TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Should the US and coalition forces leave Iraq now?

Should the US and coalition forces leave Iraq now?

US, Canadian and European forum members,

Do you think the United States and the coalition forces should completely leave Iraq now? Why?

If the coalition forces left now, control of Iraq would fall to armed extremists and the new leadership of Iraq would be just as brutal as Hussein and more friendly to terrorists.

I don't view that as a particularly desirable set of circumstances, so the answer is no.

Just because the war is stupid and fought over wrong principles, it doesn't mean that we should pull out. It's like knocking over a glas of milk on purpose: It's stupid and no-one but the milk producers gain from it. Yet once it has happened, we need to clean it up.

It seems counter-intuitive to be against the war and also against the post-war reconstruction effort. I'm not sure how some elements of the left can be so against war on the one hand (due to the misery it would bring the Iraqi people) and then so against a coherent reconstruction effort on the other. While I didn't support the war, I still recognise that my country - as a member of the "coalition of the willing" - has a responsibility (under international law, if not any definitive moral pretext) to ensure that prosperity in Iraq is restored to at least pre-war levels. If messing things up is immoral, then how much more immoral is messing things up then abandoning the problem altogether?

As everyone else here have said, even tho i dont support the war, the most stupid thing to do would be to pull out now.

the Americans should clean the filth they have left there along with the deadly stench of death they are still spilling around the nation

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King the Americans should clean the filth they have left there along with the deadly stench of death they are still spilling around the nation

thats funny. i was about to say the same thing about your mom.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats funny. i was about to say the same thing about your mom.

WOW.. you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUNNAAAAAY

he startid it

majik

there

No he just doesnt want people to know he is online 24/7

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange neither do i. how does he do it?

Go to your profile > Edit Options > Invisible Mode ON

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer No he just doesnt want people to know he is online 24/7

actually true.

It's interesting because the Iraq situation has a lot of similarities to the US/Vietnam war in that it is a war to convert a nation to a democratic system. Does that mean that all you would have supported the US staying in vietnam and finishing and not pulling out also?? Would it have been possible to succeed in vietnam?

I agree with everyone else here that US/coalition must stay in and finish the job and I guarantee if Bush stays as pres. he will do just that. He's not a quiter. I'm not so sure about Kerry. Kerry says he will also, but when the chips are down I don't believe he is strong leader. I believe he is weak and feeble like Clinton was and would bow to the public will. Kerry proved how terrible of a leader he was in Vietnam in so much that the majority of his peers didn't even want him there, they actually were happy to see him leave. They felt he was a terrible leader.

no
they have to finish the job

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover It's interesting because the Iraq situation has a lot of similarities to the US/Vietnam war in that it is a war to convert a nation to a democratic system.

Vietnam was a war against communism.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Vietnam was a war against communism.

thanks Trancaholic for sharing with us idiots who were just born yesterday that little piece of history. But you haven't answered the question.

I will repeat again, the objective of each war was/is the creation of democratic systems of government.

Anyone else wanna comment on my original question?

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover It's interesting because the Iraq situation has a lot of similarities to the US/Vietnam war in that it is a war to convert a nation to a democratic system. Does that mean that all you would have supported the US staying in vietnam and finishing and not pulling out also?? Would it have been possible to succeed in vietnam?

I dont think you can compare the wars like that. To pull out of iraq now will create a new terrorist nation, which will be a big threat to the US and the rest of the world. Vietnamn however never had any intention to attack the US back to my knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by Bronze no they have to finish the job

So how do you finish an Occupation?

thats what i see so far, maybe the elections (Iraqi ones) will turn things around, at least i hope so.

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover thanks Trancaholic for sharing with us idiots who were just born yesterday that little piece of history. But you haven't answered the question. I will repeat again, the objective of each war was/is the creation of democratic systems of government. Anyone else wanna comment on my original question?

The reason why you question cannot be answered, is because you premises are disputable. You can compare it with a question such as this: Since bananas and strawberries are both blue, are they equally useful for coloring ice-cream blue?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic The reason why you question cannot be answered, is because you premises are disputable. You can compare it with a question such as this: Since bananas and strawberries are both blue, are they equally useful for coloring ice-cream blue?

well that is strictly your opinion that you feel my premise is flawed and I respect that.

Were not both wars for the establishment of a democratic government?
Yes or no?

