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

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Dammit, are you even paying attention to what I'm writing?

If you just want to prove that we should not be in Iraq, yeah, I'd accept this as sufficient evidence personally (but you must take into account that I already believe we should not be in Iraq).
Yet I do not believe that we should leave Iraq.

This is evidence that "We should not be in Iraq" cannot be equated with "We should leave Iraq". Stop, and reread that. Stop, reread it again. One more time. Get that into your ****ing skull, alright, cause I'm getting ****ing sick of trying to explain this **** to you.

They are different claims, and the theoretical argument that goes without saying only goes as far as justifying the claim that we should not be in Iraq, and that only works with me because I already believed we shouldn't be in Iraq before we started talking.

What you do not have is evidence that we should withdraw troops from Iraq. As this "evidence", as you so loosely call it, does not provide any reason to believe that your conclusion, which includes the premise that we should not be in Iraq (I'd assume, you haven't provided a theoretical argument, so there's no knowing for sure) is any more likely to be true than my conclusion, which also includes the premise that we should not be in Iraq.

See if you can follow this.
"We should not be in Iraq, and thus we should withdraw our troops"
"I agree that we should not be in Iraq, but I don't think that we should withdraw the troops"
"But we shouldn't be there"
"I know, that doesn't neccesarily mean that we should withdraw the troops"
"Here are reasons why we shouldn't be there"
"Alright, I don't see why that's important, as I already agree we shouldn't be there. Provide me with reasons why we should withdraw the troops."
"I did."

Please tell me that wasn't too difficult, I don't know if it can be made any simpler.

That is only your god-damn perception there is no evidence! I don't look at the world through galen's eyes. Get that through your f-ing head! You can understand my point without agreeing to it.

I do not have to have a better interpretation than yours to qualify my argument as being valid. I do not live my life by your standards. And I do believe in logical deductive reasoning. I'm not going to subject myself to your value system. That is something you need to get over.

If you think I am wrong, fine! But at least have the balls to man-up to your own emotions and decisions and take ownership of them. You choose your own reactions. If this is the way YOU choose to react to my evidence, so be it. But that is YOUR perception, not mine. Don't project that on me. The problem is YOU galen, and YOUR refusal to see my point on this issue.
Which is that you cannot separate any of this. Everything I have posted as a link, are indicators pointing in a certain direction. That direction is leaving Iraq. They are pieces in a puzzle that make up a picture. That picture is LEAVING F_CKING IRAQ!

Deal with it, TOT, I mean, galen!

Maybe in 20 years you will realize the difference
between intelligence and wisdom.










And no, I do not think I possess either...

 

[AcePylut]

The problem, BillO, is that it's not "evidence" about why we should leave Iraq.

You're creating a strawman argument. That's all.

 

[MSgt]

I've gone through this many times with TOT and GySgt. If you don't want to accept my sources and links as evidence, or you want to think that it is un-reasonable for me to draw those conclusions, that's fine with me. But don't put YOUR perceptions and value system on me.

And do you know why you go through it with everybody? Because your sources are usually of biased nature from antiwar pundits and hug-a-tree web sites. Because you parade around articles that paint the absolute worst picture, no matter how exaggerated.

And this is a perfect example. From your post...

"The U.S. has no friends left in Iraq. Everybody in Iraq today laughs at U.S. claims of democracy, human rights and freedom."

This is a complete lie. The vast majority of our intel comes from the local population (to include the Sunni). The countless souls in "Kurdistan" and the vast majority of Sh'ite know that the enemy is the Sunni not the Americans stuck in the middle of their cultural mess.

Your "proof" is not proof of anything except that war is not a picnic. Your "evidence" is merely a list of whining and complaining without the substance of the issues at hand. Other than that universally known fact, you haven't stated anything.

 

[Flea]

The factor that nobody seems to be addressing is that the "evidence" is interpretive. Addressing this would clear up your miscommunication fella's.

It seems that Billo's evidence can be interpreted two ways at least. One is what galenrox is saying it is and the other is what galenrox is saying it isn't. Yep. Re-read that **** again. and again. and again. :lol:

Really guys. His "evidence" is objective. It is interpretive. It is valid.

