're not talking about whether or not we should go to Iraq, but instead what we should do NOW (unless you'd like to argue that we're not already in Iraq), your arguments are still completely focused on saying we should not be in Iraq. That's tough ****, we're in Iraq, like it or not, ****ing deal with it. The time for that debate passed 4 years ago.

You don't seem to understand that you cannot separate the two. For me to discuss what we do now since we are in Iraq, would be legitimizing that it is right for us to be there in the first place. And I'm not going to do that.

Originally posted by galenrox
I don't know if it's possible to lay out what is neccesary to draw a strategic conclusion any more simply. Focus VERY carefully. You are trying to argue that we should pull out of Iraq (the value of which we will assign to the variable A), as opposed to any alternative which involves continued presence in Iraq (the values of which we will assign to (B1,Bn)).
Thus you have to show that A>B1, A>B2...,A>Bn, or in other words, you have to show that, considering all of the alternatives we have, that a complete troop withdrawl is the value maximizing alternative. Follow so far?

So tell me, what happens when we pull out?
What specific analysis have you done in order to:
a) assign value to A
b) assign values to (B1,Bn)

Now, as this is the real world, obviously the standard of proof cannot be the standard of proof for fact (thus I do not expect you to prove that it is a fact that pulling out of Iraq is the best alternative), but you haven't given even the slightest ****ing reason to believe that there is even the slightest rational basis for your assumption that A is the value maximizing alternative, considering you haven't discussed the merits of a single alternative, not ONE!!!!

If you want reason's why we should leave, they are as follows:

• Our presence there as angered muslims throughout the ME and staying longer will NOT make the situation any less volatile.
• We cannot afford to keep spending 9 billion a month on this war and have it not effect our economy.
• The continued loss of life is too great a cost to pay for what we get in return.
• The longer we stay, the more we become a target for terrorists, inside and outside of Iraq.
• We are doing more damage than good (ie., Falluja, Ischagi, Haditha, etc.)
• Continued presence just exacerbates the wrong committed by going there in the first place.
• We have created a refugee problem of biblical proportions.
• 82% of Iraqis want us out of the country.
• 70% of Americans want us out of the country.
• 90% of the rest of the world wants us out of the country.
• The only ones that want us IN the country are the Administration (and their apologists), the Iraqi puppet regime and al Qaeda.

That's the short list.

Originally posted by galenrox
Yet, you've been talking. So what the hell have you been talking about? Well let's see, based on what we know. We know that you're trying to convince people that we should pull out of Iraq, and we know that you have not used a single rational line of argumentation. So what, other than rationality, leads people to conclusions? EMOTION!!! Like it or not, you've just been trying to emotionally manipulate people into not actually ****ing thinking! You can get pissed if you so choose, but show me I'm wrong, show me where you've made a rational argument for leaving Iraq, look back over your posts, and compare the amount of rational analysis (discussion of the merits of pulling out of Iraq as opposed to the merits of the various alternatives that involve staying in Iraq) against the amount of arguments free of rational analysis to the point of whether or not we should pull out of Iraq.

Don't say "we". At least have the balls to own your own opinion and not try to speak for others. This is just your opinion reacting to my post. Which you have every right to do. And I disagree with your conclusion here.

Originally posted by galenrox
And what you will notice is that you are yet to do any rational analysis, you can complain about me not being nice to you till the cows come home, but that ain't gonna change. So you can either give in to a life of being one of those people who no one who knows anything will ever take seriously, or you can grow a sack and make a rational argument. It's not my fault that your argument is ****, I didn't write it. You're the one who has not provided any rational analysis, you're the one who refuses to accept that "we should get out of Iraq" and "We shouldn't be in Iraq" are two entirely different issues, and you're the one who has chosen to respond to these points with personal attacks over developing a valid argument.

By your standards. Have you even tried to see my point? Can you even state what my point is? Specifically? Because if you don't know what my point is, then what are you responding too?

