Actually, I normally do A. Any other option usually leads to more mistakes.
I'm glad you're not president :)
And, I don't think we were ever worried that Vietnam would attack us if we left. What would the terrorist in Iraq do if we surrendered? My money is on, they'd look for another fight becuase they know they have us on the run. They don't hate us because we are in Iraq, they hate us because we are not like them.
I was generalizing about no girls going to school.
I'm done.
You were generalizing about a lot, and alot of it can't be substantiated. yes, the unicef article was old. BUT, you were the one that presented it as an argument for "your side" so I was simply pointing out that it also contradicted your earlier sentiments.
I'm sorry if it seems that I'm nitpicking, but if what you say is true, then, yes, I want to know it. However, if you are generalizing for the sake of an argument, no thanks, I can tune into mainstream media and get that. I simply want some documentation that life before was better under Hussein than it is now.
Everything I have read indicates that it is not real good now, but it wasn't really good before, either. In some areas is better, some areas (not geographically speaking, though that may be true as well) it is not.
I'm done as well. :)
Actually, I'm probably not, but I should be.
You want proof, read that woman's blog that I posted above. Start at the beginning when she seemed to have some hope, and when you get to the part where she is crushed and broken let me know if you don't cry. She used to be a normal person, in her latest posts, she seems filled with hate and anguish. She isn't a news story, she's not a statistic. That is her life. She used to be a computer programmer.
That's not *proof* That's an anecdote. While it may be sad, and my heart truly goes out to her, she is *one* person, with *one* story. If that is the case, and if that is now "PROOF," then Bush is a better president than Clinton was because I am better off now than I was when Clinton was president. My husband makes more, we have more, etc. etc. etc. While we truly struggled to make it during the former's term, we have it fairly easy now and I have more hope about my future. One person is not proof. It is a story. It may represent many, but it may not.
The fact that she can post on the Internet tells me that she is still better off than a lot of the world.
And for that matter, it is a story on the Internet. I can start a blog about anything, saying anything but it doesn't make it true. (Again, I'm not arguing that her story is true or not, just that it isn't "documentation")
Kelli, I know I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not even intending to, BUT, if you want to argue your case/opinion/side, it makes it so much stronger if you can find documentation of it. Emotional arguments make for nice reading, but they don't accomplish much.
How did this fear of Iraq attacking US soil come about? Where is the precedent for this fear.
US has been attacked how many times?? Pearl Harbor, 9/11... any others?
This fear has been pounded into the brains of Americans through GW and his administration. He has kept this country in constant fear to justify his war.
9/11 wasn't even from Iraq, Bin Laden in afganistan took resposibility for it. We let that go for the most part and they havn't come attacking the US.
If we leave Iraq, the US isn't going to be suddenly attacked from abroad.
If we leave Iraq, the US isn't going to be suddenly attacked from abroad.
If the US leaves Iraq, then Iran will exert it's influence over the Shia in the east. The Kurds will hold control of the oilfields in the North around Kirkuk, and Saudi Arabia will support the Sunnis in Anbar province (and gain control of whatever dregs of the oil are in that province)
So, Iraq spilts into three parts each effectively under the control of another country - and OPEC is destabilised. It will also result in Saudi Arabia and Iran using Iraq as their battlefield by proxy.
is the best path to take right now to achieve a goal.
What's the goal ? I'm not being facetious either. W's idea of the 'goal' is probably quite different from the goals of any one of the 3 potentially ruling factions in Iraq.
Personally, I blame the British. If they(we) wouldn't go around randomly redrawing maps with no care as to who already lived where, many of the big conflicts in the world would be better. The US is relatively young in this 'messing up the world's political map' game.
Lastly, this link is to a woman's blog from Iraq. It's interesting to read the viewpoint of an actual Iraqi woman.
Things are so bad yet apparently not bad enough that they can't get on the net and maintain a blog, eh?
What else can you do when you're stuck in the house? Really, would you prefer we just blasted them back into the stone age completely? Many Iraqi's had computers before the war, along with TV's, DVD players, VCR's, etc. Most even had nice cars, nice homes, running water and electricity. Imagine that.