1. I can completely see what you are saying galen. It is evidence as to why we should not have gone to Iraq.
2. I can totally see what Billo is saying too. That we should leave Iraq. Not in ALL of his evidence, but some is there for sure.

The validity for both arguments is in his "Evidence".

What I think that Billo should do though, is find "evidence" that specific to why we should leave Iraq. This would carify the foundation of his argument allowing people to not get bogged down over validity of logic.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
It may seem to be evidence, in that it could be evidence if it was combined with evidence and a theoretical argument that would actually lead to his conclusion. All of his evidence leads to the conclusion that we should not be in Iraq, but as he has no evidence or theoretical argument to lead us from the conclusion "we should not be in Iraq" to "we should withdraw from Iraq".

It's not subjective, and it's not valid. It's a reasonable mistake, but that does not mitigate the mistake. As "we should withdraw from Iraq" and "we should not be in Iraq" are different claims, if there is nothing to lead one from "we should not be in Iraq" to "we should leave Iraq", then none of the evidence towards "we should not be in Iraq" can be seen as logical evidence towards "we should leave" (which seems pretty basic "We should leave Iraq because we should not be in Iraq, here's the evidence why we should not be in Iraq", "Why does the belief that we should not be in Iraq lead to the conclusion that we should leave Iraq?" "Here's more evidence why we should not be in Iraq, and I will pretend as if that answers your question"). That's basically my point.

How does the following address the issue of why we are there?

Cronkite: Time for US to Leave Iraq

US Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

Why We Should Leave
By Brian Katulis The San Jose Mercury News Sunday 19 March 2006

Why We Must Leave Iraq

"Foreign Forces Must Leave Iraq as Soon as Possible," Declares the Head of the Shiite Alliance By Patrice Claude

10 Reasons Why the U.S. Must Leave Iraq

The Iraq Study Group Announces Verdict: US should leave Iraq
06Dec06

"Why we must leave Iraq"..........mmmmmmmmm ............he must mean why we are there? .............yeah, that's it. I think.........

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by galenrox
It may seem to be evidence, in that it could be evidence if it was combined with evidence and a theoretical argument that would actually lead to his conclusion. All of his evidence leads to the conclusion that we should not be in Iraq, but as he has no evidence or theoretical argument to lead us from the conclusion "we should not be in Iraq" to "we should withdraw from Iraq".

It's not subjective, and it's not valid. It's a reasonable mistake, but that does not mitigate the mistake. As "we should withdraw from Iraq" and "we should not be in Iraq" are different claims, if there is nothing to lead one from "we should not be in Iraq" to "we should leave Iraq", then none of the evidence towards "we should not be in Iraq" can be seen as logical evidence towards "we should leave" (which seems pretty basic "We should leave Iraq because we should not be in Iraq, here's the evidence why we should not be in Iraq", "Why does the belief that we should not be in Iraq lead to the conclusion that we should leave Iraq?" "Here's more evidence why we should not be in Iraq, and I will pretend as if that answers your question"). That's basically my point.

So you are just looking for him to make that middle step?

"in that it could be evidence if it was combined with evidence and a theoretical argument that would actually lead to his conclusion. "

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Well the big problem with staying in Iraq is that their are no concret signs that the result would be that the same discusion as this one is held in 2, 5 or 10 years.

That yes USA troops leaving would cause alot of trouble. But maybee if USA stay 5 years more they will still have almost the same problem leaving. That the USA administration and military have lost all credibility to the claim that they can fix the situation.

But the sad irony is that Bush have one victory. That he and his administration have messed up the situation so bad so who ever take over after him will have a very hard time ending up with a good result. Therefor leaving a change for Bush and his extrem supports to partly shift the the blame to the next president.

 

[AcePylut]

We should leave Iraq because we should not be in Iraq, here's the evidence why we should not be in Iraq"

That is the strawman argument created by Billo.

The argument: We should leave Iraq
The strawman: We should not be in Iraq

Evidence "points" to "we should not be in Iraq". The strawman comes into making the claim that becase "we should not be in iraq", we should leave Iraq.

