We should win the war.


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I know this is an unpopular point of view but I stand by it. I for one believe the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. But they did, now they need to finish the job. The U.S. and Alqaeda made the situation for the internal strife in Iraq. If the US does not clean up the mess they are partially responsible for, then guess who will? I personally beleive that faliure in restoring a secure and stable Iraq, will encourage U.S. enemies.

I fear that failure in Iraq will lead to the US fighting in Jordan and Isreal.


It's a complicated problem, which we no doubt made exponentially more complicated. We need to find a way to extricate ourselves, but I do think leaving precipituously would make things worse yet again.

I'm afraid, however, that there's no such thing as "winning," in this situation. What does "winning" look like? Killing or imprisoning every kook who thinks that God or Allah favors lethal explosions as divine offerings above all else? That's unfeasable at best, criminal bordering on genocidal at worst.

So what kind of winning does that leave? I don't know, but staying without a vision of what that win looks like invites just as much disaster as leaving with our tail between our legs.

I'm glad I don't have to be the one making these decisions, but the people currently making them need to be pointed toward the door and handed their collective hats, and let someone, anyone, else give it a shot.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

I know this is an unpopular point of view but I stand by it. I for one believe the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. But they did, now they need to finish the job. The U.S. and Alqaeda made the situation for the internal strife in Iraq. If the US does not clean up the mess they are partially responsible for, then guess who will? I personally beleive that faliure in restoring a secure and stable Iraq, will encourage U.S. enemies.

I fear that failure in Iraq will lead to the US fighting in Jordan and Isreal.

I also believe that, while the war was a horrible idea in the first place, we have the responsibility to finish it, for better or for worse. It's all our fault, and it's our job to fix it.

OK: my rather radical stance on the subject of Israel:

Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much shite as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

Liberty's Edge

To add my thoughts:

At the time that war was declared, it was believed not only by the administration but by a large percentage of the intelligence community believed whole heartedly that the administration of Iraw was connected to Bin Laden.

There were other economic reasons that the war was"good" for us, not the least of which was Saddam trying to convince OPEC to sweitch to a Euro standard for petro dollars.

But anyway, they went, and they had a crap plan.

Part of the crap plan was wandering around with kit gloves and being "nice" during the aftermath.

However, removing the US presence from Iraq today, or on any scheduled date in the future before Iraq can really be self sufficient will result in Iraq becoming a militant state opposing the US. Because, duh, they are blowing stuff up because they hate us, and if we leave they will be content isn't going to happen. The nut jobs with the bombs strapped to little kids will be in charge.

And for the democrats out there, what makes you think that if we announce we are leaving on dodecember 40th, that the fighting won't begin on the 41st. Do we really want another country funding weat-hate groups.

Liberty's Edge

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


OK: my rather radical stance on the subject of Israel:

Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s~~#e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

I give them major props.


Dragonmann wrote:

To add my thoughts:

At the time that war was declared, it was believed not only by the administration but by a large percentage of the intelligence community believed whole heartedly that the administration of Iraw was connected to Bin Laden.

There were other economic reasons that the war was"good" for us, not the least of which was Saddam trying to convince OPEC to sweitch to a Euro standard for petro dollars.

My understanding is that everyone knew Bin Laden had no Iraq connection. Bush, Condi have said so and were quoted as saying so--although they made ambiguous contradictory remarks on the matter. If you ask people in the American intelligence community, and I'd really like to give you the number of a nuclear proliferation expert in-law of mine on this, NOBODY had any evidence that Bin Laden was involved in Iraq. In fact, they were asked to find evidence of this and tried very hard, but failed.

The later, that Iraq was going to re-demoninate their oil into Euros, was quite true.

And if you guys think Iraq's civil war is going to end, or that America is going to be part of their solution (save killing half of Iraq), you are nuts.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s*~~e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

America jet Israel. Good idea. Who is driving the bus though? Israel.

Grand Lodge

Dragonmann wrote:

To add my thoughts:

At the time that war was declared, it was believed not only by the administration but by a large percentage of the intelligence community believed whole heartedly that the administration of Iraw was connected to Bin Laden.