 

[Billo_Really]

Now here's the links to the assertions of my previous post:

• Our presence there as angered muslims throughout the ME and staying longer will NOT make the situation any less volatile.

Rising Regional Anger: Middle East Shaking Its Head
By Megan K. Stack and Ken Ellingwood
The Los Angeles Times Friday 12 January 2007

Bush sees a regional solution in his plan for Iraq. But Arab states say the problem is the US.

Cairo - In ordering more American troops into Iraq, President Bush said he was sending a message of hope to millions of Arabs and Afghans trapped in violence. But to many on the ground in the Mideast, the speech spoke volumes of a gaping disconnect between high-flown U.S. promises and a deadly, turbulent reality.

After long years of war and political disillusionment, Bush would have been hard-pressed to come up with any message that would please the Arab world. Analysts say public opinion of the United States has sunk to an unprecedented low, with no end in sight to the bloodletting in Iraq or the Palestinian territories.

Many here, long mired in bloodshed and sinking deeper into sectarian tensions, hold America squarely to blame for both.

Rather than sowing political progress, they say, the U.S. presence in Iraq has poisoned the mood so thoroughly that secular and moderate activists now stay silent for fear of being tarred as American agents.

"What the United States did for the region is destruction for the forces who believe in democracy, rule of law and human rights," said Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza City. "We are the real victims."

The Bush administration has repeatedly portrayed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a boost, albeit a painful one, for Arab democracy and human rights. Victory in Baghdad will bring a brighter era to the entire region, U.S. officials have promised.

But after waves of outrage over torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, the spectacle of Saddam Hussein's trial and execution, and sectarian slaughter in the streets of Baghdad, few people here seem able to articulate what, exactly, the United States is even trying to accomplish.

"The U.S. should pull out its troops from Iraq because innocent people are dying every day, including U.S. soldiers," said Karim Salhab, a 25-year-old accountant in Beirut. "I don't think it's fair for the families of these soldiers that their kids die for nothing."

Conventional wisdom here holds that, because the U.S. invasion pitched Iraq into civil war, only an American withdrawal can set the shattered nation back on the road toward stability.

Bush "mismanaged and brutalized Iraq too long to even hope for stability while the troops stay," said Mohammed Sayed Said, an analyst at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "The reservoir of violence and bitterness and agonies is so huge that hoping for stability in the immediate future is self-deception at best."

U.S. occupation at Root of Violence in Iraq
U.S. forces creating divide amongst Iraqis
by Sara Flounders Global Research, February 12, 2007

Occupation is root of violence

The U.S. invasion and occupation is responsible for the violence in Iraq today. Journalists, correspondents and editors omit this basic underlying fact in almost all coverage of “sectarian violence.” The U.S. occupation army, its officials, its contractors—another name for mercenaries—wreak violence daily. They are not innocent bystanders who stumbled into the country to bring democracy and reconciliation.

• We cannot afford to keep spending 9 billion a month on this war and have it not effect our economy.

Rising Price of the War on Terror
By Peter Grier The Christian Science Monitor
Tuesday 21 November 2006

Before the invasion of Iraq, the White House estimated that combat operations there would cost about $50 billion. That forecast, however, was based on a quick end to the war and a rapid drawdown of US troops.

Three years later, Iraq alone is costing the US some $8 billion a month.

• The continued loss of life is too great a cost to pay for what we get in return.

US Deaths in Iraq Mark Increased Presence
By Donna St. George The Washington Post Sunday 31 December 2006

More killed in action than in other wars.

• The longer we stay, the more we become a target for terrorists, inside and outside of Iraq.

Iraq makes terror 'more likely'

People across the world overwhelmingly believe the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks worldwide, a poll for the BBC reveals.
Some 60% of people in 35 countries surveyed believe this is the case, against just 12% who think terrorist attacks have become less likely.