I really have to question where you are getting this information from. I glance at my bookshelf here and I have 5 books written by Iraqi's who lived in Iraq under Sadaam and describe life there. Outside of Baghdad, Iraqi's enjoy a third world existence. Within Baghdad, the only people who got the 'perks' you describe were Baath Party members. Their compicity in the crimes of that political group may vary and their membership in many cases was no doubt brought on by necessity rather than loyalty, but nontheless your depiction of life under Sadaam as first world luxury and convience for all is grossly inaccurate.
As for the Vietnam analogy, we pulled out of Vietnam because the American people stopped supporting the war. That war was winnable. It is the cost of winning that is the deciding factor. America decided that the cost to our troops was not worth continuing the war effort as it was being prosecuted and they would not support the uptick in violence being called for by the generals that would have brought a bloody, though victorious conclusion to matters.
So here we are again in a war that has been steadily losing popular support and that people claim in unwinnable simply because they will not condone the actions necessary to win it. Is the war in Iraq winnable? You bet. Will a majority of Americans and our 'allies' back actions such as a complete lockdown of Iraq, daily public executions of partisans (now known as millitants), a psychological and propaganda campaign of such scale as to completely dominate Iraqi media and present only the view we want them to absorb? The arrest and execution of religious leaders promoting futher violence?
Doubt it. Invading Iraq was a bad idea because neither our leaders nor our countrymen have had the will to take tough action for over half a century. Everything since Germany and Japan has been a string of half hearted actions hampered by political concern and domestic infighting.
Router,
what you say is necessary to win iraq is just what saddam did. rule through violence and destruction, public executions to those who oppose, complete lockdown, propaganda of our mission through media, do you hear yourself? that is not how to promote change.
No. Sadaam ruled by those means. I am saying those means should be used to remove the cancer that infects that society and get on to happier times. Sticking with the cancer analagoy - if you get a tumor the doctor does not try to talk the cancer into leaving your body. They blast your WHOLE body with poisons to kill that cancer on the assumption that after it is gone, the rest will be able to heal and live a healthy life.
No. Sadaam ruled by those means. I am saying those means should be used to remove the cancer that infects that society and get on to happier times. Sticking with the cancer analagoy - if you get a tumor the doctor does not try to talk the cancer into leaving your body. They blast your WHOLE body with poisons to kill that cancer on the assumption that after it is gone, the rest will be able to heal and live a healthy life.
History backs this idea up.
So we should just nuke the middle East ? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your analysis. Maybe Napalm would be a more moderate option ?
How did this fear of Iraq attacking US soil come about? Where is the precedent for this fear.
US has been attacked how many times?? Pearl Harbor, 9/11... any others?
This fear has been pounded into the brains of Americans through GW and his administration. He has kept this country in constant fear to justify his war.
9/11 wasn't even from Iraq, Bin Laden in afganistan took resposibility for it. We let that go for the most part and they havn't come attacking the US.
If we leave Iraq, the US isn't going to be suddenly attacked from abroad.
Ok, I'm talking today, not before we invaded Iraq. Today in Iraq we are not fighting Iraq. We won the war, Iraq in now on our side. We are fighting terrorist insurgents there, including bin ladens's buddies. The terrorist hate us, they hated us before we got there and they will hate after we leave. If we surrender and they win, do you really think they will just have a big victory parade and leave us alone until global warming blows up the planet?
And as for attacks on the US: //www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html Plus the ones we've foiled in the last year and the ones that may have been foiled that we never heard about...
is the best path to take right now to achieve a goal.
What's the goal ? I'm not being facetious either. W's idea of the 'goal' is probably quite different from the goals of any one of the 3 potentially ruling factions in Iraq.
My goal would be that at the end of the day the world would be a better place. My definition of a better world would be no terrorist. Letting the terrorist win does not accomplish that goal in my book.
I'd still like to hear how pull out accomplishes a goal, what that goal is, and the reasoning behind it. Is no one here pro-pull out?
im all for the pull out of iraq. There is no end in sight. This administration does not have a plan, the world does not support this war, and there is no way to guage a "win". There is always going to be violence there.
im all for the pull out of iraq. There is no end in sight. This administration does not have a plan, the world does not support this war, and there is no way to guage a "win". There is always going to be violence there.
Have you considered the consequences of pulling out? If so, what do you think they would be? Short term? Long term?
So we should just nuke the middle East ? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your analysis. Maybe Napalm would be a more moderate option ?