There were other economic reasons that the war was"good" for us, not the least of which was Saddam trying to convince OPEC to sweitch to a Euro standard for petro dollars.

But anyway, they went, and they had a crap plan.

Part of the crap plan was wandering around with kit gloves and being "nice" during the aftermath.

OK? Just about everything indicates that the intelligence community disagreed with the administration about Iraq - so much so that there has actually been written a bit about how the CIA tried to undermine the president by leaking their version of facts about Iraq.

I'm also curious about the "nice" plan. Are you referring to the wholescale de-Ba'athification? Demobilisation of the army? That "most wanted" deck of cards? What do you think they should have done?

Dragonmann wrote:
And for the democrats out there, what makes you think that if we announce we are leaving on dodecember 40th, that the fighting won't begin on the 41st. Do we really want another country funding weat-hate groups.

Agreed. Those wheat-hate groups are the worst.


Kruelaid wrote:


And if you guys think Iraq's civil war is going to end, or that America is going to be part of their solution (save killing half of Iraq), you are nuts.

I don't know why Americans Insist it's Iraq's civil war. Claim your stank s@#T America. This is America's invasion of Iraq and the anarchy it created. It's like America took a big dump in someone elses toilet floods the whole bathroom, walks out then tells the homeowner to clean up the bathroom it's yours and it's a mess.

America keep blaming the Iraq government to get it's act together. But Iraq doesn't have a real government to get its act together, America destroyed it.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

...

Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s&%%e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

I think that would be a bad idea. Maybe shake they should be shook up a bit by big brother, but abandon them the one true ally US has in the region.

Not a good Idea.


Heathansson wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


OK: my rather radical stance on the subject of Israel:

Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s~~#e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

I give them major props.

So do I despite the odds they still survive. They also revived they're own language, solidifying thier cultural base in language.

Coming from an old culture which has nearly lost it's language and has lost thier country, Isreal stands as an example of achieving national sovreignty and reestablishing a cultural identity.


Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Coming from an old culture which has nearly lost it's language and has lost thier country, Isreal stands as an example of achieving national sovreignty and reestablishing a cultural identity.

At what cost? destabilizing an entire region? If the vurrent state of affairs continues in the middle east the death toll will probably equal that of the holocaust. I am not saying that creating Israel was a bad idea, it was in fact a good one; instead I merely argue with the methods used to create said sovereign state and the war-mongering since.


Rhavin wrote:
Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Coming from an old culture which has nearly lost it's language and has lost thier country, Isreal stands as an example of achieving national sovreignty and reestablishing a cultural identity.
At what cost? destabilizing an entire region? If the vurrent state of affairs continues in the middle east the death toll will probably equal that of the holocaust. I am not saying that creating Israel was a bad idea, it was in fact a good one; instead I merely argue with the methods used to create said sovereign state and the war-mongering since.

If creating Isreal was a good idea than what is your arguement!

whether creating Isreal is good or bad is not my point. I give them props. After near ahnialation in Europe, the Jewish people realized they need a homeland to survive. The returned to their spiritual homeland and siezed the opportunity to establish a homeland. In doing so they displaced a lot of Palasitinian and the Palestinian homeland. That was not a good thing, and Isreal, Palastine, the middle east and the rest of the world has got to deal with the situation.

But I give them props for gainnig there own nation and national identity. There are no simple solutions, only cause and effect.


We do need to take responsibility for this war, but there's really no way to "win" it. The only way to win in the game of war once and for all is to make everyone happy. That's why so many people in 3rd world countries hate us; we have stuff and they don't. Dumping cash on them isn't working because it's only a temporary fix. We need to be giving them the knowledge and the technology to make their own food and money without being dependant on "big brother America."

Liberty's Edge

Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:


And if you guys think Iraq's civil war is going to end, or that America is going to be part of their solution (save killing half of Iraq), you are nuts.

I don't know why Americans Insist it's Iraq's civil war. Claim your stank s@#T America. This is America's invasion of Iraq and the anarchy it created. It's like America took a big dump in someone elses toilet floods the whole bathroom, walks out then tells the homeowner to clean up the bathroom it's yours and it's a mess.