• We are doing more damage than good (ie., Falluja, Ischagi, Haditha, etc.)

BAGHDAD, Feb 23 (IPS) - Iraqi journalists are outraged over yet another U.S. military raid on the media.

U.S. soldiers raided and ransacked the offices of the Iraq Syndicate of Journalists (ISJ) in central Baghdad Tuesday this week. Ten armed guards were arrested, and 10 computers and 15 small electricity generators kept for donation to families of killed journalists were seized.

This is not the first time U.S. troops have attacked the media in Iraq, but this time the raid was against the very symbol of it. Many Iraqis believe the U.S. soldiers did all they could to deliver the message of their leadership to Iraqi journalists to keep their mouth shut about anything going wrong with the U.S.-led occupation.

"The Americans have delivered so many messages to us, but we simply refused all of them," Youssif al-Tamimi of the ISJ in Baghdad told IPS. "They killed our colleagues, closed so many newspapers, arrested hundreds of us and now they are shooting at our hearts by raiding our headquarters. This is the freedom of speech we received."

Some Iraqi journalists blame the Iraqi government.

"Four years of occupation, and those Americans still commit such foolish mistakes by following the advice of their Iraqi collaborators," Ahmad Hassan, a freelance journalist from Basra visiting Baghdad told IPS. "They (the U.S. military) have not learned yet that Iraqi journalists will raise their voice against such acts and will keep their promise to their people to search for the truth and deliver it to them at any cost."

There is a growing belief in Iraq that U.S. allies in the current Iraqi government are leading the U.S. military to raid places and people who do not follow Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's directions.

"It is our Iraqi colleagues who pushed the Americans to that hole," Fadhil Abbas, an Iraqi television producer told IPS. "Some journalists who failed to fake the truth here are trying hard to silence truth seekers by providing false information to the U.S. military in order to take advantage of their stupidity in handling the whole Iraqi issue."

Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing
by Dr. Craig Etchison

The Haditha massacre is but one of many
By Dr. Imad Allo Azzaman, June 4, 2006

• Continued presence just exacerbates the wrong committed by going there in the first place.

Tribunal on Iraq Findings

World Tribunal on Iraq
Monday 27 June 2005

• We have created a refugee problem of biblical proportions.
Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis

Matt Weaver and agencies
Thursday December 7, 2006 Guardian Unlimited

The surging violence in Iraq has created what is becoming the biggest refugee crisis in the world, a humanitarian group said today.

• 82% of Iraqis want us out of the country.

The Challenges Facing Post-Election Iraq
Dr. James Zogby Arab American Institute Monday 7 February 2005

• 70% of Americans want us out of the country.

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

• 90% of the rest of the world wants us out of the country.

Demonstrators Gather in Cities Around the World to Demand Pullout from Iraq
By Jack Garland Associated Press Saturday 27 September 2003

• The only ones that want us IN the country are the Administration (and their apologists), the Iraqi puppet regime and al Qaeda.

U.S. troop ‘surge’ to protect government and not Iraqi people By Fatih Abdulsalam Azzaman, February 3, 2007

The expected surge in the numbers of U.S. troops does not need all this commotion in the Congress or Iraq. Perhaps many have forgotten that the U.S. had even more troops in Iraq in 2005, the year when it became clear there was no stopping of the country’s upsurge in violence.

The surge is not that significant and will not lead to decisive results even if the U.S. dispatches 100,000 or 150,000 more troops.

Any increase in the numbers of U.S. troops in Baghdad will mean putting more troops in harm’s way. The bullet shot from a certain corner of a district in Baghdad will have better chances of hitting its target in proportion to the increase in troop levels.

It is highly unlikely that the U.S. will be able to subdue Baghdad no matter how many more troops it mobilizes for that purpose.

But U.S. intelligence knows that al-Qaeda's public statements must be taken with a grain of salt.

