|
United States in Iraq Poll: Leave or stay (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
I concur with Occ and others here - I think we have an obligation to stay. I mean really, we shattered the country into pieces, we should be the ones to help mend it back together. And I do stress the word "help".
Now I'm not terribly optimistic about our chances here, however, but I do think we have that obligation to at least try with all our resources possible (and I certainly question whether or not we are truly trying as much as we could, but I digress).
Finally, I've been a bit of a fence sitter on whether or not a time-table of withdrawal should be given. I do think, however, that a reasonable goal-setting table of sorts should be drawn out, though it should remain tentative. On the flip side, I don't think it's too unreasonable to ask for a tentative withdrawal time scale. Afterall, who said this during the Kosovo War?:
| quote: | Bush, 4/99 - "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
Bush, 6/99 - "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/28...ed-a-timetable/ |
(hint: initials are GWB)
And that was only 2 months into that conflict. So I don't think that's too much to ask for, for the sake of our own men and women fighting as well as their families (though as I mentioned, it should be tentative).
P.S. - I realize I haven't kept away very well, damnit. I need a ing distraction from these ing Anatomy labs and lecture, or else I'm really gonna blow a ing fuse! |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I dont like arguments like this not because they are incorrect (your right in what you say) but it fails to acknowledge that whatever happened in the past is unchangable and at present there is a problem.
|
Problems created by the US. Let me ask you something. How much credibility do you give to someone who has a trackrecord of coming to your house and constantly ing things up and then forcing on you what they he/she views as a solution?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
The fact that America helped Saddam come to power and sold him chemical weapons is irrelevent to the decision to go to war in 2003, as is the first Gulf War (which was justified) as they are events that have happened and nothing can be done to change that. |
Oh screw the past, it's of no relevance whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that plans for invading Iraq were being formulated in the 1940s. The series of events preceding this war are completely irrelevant : rolleyes: .
The official US State Department history (1945, volume 8, page 45):
| quote: |
"These resources constituted a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history . . . probably the richest economic prize in the world in the field of foreign investment."
|
Yes, the past is completely irrelevant. This war has nothing to do with oil or having military bases and a Goverment friendly to US interest (i.e. strategic power). WE'RE LIBERATING AND BRINGING THEM DEMOCRACY!!! : rolleyes :
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Iraq was not "FINE" before this current war as thousands were dying from the sanctions regime. As it turned out the sanction regime was working perfectly (otherwise Saddam WOULD have had WMDs!) but it had to end cos of the suffering of the Iraqi people. But Saddam has shown in the past that he had expansionist aims (went to war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, wanted to invade Saudi Arabia - he was a classic pan-Arabist) and had also shown he was willing to develop NCB weapons. Removing the sanction regime would have removed his constraints and whether he would have gone back to his old ways nobody knows but if you're a policy planner you would plan for that outcome.
|
Once again, let's ignore history and how that turd came into power, and most importantly, WHY?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Now I was against the war for British security reasons. I did not consider Iraq a threat to the UK or British interests. We were told by our government that Saddam had or was developing WMDs (the way information was presented to the UK public led us to believe Saddam could deploy these weapons in 45 mins but that actually refered to battlefield weapons). |
Gee, what a surprise, was Blair trying to propagate a lie (oh, my bad for being politically incorrect, he was't flat out lying, he engaged in "disinformation"; please tell me you guys don't use that term or is Britain's propoganda system on par with ours) to generate support for the War?
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Then there was the American government telling the world Iraq had links to al-Qaida and that these WMDs would find their way to bin Laden. I knew imediatly that the American claims would be false cos Saddam is as much an enemy of the Islamists as America is. Why would you provide a group that has sworn to overthrow the governments of the Middle East with WMDs? That would be crazy! Also I did not believe that any weapins produced by Iraq would threaten the UK. As well as that, I believed going to war with Iraq would be a huge mistake when considering the war against terror. It was pretty obvious how Islamists would react to the US invading another Muslim country and I have been proved correct when I thought it would lead to further hatred of the West (it has also provided the perfect training excersize for new terrorist recruits like Afghanistan was in the 80s)
|
Yes, we have a pretty effective propoganda system here in the US too, if not the best. It sad that the public could even consider buying into such obvious lies.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Oh yea I voted "Stay because we have to install a government" but I actually mean we should stay and help quell the insurgency as I do not believe the Iraqis will be capable of doing it themselves and there is a real danger the insurgents will succeed in bringing down the new government if the coalition forces leave |
The insurgents wouldn't be there if this disgusting war didn't occur in the first place. Ever hear the phrase "problem, reaction, solution"?