America keep blaming the Iraq government to get it's act together. But Iraq doesn't have a real government to get its act together, America destroyed it.

Well, to keep with the bathroom motif,...

I'm not saying that we're not stinky, but the plumbing wasn't exactly the best, and the plumber wasn't Uncle Sam. Saying this Civil War is 100% the fault of the U.S.'s involvement in the region simply nullifies many of the events of the 20th century and the last thousand years of history.


Heathansson wrote:
Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:


And if you guys think Iraq's civil war is going to end, or that America is going to be part of their solution (save killing half of Iraq), you are nuts.

I don't know why Americans Insist it's Iraq's civil war. Claim your stank s@#T America. This is America's invasion of Iraq and the anarchy it created. It's like America took a big dump in someone elses toilet floods the whole bathroom, walks out then tells the homeowner to clean up the bathroom it's yours and it's a mess.

America keep blaming the Iraq government to get it's act together. But Iraq doesn't have a real government to get its act together, America destroyed it.

Well, to keep with the bathroom motif,...

I'm not saying that we're not stinky, but the plumbing wasn't exactly the best, and the plumber wasn't Uncle Sam. Saying this Civil War is 100% the fault of the U.S.'s involvement in the region simply nullifies many of the events of the 20th century and the last thousand years of history.

To bring the toilet analogy to its conclusion, Mesopotamia has had pretty lousy plumbing for decades, but the Bush response was the equivalent of a clueless contractor who takes a sledgehammer to the fixtures and then tries to renovate the mess on the cheap while blaming the family living there for getting dysentery while the s**t floods down the stairs.

Thing is, he was actually supposed to go two doors down to Afghanistan.
Oh, and like all his ilk, his initial quote turns out to have nothing to do with the actual cost.

Liberty's Edge

Dragonmann wrote:


And for the democrats out there, what makes you think that if we announce we are leaving on dodecember 40th, that the fighting won't begin on the 41st. Do we really want another country funding weat-hate groups.

This sentence has me skritchin' my head. Dodecember? Weat-hate groups?

Liberty's Edge

firbolg wrote:
Heathansson wrote:
Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Kruelaid wrote:


And if you guys think Iraq's civil war is going to end, or that America is going to be part of their solution (save killing half of Iraq), you are nuts.

I don't know why Americans Insist it's Iraq's civil war. Claim your stank s@#T America. This is America's invasion of Iraq and the anarchy it created. It's like America took a big dump in someone elses toilet floods the whole bathroom, walks out then tells the homeowner to clean up the bathroom it's yours and it's a mess.

America keep blaming the Iraq government to get it's act together. But Iraq doesn't have a real government to get its act together, America destroyed it.

Well, to keep with the bathroom motif,...

I'm not saying that we're not stinky, but the plumbing wasn't exactly the best, and the plumber wasn't Uncle Sam. Saying this Civil War is 100% the fault of the U.S.'s involvement in the region simply nullifies many of the events of the 20th century and the last thousand years of history.

To bring the toilet analogy to its conclusion, Mesopotamia has had pretty lousy plumbing for decades, but the Bush response was the equivalent of a clueless contractor who takes a sledgehammer to the fixtures and then tries to renovate the mess on the cheap while blaming the family living there for getting dysentery while the s**t floods down the stairs.

Thing is, he was actually supposed to go two doors down to Afghanistan.
Oh, and like all his ilk, his initial quote turns out to have nothing to do with the actual cost.

I personally think he shouldn't have taken the job. The previous contractors had the pipes so bungled that there's no fixing anything. And certain members of the family, not to mention their friends from down the street, can't help but reach into the bowl and fling it everywhere.

I just like that the guy who was perched on the porcelain throne before isn't there any more. He had a foul odor.