By contrast, analysts give more weight to intercepted al-Qaeda communiqués describing the leaders' private views. Those messages reveal that - even as al-Qaeda baits the United States about leaving Iraq - the group actually worries that a sudden U.S. withdrawal could collapse its position.

Intelligence analysts estimate that al-Qaeda's forces account for only five percent or less of the armed opposition fighting U.S. and allied forces - and many of those young jihadists are not considered committed fighters.

As Zawahiri said in one captured letter, a rapid American military withdrawal could cause al-Qaeda's new foreign jihadists, who have gone to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Yes, your specific points are that our presence in Iraq has lead to the proliferation of new enemies, that the war was illegal and immoral in the first place, that this damages who we are as Americans, which carries consequences both principly and strategically, in that it is important on principle to preserve who we are as Americans, and it is important strategically that we are viewed as the beacon of freedom and democracy. More or less, that's what you've been getting at, right?

Absolutely and Thank you.

Originally posted by galenrox:
That's absolute crap. Whether or not we should be in Iraq is of absolutely no relevance, the fact of the matter is that we're in Iraq.

If you commit a crime, you don't keep committing the crime in order to right the wrong. Especially, when that crime is against humanity. Our involvement there is far less than noble and your refusal to even acknowledge this speaks volumes. We've got no business being there. The best way to fix this is to leave. The attack was illegal to begin with, and your way is to keep breaking the law. I think that sucks. But hey, you have a right to your opinion.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
It'd be nice if it were just a matter of opinion, but it currently is not. Now I don't doubt that you and I would undoubtedly still draw different conclusions were your approach to the issue logically sound, but that does not change that it is not logically sound.

This is not an accusation of a broader lack of logical faculties, but just the observance that your conclusions are not logical, as a product of emotion and oversimplicity. Everyone is guilty of this pretty frequently, including yours truly, but it's very important that these mistakes are corrected.

Now we do differ on certain matters of opinion, and we agree on others. For instance, you view our entering Iraq as criminal, while I don't recognize any legitimate source of international law, and thus it by definition cannot be illegal, as there is no law. This is a matter of opinion, meaning that there isn't a right answer, and the merits of either of our positions are entirely subject to subjective value judgements. Now as per the conclusion of whether or not going to Iraq was justified, although I'd expect we come to the same destination by different routes, we're in agreement that it was not justified.


But that isn't important to this discussion, I'm sorry, it just isn't. You can't justify a strategic claim without adhering to the rational process, which is defining the alternatives, assigning values to the various alternatives, and then picking the value maximizing alternative. Like it or not, you skipped the first two steps. You identified a problem, and then assumed that one response is value maximizing. There is absolutely no way that this process can be viewed as even the slightest bit logical.

Tell me, why is the best way to fix it withdrawl?

I do not have an answer. And I certainly do not claim to know the best way to fix the problem. I don't have all the information needed to draw conclusions on a "policy setting" level. All I can do, is comment on what I have seen and what I am perceiving. And that's it. Whether you think it is logical or illogical, rational or irrational, analytical or emotional, is your business, not mine. I don't have a problem with whatever you consider to be your truth.

As far as the legality of the war, I see it this way. By attacking, we violated Article 51 of the UN Charter. Which also happens to be a treaty our Congress ratified, thus making it as much as US law as the Constitution. So we violated not just international law, but US law as well. And just so you know, I am of the position that UNSC Resolution 1441 did not authorize military action against Iraq. And according to Article 51, the only two ways we can legally attack another country is if we are attacked by a significant force (which we were not) or we receive UNSC authorization (which we did not). So it is my position that it was illegal.

Other than that, take care, galen.

Your comments are always welcome...

 

[billybobama]

One thing those who advocate an imediate withdrawel from iraq [as i used to] should bear in mind is that the coalition forces are the only thing starting between a full scale civil war and the relatively sectarian conflict we are seeing today.

Where a civil war to occur we know Iran would get involved because it already has links with shia militia. The saudi government has already declared its intention to protect sunni civillians and this would draw the two countrys into conflict with each other.