Ok, don't take this article I posted the wrong way. I only posted it to emphasize the part that I put in bold (but I put up the whole thing incase anyone wanted to read the entire thing). There is no freaking way that Iraqi's will trust a Goverment forcefully installed (War) monitored by Western Powers who's policy they have constantly been vitims of. So the "installation of a Democratic Goverment" argument is very weak and not a viable policy. (And forieghn military presence also doesn't win hearts and minds eigther, and I'm not talking just about troops being there rightnow, but permanent military bases, like Saui Arabia.)
| quote: |
How the British bombed Iraq in the 1920s
By Henry Michaels
1 April 2003
The US and British governments, and most Western media pundits, have tried to explain the determined resistance of the Iraqi people to the US-led assault by referring to the first Bush administration’s 1991 betrayal of the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south. Once Iraqis are confident that the Allies are serious about occupying the country, the argument goes, they will rise up and welcome them as liberators.
These assertions ignore the deeply-felt hostility to decades of colonial and semi-colonial rule by the Western powers, who long plundered Iraq’s oil reserves. During World War I, Mesopotamia was occupied by British forces, and it became a British mandated territory in 1920. In 1921, a kingdom was established under Faisal I, son of King Hussein of Hejaz and leader of the Arab Army in World War I. Britain withdrew from Iraq in 1932, but British and American oil companies retained their grip over the country.
One of the most bitter chapters in this history, one with direct parallels to the current military campaign, occurred during the 1920s. In many respects, the air war now being employed in Iraq is an offshoot of a military policy developed by Britain as it clung to its Iraqi colony 80 years ago.
Confronting a financial crisis after World War I, in mid-February 1920 Minister of War and Air Winston Churchill asked Chief of the Air Staff Hugh Trenchard to draw up a plan whereby Mesopotamia could be cheaply policed by aircraft armed with gas bombs, supported by as few as 4,000 British and 10,000 Indian troops.
Several months later, a widespread uprising broke out, which was only put down through months of heavy aerial bombardment, including the use of mustard gas. At the height of the suppression, both Churchill and Trenchard tried to put the most flattering light upon actions of the Royal Air Force.
British historian David Omissi, author of Air Power and Colonial Control: The Royal Air Force 1919-1939, records: “During the first week of July there was fierce fighting around Samawa and Rumaitha on the Euphrates but, Churchill told the Cabinet on 7 July, ‘our attack was successful.... The enemy were bombed and machine-gunned with effect by aeroplanes which cooperated with the troops’.”
The order issued by one RAF wing commander, J.A. Chamier, specified: “The attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle.”
Arthur “Bomber” Harris, a young RAF squadron commander, reported after a mission in 1924: “The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage: They know that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.”
The RAF sent a report to the British Parliament outlining the steps that its pilots had taken to avoid civilian casualties. The air war was less brutal than other forms of military control, it stated, concluding that “the main purpose is to bring about submission with the minimum of destruction and loss of life.”
Knowing the truth, at least one military officer resigned. Air Commander Lionel Charlton sent a letter of protest and resigned in 1923 over what he considered the “policy of intimidation by bomb” after visiting a local hospital full of injured civilians.
The methods pioneered in Iraq were applied throughout the Middle East. Omissi writes: “The policing role of most political moment carried out by the Royal Air Force during the 1920s was to maintain the power of the Arab kingdoms in Transjordan and Iraq; but aeroplanes also helped to dominate other populations under British sway.
“Schemes of air control similar to that practiced in Mesopotamia were set up in the Palestine Mandate in 1922 and in the Aden Protectorate six years later. Bombers were active at various times against rioters in Egypt, tribesmen on the Frontier, pastoralists in the Southern Sudan and nomads in the Somali hinterland.” |
>>link<<
Wake up. Stop dreaming. The US or British Goverment aren't benevolent forces trying to help the entire World, especially countries that have precious natural resources.
On a lighter note, I know my tone isn't the least confrontational rightnow but I find it quite irritating when people try to justify/argue in favour of policies and actions (and their consequences) which come quite clearly at an incredible human cost. Now, in no way am I trying to say you're racist, but it's alot easier to be desensitized towards a people who don't share your culture, values, or genetic makeup. (I just had to say that with the troops getting all this attention and no one really giving a about the hundreds of thousands Iraqi civilian being killed.) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I concur with Occ and others here - I think we have an obligation to stay. I mean really, we shattered the country into pieces, we should be the ones to help mend it back together. And I do stress the word "help". |
Ofcourse, that would be the logical and moral thing to do. But do you really believe that's what US intentions are? It's virtually impossible to come to that conclusion given the history of the US, its allies, Iraq, and, the policies persued. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
Shaolin, you completely missed the point. I said I was against the war. I did not support it. What I said was something had to be done at some point about Iraq (and my problem is that now was not the time).
You only responded to what I said about history being irrelevant to the solution and I stand by that. All you are doing is dishing out blame and ignoring the problem.
You failed to tell me what you solution you would have proposed to the Iraqi problem. Dont say you wouldn't have helped Saddam come to power. Dont say you wouldn't have sold him weapons. Dont say you wouldn't have invaded in 1991. Dont say you would have supported an opposition prior to 1991.
You are criticising the decision to go to war in 2003. In 2003, what would you have done regarding Iraq? |
|
|
| Michael19 |
Hard to say, they shouldnt leave because they are the ones who 'd the country up. THey should clean up after the mess they made.