I put quotes around those sentences because it's a paraphrase of a someone elses words. I disagree with both of them.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by galenrox
in short, yes.

I can dig that. I did not read all the links, but I did not really see a definitive piece of evidence backing up why we should leave.

Most of it is "we should leave Iraq" since "We should not be in Iraq".

Why We Should Leave
By Brian Katulis of The San Jose Mercury News Sunday 19 March 2006

The gruesome discovery of dozens of men found shot to death execution-style last week provided more evidence that on the eve of the third anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the country teeters on the brink of an all-out sectarian civil war.

He is essentially saying that we should leave because it is going to get worse. I am not sure that this is a logical reason as to why we should leave. I think that he is right. We should leave. But only when the area is stable, to leave prior to that would be a bad decision. The issue is that this evidence is about what he feels is the best course of action and NOT what IS The best course of action.

10 Reasons Why the U.S. Must Leave Iraq
________________________________________
1. The human cost of war is unacceptable. War Sucks. It just does.
2. The U.S. occupation is a catalyst for violence. Violence occured prior to our arrival. Violence has been at the heart of the Arab/Muslim lands and people for a thousand years
3. U.S. actions inflame divisions and the chance of civil war. Isn't that a choice that they make?4. Iraqis want the United States to leave now.
5. Democracy cannot flourish under an occupation. Then the terrorists should stop fighting and allow democracy to flourish. They should run for office with a vote rather than kill people with bombs. We would be gone already if it was not for the Insurgent/Terrorist threat.
6. The United States has failed to rebuild Iraq or provide for Iraqis’ basic needs. We have not failed, we are still in the process. A process that has been hindered by violent factions trying to kill everybody that opposes them.
7. The Iraq war and occupation waste resources needed for U.S. domestic programs. I agree
8. The U.S. occupation of Iraq destabilizes the Middle East. The violence of the Insurgent/Terrorists is what is destabilizing the M.E.
9. Humanitarian aid is crippled by the occupation. It is crippled by the violence of those trying to stop the rebuilding effort. That means the terrorists planting raodside bombs and using suicide bombers.
10. The global community wants the war and occupation to end now. They can shove that BS up their...yeah, you get the drift :2razz:

Russia, the great peacemaker that invaded Afghanistan only 25 years ago.
Britain, one of the greatest oppressors in the history of the world.
France, the ones that would not allow Indochina freedom.
China, one of the biggest Human Rights Violators in the world.
Who else? Sounds like a lot of hypocrites to me.

The Iraq Study Group Announces Verdict: US should leave Iraq
06Dec06

LONDON - (Alastair Sharp) A comprehensive diplomatic effort must be initiated by the US to replace the military operation currently mired in conflict in Iraq. That is the broad conclusion of the Iraq Study Group, a bi-partisan working group co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

The report’s executive summary notes that:
“The United States should immediately launch a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus for stability in Iraq and the region. This diplomatic effort should include every country that has an interest in avoiding a chaotic Iraq, including all of Iraq’s neighbors.”

We are starting that process at long last.

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy
From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives

by Michel Chossudovsky

1. The contemporary context

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.

At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

I started reading this one with hope, and then I came to this point. First paragraph. Dang. This guy doesn't know his history very well. October 16, 1962 to October 28, 1962 ring a bell? 13 Days? Cuban Missile Crises? Yep. I wrote this guy off.

COST OF WAR

Below is a running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War. The number is based on Congressional appropriations.

The War in Iraq Costs
$404,371,732,115

That is a lot of money, no doubt. It could be better spent.

I agree that we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place but I do not agree taht we can leave now. I think that would be a bad decision. I won't debate reasons why, I think that there are reasons enough. We should leave as soon as it is stable. The longer that takes the more I feel that we should leave prior to stability though.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by AcePylut
The problem, BillO, is that it's not "evidence" about why we should leave Iraq.

You're creating a strawman argument. That's all.