If such a conflict where to occur it would be likely that the U.S and Brittian would get involved due to there intrests in the region [arms, oil e.t.c] and there alliance with saudi arabia. It would be likely that Syria would get involved due to its promise to protect Iran. The result would be a conflict between two coalitions of nations as in WW1 and WW2.

If this where to happen there would be far reaching concequences such as an increase in terroism in Europe and the U.S, and a economic chaos due to problems in oil supply. This would inevitably heighten ethnic tensions.

Naturally im not saying this is all going to happen but theres a significant risk that it will. If this risk exists could it not be accuratly said that the ocupation is a neccesairy evil?

I agree on some of your points. I tend to deal with facts and the known, just my personality. It is very possible that George Bush and the Republicans started a World War when they invaded Iraq for no reason. It is well known that almost all predictions by George Bush and the Republicans has been incorrect. I believe the answer is in the math. There are appx. 1.5 billion Moslims in the world. There are about a dozen seperate Moslim Sects. There are about 1 billion Sunni Moslims in the world. Iraq was a Sunni country. Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve on earth, maybe the largest. Now what we have done is given Iraq to the Shia. I do not think 1 billion Sunni are going to sit by and let the Shia take over Iraq no matter what the U.S. does. Therefore I see all the actions by the U.S. after the fall of Saddam Hussein as a total waste. I like Murtha's plan. Withdraw to the borders and hope like hell we can contain this Iraq mess to within the Iraqi border. I fell it will be a very bloody mess but we cannot stop it. I think only the Moslim's can settle this problem.

 

[Billo_Really]

'In Less than Three Years’ : The cliché of US sponsored “democracy” to justify invasion and mass murder
by Ghali Hassan Global Research, February 4, 2006

As the pretexts to justify the illegal war of aggression against Iraq started to collapse one after the other, the Bush Administration, its vassals and the mass media adopted the cliché of “democracy” to justify the invasion and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children. However, from the outset of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the U.S. objective was conspicuous; to destroy Iraq, install a puppet government and pillage the nation’s resources.

I hate this!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
and I have no logical reason to believe what I believe,

This is what I don't understand with you. I have got quite a few reasons to believe what I believe and my argument is a result of looking at this issue over time and researching many sources (pro's and con's) and looking at this as objectively and honestly as I can before I started drawing conclusions. Even after that, I am constantly checking those conclusions with new evidence (when it's presented) to see if they are still valid. The way I see it, that whole process is perfectly logical. Yet you disagree. I got a tell ya, I don't see your logic here. And I don't see how you can make a statement like that. Just because I am honest enough to admit I don't have all the answers doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. It is not logical to try to reduce terrorism by provoking an entire race or region of people with armed aggression under the cover of democracy. It is not logical to think that the sectarian violence in Iraq has nothing to do with us when you can look back to before we were there and there wasn't all this violence. And it is not logical to completly discount our foreign policy as one of the major enablers of hatred towards the US when there are many examples in history of us meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. And finally, it is not logical to keep giving credence to an Administration and its War Machine when recent history has proven time and time again the everything they are saying ranges from a complete exaggeration to a deliberate lie.

And just because I get emotional over my government acting in ways that destablize the planet does not mean I don't have good reasons to think that way.

 

[BodiSatva]

galenrox
You have raw data and raw analysis. What you mistake for logical reasons to believe are nothing, in and of themselves, as they do not even imply that any given alternative is any better or worse than any other.

I skimmed through some of these last posts really fast, posting on Craiglist
We are selling a ton of stuff! Need a baby stroller yet galenrox?

So! galenrox...are you saying that unless a person offers a solution, or a way of doing something with the data that they have collected, they are unable to actually have "logical reasons" for what they "wish" would happen? Sounds interesting...