There's nothing to worry about (actually, there's plenty to worry about, but as far as the war having an end there isn't); even if a democrat is elected in 2008, there's no way we're leaving Iraq. Forget casualty statistics, forget the foggy notions of why we even went or the consequences it has in international relations: the big expensive war will continue because it's far too tempting for any politician to have their name in the history books as the person that cleaned up a mess of these proportions. Just like Bush wants to foist Iraq onto the next person to somehow preserve his "legacy" the next person will want to look good on paper as well, no matter the cost, no matter whether or not it makes America or the West any safer than before. So we'll continue fighting a war on two "fronts" (maybe expand it to a third) while vainly trying to fight global terrorism and no one will step in to put an end to it or even cut it back.

The Republicans will continue beating their chests and hollering about "honor" and "valor" while throwing American men and women back into the fray after a pitifully short time at home with their families and the Democrats will continue to be spineless, ineffectual populists vainly attempting to look like they aren't intimidated by the right wing.

Nothing will change but the name on the stationary at the White House.

And all the while, we'll be much more interested in Britney Spears' family freak show. Everything will be perfectly normal.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Dragonmann wrote:


At the time that war was declared, it was believed not only by the administration but by a large percentage of the intelligence community believed whole heartedly that the administration of Iraw was connected to Bin Laden.

Nice evidence of how well Bush's "big lie" worked on you. No one of importance ever really believed that, but Bush and his staff repeated it a lot anyway.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah...Bin Laden just ain't Saddam's type of people.
Bin Laden's more of a "scraggly beard, hide in a cave" kind of guy, whereas, though Saddam was reduced to that, he was still more of a "put lots of pictures and statues of ME all over the place" kind of guy.
They wouldn't have hung out.

Liberty's Edge

Fine....my question is this: how long do we sit back and watch bodies float down the river like in Rwanda? How long do we sit back and watch the people starve like in Somalia? How many people do we watch the Saddam Husseins of the world kill before we do something about it?


Heathansson wrote:

Yeah...Bin Laden just ain't Saddam's type of people.

Bin Laden's more of a "scraggly beard, hide in a cave" kind of guy, whereas, though Saddam was reduced to that, he was still more of a "put lots of pictures and statues of ME all over the place" kind of guy.
They wouldn't have hung out.

I'll take Cobra Commander over either of them any day. He made a sattelite to turn everyone in the world into a dog. Why? I doubt even he knows, but it was still dastardly.


The real issue is, to "win" this particular war; we'd have to become the new saddam. We're halfway there: we've already started a sophisticated series of payoffs to the tribal leaders in order to make the roadways "safe" enough to travel, the exact same method used by, guess who? Suddenly they stopped hating us and are working for us? Oh yeah, that sounds like a great set of allies....

Wish I had the original author of this quote, but as I don't I'll attribute it to Guns N Roses for the time being:

"We practice selective annihilation of mayors and government officials, for example, to create a vacuum, then we fill that vacuum. As popular war advances, peace is closer"

Dark Archive

While I can agree with the principle of 'you broke it you own it' re the Us and Iraq, it's hard to tell anyone who's having to serve over there; 'yeah basically unwinnable but you're stuck with it now.' No, in the end the U.S. will pull out on the basis of self-interest. There will be some attempt to claim a 'victory' (I mean Bush did say earlier mission accomplished right?). And yep it will embolden terrorists and other nutjobs. Whilst Lovecraft and international politics usually don't mix he said it best; "Do not summon one which ye cannot put down."


Heathansson wrote:
Sir Kaikillah wrote:


Well, to keep with the bathroom motif,...
I'm not saying that we're not stinky, but the plumbing wasn't exactly the best, and the plumber wasn't Uncle Sam. Saying this Civil War is 100% the fault of the U.S.'s involvement in the region simply nullifies many of the events of the 20th century and the last thousand years of history.

To blame the US for 100% the Divisive blood shed in the region is to deny the events of the past 6 months let alone the past 1000 years.

There are a lot of butts to blame for all the doodoo. But the US removed the last plumber (the despot he was). If uncle Sam decided to take the responsability of removing the plumber and the plumbing, then he oughta cowboy up and finish the job and replace the plumber (one who can do the job) and the plumbing he decided to replace.

Damn I'll say it!
George Bush is right. the US needs to finish the job. He made the mistake getting us there, but at least he's willing to finish the job, despite the mess.