Then again, a civil war might sort it all out once and for all. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So what happens if the US pulls out of Iraq? The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites sit down for some tea and crumpets and celebrate the American withdrawal? The insurgents give up their weapons and take up farming? |
Just like I am as sure the sun rises in the east and sets in the west do those people care anything about us. And if so I would say the same.
They never put bread on my table and I never put bread on theirs. Let them fend for themselves just as we are.
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You are criticising the decision to go to war in 2003. In 2003, what would you have done regarding Iraq? |
Not a question directed at me but I will answer for me. I did not want the US to go in. Not because of partisan politics, I don't believe in that Dems/Reps garbage. I've always believed there were no WMD's. People have said "What WMD's?" and there were none. This is what drove US policy to invade an already sovereign country. The facts are clear there are no weapons. They should be just as clear to pull out. To stay in an already ended war or operation months even years after the supposed end to say "Hey we can't leave because we have to install a government" is nonsensical.
I wonder what kind of bull they're going to pull on the American public once the government is in. That the "insurgents" are still a risk to the people of Iraq? That the State of Iraq (different story but this is what the UN is calling it) can't afford to keep it's oil fields secure? Please gimma break and an aspirin.
As regards the condition of the hemispheres themselves, an alert state of the nervous system is absolutely essential for the formation of a new conditioned reflex. If the dog is mostly drowsy during the experiments, the establishment of a conditioned reflex becomes a long and tedious process, and in extreme cases is impossible to accomplish. The hemispheres must, however, be free from any other nervous activity, and therefore in building up a new conditioned reflex it is important to avoid foreign stimuli which, falling upon the animal, would cause other reactions of their own. If this is not attended to, the establishment of a conditioned reflex is very difficult, if not impossible.
Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex
Ivan P. Pavlov |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Click Link
| quote: | Opinion
Why are U.S. troops still holed up in Iraq?
Gen. George Casey, the United States commander of the multinational coalition in Iraq, said the war in Iraq will not be settled on the battlefield but by negotiation and inclusion of insurgents in the political process.
If the war isn't going to be won on the battlefield, according to a U.S. general in Iraq, then why are we standing by while our men and women continue to die on a daily basis?
Watching the news, it has become increasingly upsetting to see that men and women my age and younger are dying on the battlefields in Iraq.
And for what?
I know, I know ... we are liberating an oppressed people. I know.
But really - why are we liberating these people? It seems the more we try to liberate them, the more the insurgents get angry and multiply with their car bombs a'blazing. While Vice President Dick Cheney said the insurgents are in their "last throes," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld countered this weekend saying the insurgency could last up to 12 years.
While the administration needs to get its talking point on insurgents straightened out, I agree with Rumsfeld - the insurgency will last as long as American troops are in the area. You see, that is what the insurgency doesn't like ... infidels destroying their people's land, desecrating their holy relics. And while only a small handful of American soldiers have shown disrespect to holy relics, it still incites anger and hatred toward Americans and makes them want to strap on a bomb.
Then, there is the Saddam angle to why American soldiers are in Iraq. I will admit, Saddam was an evil dictator who needed to be taken down. But guess what - Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 like some administration officials had us believing.
So really - why are kids my age and younger dying in Iraq? If Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 - if they didn't have weapons of mass destruction, which is what American people were originally told - then why? Why are we still there?
A recent poll, unscientific as it may have been, showed that 65 percent of Paragould Daily Press readers feel we should be pulling troops out. About 35 percent said we shouldn't.
If someone can e-mail me a legitimate reason as to why we are still in Iraq, I will be more than happy to read it. Otherwise, I am expecting the wide array of smart aleck comments I will be getting from some of you guys. Just know that I am seeking real answers this time.
Miranda Remaklus covers law enforcement issues for the Paragould Daily Press. E-mail her at [email protected]. |
|
|
|
| NEWYORKTRANCER |
| they should leave by now , the soldiers have family & friends waiting to embrace them again. It's a harsh reality, George Bush is the scum |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by NEWYORKTRANCER
they should leave by now , the soldiers have family & friends waiting to embrace them again. |
Well, what are we waiting for then. I think that anyone would agree that throwing Iraq into more chaos and most likely a civil war is a fair trade to have family and friends embracing their loved ones.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Dunya |
| They have to get out, they have done enough damage already. They shouldn't have gone there in the first place :o |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dunya
They have to get out, they have done enough damage already. They shouldn't have gone there in the first place :o |
What do you think will happen in Iraq if they pull out? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Just like I am as sure the sun rises in the east and sets in the west do those people care anything about us. And if so I would say the same.
They never put bread on my table and I never put bread on theirs. Let them fend for themselves just as we are.
|
Trust me, I'm no fan of nation building. But we tipped the pot, and now we have an obligation to right it. Plus if we allow it to descend into civil war it will be the perfect breeding ground for terrorism. We'll end up having to go in again 5 or 10 years down the road. |
|
|
|
|