I am not sure that I agree, it seems that a person could have logcally arrived at a position by crunching data and they discover that something is, say "bad" and they want it fixed, but they are unsure how to reach the goal of fixing the "bad" so they just seemingly "spout" what they want devoid of any solutions and that makes it sound illogical.

If I mis-read you or if you might clarify, please do. Thanks.

 

[BodiSatva]

galenrox
You can logically conclude that something is bad, but that does not mean anything in terms of "better" or "worse". Rationality isn't defined as doing what's "good" and not doing what's "bad", it's defined as doing what's best.

In order for an assertion about any form of future action to be logical, it absolutely must be comparative in nature, and thus why just pointing out that something is "bad" is not sufficient. Obviously there are no shortage of situations in which even our best alternative is objectively considered "bad", and as a product of this "bad" cannot be neccesarily equated with "not best" logically.

What you misunderstood is that Billo did assert a solution, that we should withdraw from Iraq. Now if his analysis stopped at "I think the war in Iraq is bad", sure, why not, but he took it that next step, from "I think the war in Iraq is bad" to "I think the war in Iraq is bad, and thus I think we should withdraw the troops", and it was in that step that all logic vanished from his perspective.

I agree, rationality isn't defined as doing what's "good" and not doing what's "bad"... those are judgments based off of emotion. I should not have presented it that way. But you got my drift...

I did not see his solution... The how should be addressed in order to make the why valid. Why we need to leave...great. How we address leaving is absolutely relevant to the why.

I think that both can be "logical" and independent of each other. But if one of the two is illogical, it almost negates the other half. In a sense. It at least brings more scrutiny to bear on the other half at any rate...

I can dig what you are saying...Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
What I was saying was not about the differences of the "why" and the "how", but instead about the difference between "we shouldn't be there" and "we should leave". As they sound very similar in principle, many will often making the mistake of equating one with the other, but they are not the same thing, and to arive on one simply as a product of arriving on the other is illogical as a product of this.

And I gave you several reasons why "we shouldn't be there".

Originally posted by billo:
If you want reason's why we should leave, they are as follows:

1. Our presence there has angered muslims throughout the ME and staying longer will NOT make the situation any less volatile.
2. We cannot afford to keep spending 9 billion a month on this war and have it not effect our economy.
3. The continued loss of life is too great a cost to pay for what we get in return.
4. The longer we stay, the more we become a target for terrorists, inside and outside of Iraq.
5. We are doing more damage than good (ie., Falluja, Ischagi, Haditha, etc.)
6. Continued presence just exacerbates the wrong committed by going there in the first place.
7. We have created a refugee problem of biblical proportions.
8. 82% of Iraqis want us out of the country.
9. 70% of Americans want us out of the country.
10. 90% of the rest of the world wants us out of the country.
11. The only ones that want us IN the country are the Administration (and their apologists), the Iraqi puppet regime and al Qaeda.

That's the short list.

If you disagree with these reasons, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why.

 

[BodiSatva]

galenrox
Originally posted by galenrox:
What I was saying was not about the differences of the "why" and the "how", but instead about the difference between WHY "we shouldn't be there" and HOW "we should leave". As they sound very similar in principle, many will often making the mistake of equating one with the other, I AGREE THEY ARE NOT THE SAME but they are not the same thing, and to arive on one simply as a product of arriving on the other is illogical as a product of this.

I think that we are on the same page... I was unclear at first, but I get what you are saying. I like that way of looking at it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
You mistakenly think you have reasons to believe what you believe about pulling out, but you do not. There is not a huge amount of gray areas when it comes to logic, if your conclusions are drawn as a product of a logical process, then the conclusions are logical, and if they are drawn as a product of any other process, they are illogical.

There is no mistake, galen. My reason's are my reason's. And they are just as valid and logical as your argument that they aren't.

Originally posted by galenrox:
You have raw data and raw analysis. What you mistake for logical reasons to believe are nothing, in and of themselves, as they do not even imply that any given alternative is any better or worse than any other.