Or maybe it is all a corprate conspiracy by the right to profit from the blood shed and George Bush is the anti christ.
yea thats it. It so simple.


Heathansson wrote:
Fine....my question is this: how long do we sit back and watch bodies float down the river like in Rwanda? How long do we sit back and watch the people starve like in Somalia? How many people do we watch the Saddam Husseins of the world kill before we do something about it?

If your going to do it then do competently and finish the job. Take responsability for the incompetence, clean up your mess.


B_Wiklund wrote:

While I can agree with the principle of 'you broke it you own it' re the Us and Iraq, it's hard to tell anyone who's having to serve over there; 'yeah basically unwinnable but you're stuck with it now.' No, in the end the U.S. will pull out on the basis of self-interest. There will be some attempt to claim a 'victory' (I mean Bush did say earlier mission accomplished right?). And yep it will embolden terrorists and other nutjobs. Whilst Lovecraft and international politics usually don't mix he said it best; "Do not summon one which ye cannot put down."

... and so is the complexities of world politics play out toward anhilation of us all!!!

It's seemed were doomed.


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

OK: my rather radical stance on the subject of Israel:

Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s~#&e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

Personally I support moving the country of Israel to New York. Everybody's happy.

Scarab Sages

magdalena thiriet wrote:
Personally I support moving the country of Israel to New York. Everybody's happy.

I actually read an article a few years back (can't remember where) in which the writer made a very logical argument for moving Israel to Baja California.

Scarab Sages

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Dragonmann wrote:


And for the democrats out there, what makes you think that if we announce we are leaving on dodecember 40th, that the fighting won't begin on the 41st. Do we really want another country funding weat-hate groups.
This sentence has me skritchin' my head. Dodecember? Weat-hate groups?

I am fairly certain that the "dodecember" was made up instead of using a real date so that a later poster would not step in and say "Hey, no one ever said we were pulling out on (insert real date)".

I'm also fairly certain that the "weat-hate" is a mistype of "west-hate". Sometimes, when you're typing quickly, you hit the "s" instead of the "a". It aucks, but it hsppena.


James Keegan wrote:
Heathansson wrote:

Yeah...Bin Laden just ain't Saddam's type of people.

Bin Laden's more of a "scraggly beard, hide in a cave" kind of guy, whereas, though Saddam was reduced to that, he was still more of a "put lots of pictures and statues of ME all over the place" kind of guy.
They wouldn't have hung out.
I'll take Cobra Commander over either of them any day. He made a sattelite to turn everyone in the world into a dog. Why? I doubt even he knows, but it was still dastardly.

Aren't there plans by Halliburton to rename Dubai Cobra Emirate?

GGG


The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:


Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s&#*e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

I agree, but remember out little brother can kick some ass and doesn't mind doing some really f$&*ed up stuff to win.

Fizz

Liberty's Edge

magdalena thiriet wrote:
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

OK: my rather radical stance on the subject of Israel:

Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s~#&e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

Personally I support moving the country of Israel to New York. Everybody's happy.

They tried that for a couple thousand years. Didn't work out too good.

Liberty's Edge

Ungoded wrote:


I'm also fairly certain that the "weat-hate" is a mistype of "west-hate". Sometimes, when you're typing quickly, you hit the "s" instead of the "a". It aucks, but it hsppena.

Ahit, you're right!

Liberty's Edge

Fizzban wrote:


I agree, but remember out little brother can kick some ass and doesn't mind doing some really f#@*ed up stuff to win.

He's got a squirtgun filled with sulfuric acid.

Liberty's Edge

magdalena thiriet wrote:


Personally I support moving the country of Israel to New York. Everybody's happy.

I heard somewhere that there are more Jews in New York City than there are in Israel. I this true?


Heathansson wrote:
Fine....my question is this: how long do we sit back and watch bodies float down the river like in Rwanda? How long do we sit back and watch the people starve like in Somalia? How many people do we watch the Saddam Husseins of the world kill before we do something about it?