Have you ever heard of the term "Inductive Reasoning?" Taking specific elements and drawing general conclusions from them. As opposed to what galen wants, "Deductive Reasoning", which I'm not going to do. I think it is ridiculous to want to take an issue as complex as this one and discuss it in terms of absolutes. Because there are too many variables that act on other elements that are interconnected. The actions in one element, causes effects in others. That is why you cannot separate why we are there with why we should leave. If we were never there in the first place we would not be discussing why we should leave. Those two elements are inherently related. That is the first reason, but it is not the only reason.

Another reason is that a lot of the sectarian violence is being done by the current Shiite goverment and their respective militias. It should also be noted that these thugs came in on the backs of US tanks, according to one Iraqi. We have bombed hospitals, tortured children in front of their parents, locked up thousands of innocent Iraqis, shut off basic services to neighborhoods to force the residents to talk, used cluster bombs in urban areas, used WP (which is a war crime) and spread depleted uranium munitions all over the place which is harming everyone.

I posted a cross section of links to give an example of some of the reasons. I have also stated that this is the tip of the iceberg in regards to the overwhelming evidence out there that this goes way beyond being a bad mistake. This war was the most cowardly act this country has ever done. And it is real interesting how much evidence is being demanded to prove a good enough reason to leave Iraq, as opposed to jack-s.h.i.t being required to go into Iraq.

 

[Billo_Really]

10 Reasons Why the U.S. Must Leave Iraq
________________________________________
1. The human cost of war is unacceptable.
War Sucks. It just does.
A half million men, women and children have died as a result of a decision made in our name and the only response you have is "War sucks?"

2. The U.S. occupation is a catalyst for violence.
Violence occured prior to our arrival. Violence has been at the heart of the Arab/Muslim lands and people for a thousand years
Not on this level. There was no civil war before we invaded. It was just us bombing the crap out of them for 13 years under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement.

3. U.S. actions inflame divisions and the chance of civil war.
Isn't that a choice that they make?
It is a choice our actions are enabling. If you take a persons family into one room, handcuff them, shoot them in front of this person (some as young a 3 years old), how can you possibly expect this person to like you. Or like your presence in his country. Every citizen, in every country, has a basic right to resist an occupational force. We would do the same thing here, if we were attacked.

4. Iraqis want the United States to leave now.
This one I don't understand. The majority of Iraqis want us to leave. The majority of Americans want us to leave. The majority of the world want us to leave. But we don't.

5. Democracy cannot flourish under an occupation.
Then the terrorists should stop fighting and allow democracy to flourish. They should run for office with a vote rather than kill people with bombs. We would be gone already if it was not for the Insurgent/Terrorist threat.
What are you talking about. It is the people in office that are doing a lot of the killing. These are government sanctioned death squads.

6. The United States has failed to rebuild Iraq or provide for Iraqis’ basic needs.
We have not failed, we are still in the process. A process that has been hindered by violent factions trying to kill everybody that opposes them.
We have failed. And we are one of the most violent factions in that country. Were the only faction that conducts air strikes. Which has killed thousands of innocent civilians.

7. The Iraq war and occupation waste resources needed for U.S. domestic programs.
I agree
So do I.

8. The U.S. occupation of Iraq destabilizes the Middle East.
The violence of the Insurgent/Terrorists is what is destabilizing the M.E.
Do you realize that you keep blaming "THEM". That is very convenient, but it is far from the truth. Less than 10% of the violence is being done by foreign based fighters. Do you ever consider that many of these people are average Iraqi citizens that have no intention of being terrorists, but are just sick of us being in their country and want us out? You try to pull this s.h.i.t over in my house and see what happens. You'll do the same. If someone comes over to your house, doing whatever they feel like it under your roof, killing your family as the go to the bathroom, then telling all the neighbors that your unruly and not appreciative of your efforts to help them, what do you think you would do to them. For me, no one comes under my roof talking tall to me. Nobody! I would think anyone would feel the same way about their home.

9. Humanitarian aid is crippled by the occupation.
It is crippled by the violence of those trying to stop the rebuilding effort. That means the terrorists planting raodside bombs and using suicide bombers.
Nobody is denying they have some real criminal elements that need to be locked up? But you can't blame Abu Ghraib on the terrorists.