What I mistake for logical reasons?

Logic: The rules whereby valid conclusions may be derived from a given set of axioms.
Axiom: A basic assumption that is accepted without proof

We can take one of my reason's as an example:

7. We have created a refugee problem of biblical proportions.

If this is the conclusion, we can work backwards towards the axioms. Using Falluja as the model for one of the axioms and the thousands of residents now living in tents in the middle of the desert for the other, it is LOGICAL to conclude that we do, in fact, have a refugee problem. If you do not agree that these satisfy the basic definition of axioms, I can break it down even further with photo's, military reports, eye-witness accounts, etc to prove the level of destruction and the resultant humanitarian problem that followed.

Originally posted by galenrox:
Let's say I'm a CEO, and you're a shareholder. Now if you look at the annual costs I've incurred for the corporation as CEO, and they're, let's say $2 billion. Now is this information enough to make any sort of logical conclusion as to whether or not you should oust me as CEO? Absolutely not, as in and of itself this data means nothing. You can still draw conclusions off of this, but these conclusions will be absolutely illogical, and you will have no reason to believe what you believe.

Businesses live and die with their level of cash flow. This was a bad example. Not just because of the dis-jointed conclusion, but because you assumed my reasons are all eggs in the same basket.

Originally posted by galenrox:
The same applies here. Let's just say I don't question any of your actual analysis, it was illegal to go into Iraq, our presence leads to the proliferation of enemies, and our presence is detrimental to who we are as a nation, both in principle, and the strategic benefits of being seen as who we like to believe we are. All this is is an assessment of costs, but costs, in and of themselves means nothing as far as analysis of net costs or benefits, or as far as strategic analysis of what should be done next.

Again, a para-phrase of the eggs in one basket argument. Which is incorrect!

Originally posted by galenrox:
You don't have anything until you lay out a good idea of what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, a good idea of what alternatives are available in Iraq, a good idea of what would happen in the cases of these alternatives, and analysis as to why the alternative of withdrawl is superior to the alternatives that involve staying.

And in order to assign value to various alternatives, you first must define goals, as the value of various alternatives are determined in terms of how much they help/hurt you in pursuit of these goals.

Violence will decrease with the main enabler of tensions out of the country. How's that?

Originally posted by galenrox:
There are reasons to believe what you believe, but they are not the reasons why you believe what you believe.

I will say this again, do not tell me why I say what I say. I know why. You know why you say what you say. But you absolutely do not know what my motivation is or why I say (or state) particular issue the way I do. Just accept what I say at face value, otherwise, this conversation will just deteriorate from here on.

Originally posted by galenrox:
And it is in there where we disagree. I believe that, although it would enable us access to the resources, leaving Iraq without any measure of success to point back to will empower the more dovish and isolationist elements in this country, and so although the resources are made available, we will disable ourselves from using them, which, once again, those with divergent interests watch CNN, so they'll know and exploit this, no doubt. I also disagree in how uncertain and far off a measure of victory is. Victory is obviously not gonna be all that pretty in this case, suffice it so say it most certainly is not going to be like the end of World War 2. Victory, as I see it, is a Nash equilibrium, hold on, I wrote this all before:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...tml#post468199 (Cleric's militia braces, lowers its profile)
And thus why I support a troop surge (and would've preferred a much larger one) over a withdrawl.

Sucess is not possible in Iraq because you cannot define specifically what success would entail. Success is not possible for many reasons. Like the one where we f.u.c.k.e.d up so much of that country, dug a hole so deep, we cannot get out of it. Have you ever had a girlfriend you got into a heated argument with and said something you didn't mean? But it hit so close to home with her, that it didn't matter what you said or did from that moment on, you two were over!

That's the US and Iraq.

