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

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

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

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
How does the following address the issue of why we are there? "Why we must leave Iraq"..........mmmmmmmmm ............he must mean why we are there? .............yeah, that's it. I think.........
 

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. "
 
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.
 
galenrox said:
We should leave Iraq because we should not be in Iraq, here's the evidence why we should not be in Iraq"
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally Posted by galenrox
in short, yes.
Click to expand...

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".


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.


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.


We are starting that process at long last.


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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
You want to support some troops?

Well, support these troops.

They served our country in Iraq.

I bet these are troops you would rather trash!
 
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?
Click to expand...
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...
 
Last edited:
If several un-related sources are indicating the same thing,
what are the chances of that being false?
 
Just another Iraqi opinion on the US presence in their country... 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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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. Does that sum it up for you?
 
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??
 
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??
Click to expand...
You're going crazy!
 
There is no logical progression from the evidence to the conclusion that we should leave Iraq. The two are un-related and therefore, illogical.
 
Originally posted by WI Crippler
Knowing is half the battle...
Click to expand...
Now that you know, what steps are you taking to combat your problem?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…