If you do not agree with this premise won't you please explain why?
It's very easy to end an argument by disagreeing with a premise but you still need to explain why you disagree don't you think?

In other words, why do you feel they both were/are not both about the establishment of a democratic government?

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Were not both wars for the establishment of a democratic government? Yes or no? If you do not agree with this premise won't you please explain why? It's very easy to end an argument by disagreeing with a premise but you still need to explain why you disagree don't you think? In other words, why do you feel they both were/are not both about the establishment of a democratic government?

In Vietnam there was a large support for communism in the northern part of the country, and this was in a time where communism was gaining support the world over. The US (among others) didn't approve of this shift in power towards the Soviet, so they tried to stop it. However, if the matter had been put to a vote on the exact constitution of government (as is the norm in a democracy), the outcome would probably have been that the communists would have taken a large number of the seats in a resulting parlament. Thus, the US was not trying to promote democracy. They were trying to prevent further adoption of communism.
In Iraq the war was officially started in order to strip Saddam of his weapon of mass destruction, and thereby protecting the world from him. Unofficially, there has been some speculation as to whether the war was started from more selffish motives, such as the US' need for oil, or even the personal revenue of individual members of the Bush administration. What is clear, though, is that the introduction of democracy in Iraq never was a stated goal, until it became clear that the threat of weapons of mass destruction had been exagerated (or made up as we Bush haters call it ).
Other things that makes the two wars different are: That Iraq was a *stable* society prior to US *invasion*. Vietnam was already at civil war with one side aided by the French. Furthermore, the US has control of most of Iraq now, and it is therefore feasible to leave Iraq in a stable state. In Vietnam the US had no control of the situation, and US sympathizers had to be evacuated in a hurry in the final days of the war.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic In Vietnam there was a large support for communism in the northern part of the country, and this was in a time where communism was gaining support the world over. The US (among others) didn't approve of this shift in power towards the Soviet, so they tried to stop it. However, if the matter had been put to a vote on the exact constitution of government (as is the norm in a democracy), the outcome would probably have been that the communists would have taken a large number of the seats in a resulting parlament. Thus, the US was not trying to promote democracy. They were trying to prevent further adoption of communism.

Yes ofcourse they wanted to stop communism. That is my point. You are speculating on the outcome resulting in a soviet controlled government, which I highly doubt the US would have allowed upon them ousting the communist gov. and winning militarily. Based on the evidence of what the US has done in the past with other nations don't you think they would have inserted their own chosen democratic supporting puppet government instead? I absolutely do. Just as they have a hand in selecting the leaders in the new Iraq gov. right now.

quote:

In Iraq the war was officially started in order to strip Saddam of his weapon of mass destruction, and thereby protecting the world from him. Unofficially, there has been some speculation as to whether the war was started from more selffish motives, such as the US' need for oil, or even the personal revenue of individual members of the Bush administration. What is clear, though, is that the introduction of democracy in Iraq never was a stated goal, until it became clear that the threat of weapons of mass destruction had been exagerated (or made up as we Bush haters call it ).

Well the intel of WMD came from numerous sources outside the US also including european nations. If it was merely Bush's admins intel I might be suspect of the credibility but because of the numerous sources the credibility that WMD was indeed a high likelyhood was high even if it turned out as unaccurate.

quote:

[Other things that makes the two wars different are: That Iraq was a *stable* society prior to US *invasion*. Vietnam was already at civil war with one side aided by the French. Furthermore, the US has control of most of Iraq now, and it is therefore feasible to leave Iraq in a stable state. In Vietnam the US had no control of the situation, and US sympathizers had to be evacuated in a hurry in the final days of the war.

I know of all the unofficial speculation. But one thing that was said right around the start of the war (possibly even before the initial attack i'll have to check records) in a speach by Bush and Tony Blair is that they have a middle east peace plan. Funny that not very many ppl picked up on that line but they both essentially told the world then and there what the real purpose of the war was. Yet everyone seems to have kept focusing on WMD and not the big picture. No other words like those were ever uttered again in any later speaches as far as I am aware. It's very hard to give supporting evidence that this has been the Bush admin plan right after sept 11, because their intitial intent wasn't disclosed so early on to the public. But it is clear now that the US is trying to establish a democratic gov. in Iraq with dem elections etc etc.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You can compare it with a question such as this: Since bananas and strawberries are both blue...

That's news to me!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.