Until we (read: the people we elected to represent our wants and needs - the people who are the face of our country - those people work for us right?) notice a political, economic, or military advantage to doing so. How long have we known bad things about North Korea? Myanmar? China? Belarus? Post-Soviet Russia? Pakistan? Syria? Isreal? and any number of other two-bit dictatorships, juntas, right-wing theocracies, and militaristic pains in the ass (besides our own of course)?

Also, I don't think you can give people freedom by occupying them.

You're free!
Then why do you have the gun?
For your protection?
But it's not helping.
Shut up or I'll shoot you. I'm an independant contractor with a gun you know.

I say we suspend all those juicy contracts with our no-bid business buddies, and shop Iraq to the international market where others who haven't been dicking with the country since the mid-70's can form a co-op to secure the country and use their business intrests to stablize the infrastructure thereby sweetening the pot for involvement.

Then I suggest we go after the guy we said we were after 6 years ago. (Way to go "Mr. Dead or Alive" I guess its "Hard being the President. Hard." ::whiney voice included::), bring him back alive if possible and hold an international hearing.

Fight the Power,
G-Cube


First of all, I'm glad we have a few meaty discussions going on here. One shouldn't be afraid to express one's opinion. Now, I too believe entering Iraq was a royal mistake. However, I think the best thing we can do, for us, for Iraq and for the rest of the world, is to leave. Stop throwing away lives and resources in a war that cannot be won. Stop further infuriating the arab world, and let Iraq evolve on its own. We might not like the result, but there's really very little we can do at this point aside from officially supporting democratic reforms and offering aid to all the innocents suffering from our mistake and its fallout. Sure, we could stay for years trying to hold off the inevitable civil war, but it will happen anyway. It's already happening, and no matter how many more terrorists we catch, no matter how many more insurgents we kill, no matter how many more suicide bombers we stop, more will come. It's easy to say we should fight on...to make Iraq a better place and to make America safer, but does anyone really think we're accomplishing either of those things? Supporters of the war like to cite modest accomplishments, but overall I think it's generally agreed that things are not happening the way we'd like them to, and neither more troops nor more billions have helped matters. It's time to admit our mistake, get out of Iraq and do what we can to help the people recover and cope as best they can.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

OK: my rather radical stance on the subject of Israel:

Personally, I believe that the United States should sever ties with any country that gets into as much s!~*e as Israel does. PERIOD. Israel is like the little brother that always drags you into their fights with the neighborhood gang.

Can you name one war the US has sent troops to help Israel fight?

The answer is of course, "No."
The Us has never committed troops to any war that Israel has fought, or even any of the extended anti-terrorist sweeps Israel has engaged in.
Israel though has put itself on the line to support wars the US has fought, refraining from retaliating against Iraq during the first Gulf War.

So to begin with, the entire basis for this concept is invalid. Israel drags the US into nothing.

However, let us compare two related issues:

First, the US has sold arms to Israel, including during these wars and anti-terrorist sweeps. This is the justification used for hating the US to the point of carrying out terrorist attacks on the US.
The thing is, those nations using this justification have in either been at war with Israel, sold arms to nations or groups at war with Israel, and supported the terrorist groups attacking Israel. A reasonable equivalence justifies full Israeli, and Us for that matter, intervention against those countries.

Second, if we are to compare nations that drag other nations into their problems, then we should look first and foremost to Europe. Aside from the "easy" ones of the two world wars, let us not forget that the US got involved in Viet Nam to support the French.
So should the US be severing all ties with Europe?
Then let us consider that bastion of responsibility, the UN. To quote from a movie, "Does anyone remember a little thing a few years ago known as the Korean Conflict?" Then there was Lebanon, Somalia, and all the other regional gang conflicts the UN loves to draw people into.
Mind you, I think the US should indeed withdraw from both NATO and the UN, but of course we are supposed to be surrendering our national sovereignty to such international organizations, not that anyone else is rushing to do so.

Liberty's Edge

magdalena thiriet wrote:
Personally I support moving the country of Israel to New York. Everybody's happy.

Deportation or forcible transfer of population is a crime against humanity.

I am not really sure how removing millions of people from what they consider their homeland could possibly make them happy.