10. The global community wants the war and occupation to end now.
They can shove that BS up their...yeah, you get the drift
It is because of that attitude right there that is one of the reasons people are getting their heads chopped off. This arrogant, narcissitic, attitude many Americans have towards other cultures. We are not the kings of the planet. We are a nation in a world of nations. However, at the moment, we are the big bully on the block.

 

[BodiSatva]

billo
Have you ever heard of the term "Inductive Reasoning?" Taking specific elements and drawing general conclusions from them. As opposed to what galen wants, "Deductive Reasoning", which I'm not going to do. I think it is ridiculous to want to take an issue as complex as this one and discuss it in terms of absolutes. Because there are too many variables that act on other elements that are interconnected. The actions in one element, causes effects in others. That is why you cannot separate why we are there with why we should leave. If we were never there in the first place we would not be discussing why we should leave. Those two elements are inherently related. That is the first reason, but it is not the only reason.

Another reason is that a lot of the sectarian violence is being done by the current Shiite goverment and their respective militias. It should also be noted that these thugs came in on the backs of US tanks, according to one Iraqi. We have bombed hospitals, tortured children in front of their parents, locked up thousands of innocent Iraqis, shut off basic services to neighborhoods to force the residents to talk, used cluster bombs in urban areas, used WP (which is a war crime) and spread depleted uranium munitions all over the place which is harming everyone.

I posted a cross section of links to give an example of some of the reasons. I have also stated that this is the tip of the iceberg in regards to the overwhelming evidence out there that this goes way beyond being a bad mistake. This war was the most cowardly act this country has ever done. And it is real interesting how much evidence is being demanded to prove a good enough reason to leave Iraq, as opposed to jack-s.h.i.t being required to go into Iraq.

I agree. This issue is far to immense to be able to single out a reason or two and say, "THIS validates my reason for a withdrawal".

You are making premises of an argument that you believe supports the conclusion but does not necessarily ensure it, nor have you claimed that you can ensure it. You are simply stating that based off of observations that indicate we would be better served by leaving Iraq.

You seem to feel that there are many reasons that we should leave consequently we SHOULD leave. To that, I agree.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted be GySgt:
And do you know why you go through it with everybody? Because your sources are usually of biased nature from antiwar pundits and hug-a-tree web sites. Because you parade around articles that paint the absolute worst picture, no matter how exaggerated.

And this is a perfect example. From your post...

"The U.S. has no friends left in Iraq. Everybody in Iraq today laughs at U.S. claims of democracy, human rights and freedom."

This is a complete lie. The vast majority of our intel comes from the local population (to include the Sunni). The countless souls in "Kurdistan" and the vast majority of Sh'ite know that the enemy is the Sunni not the Americans stuck in the middle of their cultural mess.

Your "proof" is not proof of anything except that war is not a picnic. Your "evidence" is merely a list of whining and complaining without the substance of the issues at hand. Other than that universally known fact, you haven't stated anything.

That quote is from an Iraqi citizen commenting about life in the country for which they live. If we want to know what it is like in Iraq today, who should we ask, the Dutch? Bush? TOT? I'm sorry, I have sworn off liars for lent.

You do a pretty good job with your own smear campaign. Something that I have always resisted with you. Most of the time. But that's just me.

Feel free to continue with your ad hominums, though.

 

[Billo_Really]

You want to support some troops?

Well, support these troops.

They served our country in Iraq.

Q: Why do Iraq Veterans Against the War call for the immediate withdrawal from Iraq?

A: There are several reasons why immediate withdrawal is the critical first step toward solving the problems in Iraq.

The reasons and rationale given for the invasion were fraudulent.
There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq during the time of the invasion according to US officials and former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. The idea that Al Qeada and the 9/11 terrorist attacks were connected to Saddam Hussein and the Baath party were proven false in the 9/11 Commission Report. Members of the Bush Administration have admitted that they “misspoke” in the run up to the war.

The presence of the US military is not preventing sectarian violence.
The US occupation of Iraq has proven to be unable to prevent sectarian violence and halt an escalation towards a civil war. Despite having an average of 140,000 troops in country since the occupation began, internal violence and attacks against civilians and Iraqi security forces have been on a steady incline.