As far as your Nash Equilibrium, be careful when you try to use classroom theory and logic in a real world setting where you cannot break everything down to Player 1 and Player 2 defecting to a final (2,2) result. That is way too simplistic an approach and leaves out a whole lot of variables that factor into this particular problem.

I almost forgot, the Iranian Hostage Crisis did not happen because of our pullout from Vietnam. It happened as a result of our interference in that country's internal affairs starting in 1953.

I wish people would stop bringing up Vietnam. We were there for 15 years! You can't get it done by that time, it's over! Time to go home.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
And none of this matters if you do not have a logical argument

That was a logical argument. If you can't see that, it is because you refuse to look. I can't help you there, nor do I care too.

I gave you 11 reason's why and the links to show why I considered them reasons. This isn't a classroom and you don't set the parameters of this debate. Either you want to have a conversation, or you just want to here yourself talk. Doesn't matter to me. The point you are trying to make is FOS. And way off the mark.

20 years from now, you're gonna see what I see now. I guarantee it!

 

[MSgt]

And I gave you several reasons why "we shouldn't be there".

.........

If you disagree with these reasons, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why.

Actually, your "reasons" were, as always, little more than surface complaints that don't really amount to much.

You remark that we are getting little in return, but this is exactly what people said at the onstart of the Cold War. You also remark that in 20 years, you will be proven right. However, in twenty years, we will have conducted military missions (from right and left White House officials) throughout the third world and the vast majority of them will be against Muslim people. Iraq will be filed in the past behind other battle fields within a greater war between two civilizations. And during and between these conflicts, we will be diplomatically addressing other aspects of this to keep us out of other battlefields. Our futures will indeed involve a third world war. But, hopefully it doesn't have to include nuclear weapons and a civilization, that we turned our backs on for so long as it drove itself into hell, that we won't have to slaughter entire populations for our protection.

This is going to happen (as it has been before 9/11) and it has been a projected destiny by Presidents Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter. With the aid of 9/11, the Bush administration just stumbled into it and bungled it along the way.

Will a pre-mature withdrawel from Iraq result in a third World War? By itself, probably not. But it will be the spark that will launch the events that will....

A terrorist nation that borders Saudi Arabia and Iran will launch attacks into their neighbors and headquarter rogue elements within the Islamic terrorist network. Our targets will roam freely throughout Iraq tormenting their fellow Muslims to their visions of a pure Islamic community, because the vast majority of Muslims will be either too scared to do something about it or they will be too scared that if they do do something about it that it might be considered as blasphemy against their God. The Sunni will struggle for power as they slaughter Shi'ite and the Shi'ite will slaughter the Sunni for past and present grievances. And behind this violence will be a nuclear questing Iran and a worried Saudi Arabia. And of course beside this new twist to the Middle East, we have the ever present Palestinian/Israeli conflict which continues to act as a comfortable diversion for futureless unemployed youth throughout the region who need something to fix upon for a purpose upon this earth. Our only course of action will be reduced to revenge retaliation against such attacks from our bombers, because we will not want to go back into Iraq. And the product will be more pictures of dead children our media so loves to parade around. The difference would be that because we aren't losing troops over it, no one will care.

Terror will become an accepted norm in the 21st century as it periodically escapes out to the West, America especially, as more and more Arab culture victims seek a foreign devil to blame. The most humane thing to do is to launch preventive wars. This "clash of civilizations" (and all civilizations clash)is going to happen and it will be something that will make all of your complaints about Iraq seem like nothing. Nothing will bring an Islamic Radical more joy than to witness a nuclear bomb going off on Zionist or Christian lands. It would be the ultimate offering to God and there are plenty within this population that would seek this honor.

And then what will be our retaliation before another one goes off? The Radicals of Islam are determined to be on a path that will see a genocide of Muslim people within their own lands. While we will have seen tens of millions of dead Americans (or Israelis) under a cloud, Muslims will suffer casualties that numbers in the multiple hundred millions.

You are worrying about rust on a screw and dismissing the rusting car.