Samuel Weiss wrote:


Second, if we are to compare nations that drag other nations into their problems, then we should look first and foremost to Europe. Aside from the "easy" ones of the two world wars, let us not forget that the US got involved in Viet Nam to support the French.

The French left Vietnam by the time the US entered that conflict. The US went in to support the anti communist government left in place by the French in South Vietnam. the US wanted to stop the growing influence of communnism. This was the same rationale in the 50's to depose the democratically elected government in Iran and support a 2 bit dictator as heinous as Saddam Hussein.

Aaah the good old days, when pragmatism prevailed and the US would prop up a strong loyal allied despot, over some frivilous democracy.


Samuel Weiss wrote:
..., but of course we are supposed to be surrendering our national sovereignty to such international organizations, not that anyone else is rushing to do so.

That would be unconstitutional.


Bling Bling wrote:
First of all, I'm glad we have a few meaty discussions going on here. One shouldn't be afraid to express one's opinion. Now, I too believe entering Iraq was a royal mistake. However, I think the best thing we can do, for us, for Iraq and for the rest of the world, is to leave. Stop throwing away lives and resources in a war that cannot be won. Stop further infuriating the arab world, and let Iraq evolve on its own. We might not like the result, but there's really very little we can do at this point aside from officially supporting democratic reforms and offering aid to all the innocents suffering from our mistake and its fallout. Sure, we could stay for years trying to hold off the inevitable civil war, but it will happen anyway. It's already happening, and no matter how many more terrorists we catch, no matter how many more insurgents we kill, no matter how many more suicide bombers we stop, more will come. It's easy to say we should fight on...to make Iraq a better place and to make America safer, but does anyone really think we're accomplishing either of those things? Supporters of the war like to cite modest accomplishments, but overall I think it's generally agreed that things are not happening the way we'd like them to, and neither more troops nor more billions have helped matters. It's time to admit our mistake, get out of Iraq and do what we can to help the people recover and cope as best they can.

the right thing to do is not give up and get out. It might seem the practical thing to do for know, but it will bite the US in the butt in the end. The US has made allies in the region and to let them rot because the US does not have the stamina to finish what they have begun. We promise these people a better life and freedom by the removall of a despotic dictator. Instead the US have brought it's war into there country. That war is not going to leave because the US leaves. Who will trust the US the next time we try to remove a despot.

Even if the US leaves, the war will follow. Remember Alqaeda followed us there, not the other way arround. The US invaded Iraq to remove a a terrorist supporting, weapon of mass destruction producing despot. If the US leave Iraq in the sorry state it is in, the US leaves Iraq in the hands of it's enemies those terrorist we wished not to operate out of that country.

I believe the will of the US is and was never into this fight. The US was dragged into this invasion by an ambitous politician, who barely got elected. I truly believe the US had an opportunity to develop an stable Iraq government. But the US squandered that opportunity in non bid private contractor profiteering.

It is a catch 22, because I cannot see asking the brave men of the US armed forces to continue sacrificing there families, well being and lives. they have fought for a long time. But I'm affraid that thier children and thier children's children will have to continue the fight do to the incompetnency of the politicians.

My grand father a marine corp vet in WWII and Korea, once said he did enough fighting for his children and grandchildren, he did not want to see any of them in the service.


Sir Kaikillah wrote:
Even if the US leaves, the war will follow. Remember Alqaeda followed us there, not the other way arround.

First, I want to reiterate that I don't entirely disagree with your stance or many of your arguments, SK, but I had to make a responses to this comment.

First is that I generally think AlQaeda is a next to useless term to use when discussing the war in Iraq. It's too fluid and amorphous, and the idea of defeating AlQaeda is very difficult to distinguish properly from the vision of winning I mentioned above -- killing or imprisoning every nutjob who thinks that lethal explosions are the highest form of divine offering.

The second is that, while I agree that just pulling out and leaving the country to rot is a bad idea in just about every possible way, defending our continued presence there with any variation of the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" argument is a fundamentally unsound position. There is nothing about our presence in Iraq, in any way, shape or form, that is preventing another terrorist attack on our soil.


My two cents...