The occupation is a primary motivation for the insurgency and global religious extremism.
The insurgency can be broken down into many individually named factions with various goals, beliefs, and techniques. However, our membership of veterans believe that the occupation of Iraq is the primary thing encouraging the insurgency and giving it legitimacy in the eyes of many Iraqis. Likewise, other people of the Islamic faith are encouraged to resist America ’s policies internationally based on how they perceive our military operations in the Middle East.

We can no longer afford to fight this war of choice.
The financial burden is destroying our domestic programs that could be used to protect us from natural disasters, provide medical programs, or help improve education. We are jeopardizing the US economy and putting strains on the budgets of important government agencies like the Veterans Affairs Department.

National security is compromised.
Funds that could be used to protect our ports and transportation are being stripped away while our National Guard units are on constant deployments instead of being used to protect and defend us here at home.

The world is becoming more dangerous.
International terrorist attacks have increased and it has become more dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Approval for US policy has decreased and the dislike of Americans has increased.


Our national “moral authority” is being undermined.
The US has lost credibility to much of the world as the defender of liberty and freedom and our national identity is eroding. We can no longer deploy our armed forces for peace keeping measures with the good faith of the international community. We need to regain the respect and faith of the global community. This begins by withdrawing our troops from Iraq and helping the Iraqi people rebuild their country and society.

The majority of American citizens, Iraqi citizens and US military would like to see an immediate end to the war in Iraq.
If we are truly a democracy and we aim to create a democracy in Iraq our leaders will represent the will of the citizens and lead according to their wishes.

The military is broken.
We are abusing the small population of armed service members with multiple deployments while using inadequate vehicles and equipment. Less than one half of a percent of the American population is serving in the active armed forces, which is the least amount in the last century. Only 25% of the troops in Iraq are there for their first tour, while 50% are there on their second tour, and the remaining 25% are there three times or more. We continue to involuntarily extend soldiers with Stop-Loss, recall them repeatedly for additional service using the Individual Ready Reserve, and send soldiers with diagnosed medical problems into combat.

I bet these are troops you would rather trash!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Man, whatever. You understand that your argument here is "This is too important and complex to be concerned with accuracy", right?

Are you somehow confused as to what I'm saying?

I welcome the opportunity to see what is inaccurate about it. And no, I'm not confused about what your saying. I just think there is more than one way to discuss this issue. Just like I thought there are more than two choices in your Nash Equilibrium analogy than just "defect" or "cooperate". Some things cannot be broken down to "either/or", "if/than", etc. And I don't think my argument is important or complex, I said this "issue" is too complex to discuss it in terms of deductive reasoning. There are too many variables that interplay, in my opinion, that finding absolute truths to deduce a conclusion would make for a very long day.

I find it funny that some of these links that I call "evidence" (and you call not), are discounted and dismissed without any evidence of your own that would validate having an opposite opinion. At least I've made the attempt to post my data, I don't see that being reciprocated at all. You have shown nothing that would validate your position other than your personal phylosophy on logic. You've provided nary a corroborating source that rebuts any of my links.

I can provide links for everything I've said. I don't sit around at home making this stuff up. As I said before, if you take a cognitive view of all these sources, a pattern starts to develop. A picture comes into focus. Is this absolute? No. But the chances of it being true are far greater than it being false. And to treat something as false, when you have no proof that it is false, is just wasting everybody's time.

So, you say it is not accurate. Prove it! Sans the op-ed. (not any op-ed, just your op-ed) I don't trash peoples links. Playing the "source game" is for people who have no arguments to rebut with. So they resort to the ever popular ad hominum.

Back to you...

 

[Billo_Really]

If several un-related sources are indicating the same thing,
what are the chances of that being false?

 

[Billo_Really]

Just another Iraqi opinion on the US presence in their country...