Do I believe anything in Iraq will change if a Dem wins in '08?

- No. Absolutely not.

Do I fault the administration for how we got into Iraq?

- Absolutely. If Bush had instead said that if the corrupt yahoos at the U.N. won't fulfill the cease-fire obligations agreed to from the Gulf War, the U.S. will. My point is that it should only have taken 2-3 more resolutions from the U.N. to have initiated the removal of Saddam, instead of the 18 or more.

The U.S. is not perfect. No government is. In the '90's, U.S. interests were attacked all over the world, and nothing was done. Terrorism is not a law enforcement issue, which is how it was treated (see policy discussions from Janet Reno).

I wonder where the E.U was when the Balkans blew apart?

I've seen several slings here seemingly aimed squarely at placing the majority of the worlds problems in the U.S.'s lap, so "Glass houses..." and all that.

Do I love America?

- S*%t yeah.

Liberty's Edge

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

[The French left Vietnam by the time the US entered that conflict. The US went in to support the anti communist government left in place by the French in South Vietnam. the US wanted to stop the growing influence of communnism. This was the same rationale in the 50's to depose the democratically elected government in Iran and support a 2 bit dictator as heinous as Saddam Hussein.

Aaah the good old days, when pragmatism prevailed and the US would prop up a strong loyal allied despot, over some frivilous democracy.

The US became involved in Viet Nam in 1941. Yes, that is right, it is one of the rare cases where the US really, truly, did train and equip the people who were to become their enemies. Ho Chi Minh was a US ally against the Japanese.

When the French decided to reassert their control over Indochina, the US eventually decided to support the French. Truman sent the MAAG to Viet Nam in September of 1950.

So once again, the US was involved in Viet Nam to support the French.
Do you support cutting all ties to France because they drag us into horror shows like that?

The Exchange

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

I know this is an unpopular point of view but I stand by it. I for one believe the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq in the first place. But they did, now they need to finish the job. The U.S. and Alqaeda made the situation for the internal strife in Iraq. If the US does not clean up the mess they are partially responsible for, then guess who will? I personally beleive that faliure in restoring a secure and stable Iraq, will encourage U.S. enemies.

I fear that failure in Iraq will lead to the US fighting in Jordan and Isreal.

The United States of America was never capable of winning this conflict in the first place. Victory requires ethics, strength of will and character to carry out a real plan and get it right.

What was required to end the Terrorist threat harboring amongst Islamic states was to suspend the sovereignty of All Islamic States, relocate the entire population to Antartica to build a new Civilization, free of the Technologies of War, the Freedoms of religion, and the capacity to travel or communicate outside their new nation.

Basicly a Continent Spanning Prison Camp where they can build a Paradise with their own hands.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

Before leaving Iraq, maybe the US should "win" in Afghanistan?

The Exchange

Darkjoy wrote:
Before leaving Iraq, maybe the US should "win" in Afghanistan?

But darkjoy, the US has already won in Afghanistan...They secured that corridor of land for the Oil Pipeline running from Khazikstan to Pakistan in record time and have bases along it, and by now have a private army guarding it day and night while US Marines push back the Hostiles into the Borderlands to the South-East to keep their eyes away from what is really going on.

OOPS! Did I give the plot away?

As to Where's Wally?
Osama Bin Laden is holidaying at a beachhouse near Martha's Vinyard...after his personal BLOG showed him up against a Grey Canvas/goatwool tent backdrop-putting him in Afganistan on acount of the Grey dust that would permeate Canvas, or the Goatwool tents commonly used by nomads in the region in 2002 The Time he spent in Pakistan at their Afghanistani Embassy on account of the Red mudwall- found regionally in the Indian Subcontinent, his escape into into the west with the Lovely Grey Gravel riverbed from which he gave an interview - in Iran, His passage back through a Gravel pass in which moss/grass grew on the south facing rocks, his trek by boat down river through Pakistan to the River Delta where he took a long range boat to Saudi Arabia so he could attend Religious services at Mecca...when they though he would die from injuries...

He's Definatly holidaying at Martha's Vinyard.

1 to 50 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / We should win the war. All Messageboards