U.S. Iraq rhetoric is shallow, naive and childish
By Dr. Assaad al-Khafaji Azzaman, July 17, 2006

U.S. rhetoric in Iraq is of an experimental pattern full of shallowness, naivety and indifference. Time has come for the U.S. and the current administration that has created the Iraqi quagmire to acknowledge its failure in administering Iraqi conditions in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion. These conditions are stoking anti-U.S. hatred and anger not only among the majority of the Iraqi people but across the Middle East and the Muslim world. The list of areas where U.S. policies in Iraq have gone wrong is long. In fact it is hard for an observer to identify a single field where the U.S. has left any positive marks. This is the reason why Iraqis today abhor U.S. rhetoric of democracy, human rights and economic prosperity.

U.S. Marines who saw themselves as liberators have turned in the course of the past three and a half years into imperialists and enemies. They have come to Iraq not spread freedom but protect themselves in their formidable bases and gigantic tanks. Iraqis see them worse than enemies. The Marines see Iraqis as evil. Once the Marines arrive in a city, town or village, they consider the inhabitants their adversaries. Many Iraqis have lost trust in the U.S. and its troops because they have come to believe that they are here to destroy and not build the country. Iraqis now see with their naked eyes what has become of their country due to U.S. invasion. Several cities have been leveled under the pretext of fighting off terror which was nonexistent in Iraq. Public services are in shambles and Iraqis, sitting on massive oil reserves, cannot find a cylinder of liquefied gas to do their cooking. As for human rights the U.S. record in Iraq is miserable. The sectarian killings, kidnappings and forced evacuations are but a few results of the democracy it says it has created in Iraq. Despite these calamities U.S. President and his aides are adamant not to change their rhetoric and polices.

It is interesting to note that this thread is completely void of any evidence that show the so-called "mission" in Iraq is working. From what I am seeing, what the pro-war, pro-US in Iraq crowd has had to offer, is all talk and no walk. We've spent a lot of time here discussing me and my evidence. Does that door swing both ways? Where's yours?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
Alright, I'll be more specific, tell me why I don't accept your "evidence" as evidence. I've explained this many times, so in your own words, explain it back to me.

Because it doesn't address the issue of "maximizing alterantives" in the context of justifying whether or not we should leave Iraq as the best action to be taken in at this point in time, since being in Iraq is a moot point when discussing why we should leave.

It's like the kid who can't swim that falls into a lake and shouldn't be thinking about why he got so close to the lake in the first place. He should be thinking about what he has to do at that point to either get out of the lake or learn how to swim. Learning how to swim or getting out of the lake are his only two logical deductions he should be concentrating on that that point in time.

Does that sum it up for you?

 

[WI Crippler]

Am I going crazy here, or is Billo saying that because he feels the war is illegal and unjust, that a solution to the war is unimportant??

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by WI Crippler
Am I going crazy here, or is Billo saying that because he feels the war is illegal and unjust, that a solution to the war is unimportant??

You're going crazy!

 

[WI Crippler]

You're going crazy!

Knowing is half the battle...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
It's on the right track, but no. The reason I don't consider your "evidence" evidence is because it is all in attempt to justify a different conclusion than the conclusion you're attempting to justify in this argument. If you understand that, then repeat it in your own words.

There is no logical progression from the evidence to the conclusion that we should leave Iraq. The two are un-related and therefore, illogical.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by WI Crippler
Knowing is half the battle...

Now that you know, what steps are you taking to combat your problem?

 

[WI Crippler]

Now that you know, what steps are you taking to combat your problem?

Drinking alot...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
There you go, so keeping this in mind (and baring in mind that no evidence is required to lead me to the conclusion that we should not be in Iraq in the first place), why should we withdraw from Iraq?

Were paying too high a price with our continued presence. By leaving we are cutting our losses:

• Less troops dying because of IED's, shootings, etc.
• Less dollars being spent on someone else's economy.
• Less reason's for others to point accusations (or use as an excuse) of mis-conduct at the US. Although I agree this will go on no matter what we do. I do think by leaving there will be less of it.
• Less a division between pro-war American's and anti-war American's.
• Less chance of the Russian's leaving the INF treaty.

And less the amount of serious injuries to our members of the armed forces.

Those would all follow if we left Iraq.