I was quite clear in the sort of thing I was talking about:
Originally posted by Routerguy666:
actions such as a complete lockdown of Iraq, daily public executions of partisans (now known as millitants), a psychological and propaganda campaign of such scale as to completely dominate Iraqi media and present only the view we want them to absorb? The arrest and execution of religious leaders promoting futher violence?
My goal would be that at the end of the day the world would be a better place. My definition of a better world would be no terrorist. Letting the terrorist win does not accomplish that goal in my book.
So define 'the world as a better place?' What does staying in Iraq and winning look like ?
Surely the goal is easy to define ?
A secular democracy in Iraq ?
A Muslim theocracy ?
Permanent US occupation ?
The country split into three independent countries ala Yugoslavia ?
What is the goal of staying ? I'm just not that clear at the moment.
Have you considered the consequences of pulling out? If so, what do you think they would be? Short term? Long term?
Have you considered the consequences of never leaving? If so, what do you think they would be? Short term? Long term?
Seriously. What's the long term strategy ? Or even general objective other than something vacuous like 'peace and a better world' or 'no more terrorists' Its meaningless drivel, like winning the 'war on drugs' Unfortunately that seems to be the best in terms of a strategy that is being offered.
actions such as a complete lockdown of Iraq, daily public executions of partisans (now known as millitants), a psychological and propaganda campaign of such scale as to completely dominate Iraqi media and present only the view we want them to absorb? The arrest and execution of religious leaders promoting futher violence?
and each one you kill, another couple spring up in their place. If history shows anything, that's what happens. The British government tried much the same thing in Northern Ireland. Sent the SAS in to kill terroist cells. They just created martyrs - just like you are suggesting.
What beat the IRA was cutting the funding from the US for the terrorists and the Irish people turning their backs on them. A drawn out political process and concessions removed the support for the terrorists from the people they hide amongst.
Conventional armies don't win guerrilla actions in urban environments. WWII was a slightly different scenario, don't you think ?
i cannot tell you what the future consequences of pulling out would be, no one can. I do know what will happen if we stay. Increasing casualties on both sides, more hate of occupying troops, continued polarization of the country at home, excessive spending all for a cause that cannot be won. Bush even said that it won't be like wars of our fathers and grandfathers with a surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. How will anyone know when we "won" this war, who decides?
The Germans beat down the Polish urban guerilla warfare campaign. The Poles were only saved (all things being relative) by the arrival of the Soviets.
The Americans beat down the Phillipinos in the Phillipine-American War. First in what you would consider a 'regular way' and then after the Phillipinos switched into guerilla warfare mode. When the guerilla warfare started, the Americans started taking heavy losses. Unlike today they did not start to cry and look for the quickest exit - they burned whole villages and forced civilians into camps if they were suspected of aiding guerilla fighters. After a couple of years, the Phillipino losses in men and material crushed their will to fight on.
Do th Phillipinos now hate us? March around burning our flag? Fly planes into our buildings?
Camps were also key to the ultimate British victory over the Boers when they started fighting a guerilla campaign against the Brits in the Boer war.
So no, history does not bear out the fact that when faced with the possibility of guerilla warfare you should run home asap nor does it prove the misguided notion that killing an enemy automagically makes two of them appear from thin air.
If we leave now, and immediately pull out; then the Iraqis can sort out their own country. It's not up to us to govern them.
Yes, we destroyed massive amounts of their infrastructure but we won't be able to rebuild it. If we have only civilian contractors there; there will still get attacked.
prove the misguided notion that killing an enemy automagically makes two of them appear from thin air.
Though recent history does show the true notion that killing an enemy polarizes those who might have once been at least sympathetic to your cause, against you.
Remember, you are supposed to be 'fighting' terrorists, in a country full of people who met you with open arms. Internment camps and hangings on the street seems somewhat contrary to that grand vision. Just a thought.
What beat the IRA was cutting the funding from the US for the terrorists and the Irish people turning their backs on them.
You make it sound as if they came out with their hands up waving a white flag.
What 'beat' the IRA was political discussion, which is still on-going. In fact, have you seen the amount of electoral support Sinn Fein has been getting in the Republic in recent years?
The Germans beat down the Polish urban guerilla warfare campaign.
If you are referring to what is known as the "Warsaw Uprising", the Germans were fighting as much of a geurilla war against the Poles as were the Poles themselves. Considering that the German policy was to intimidate the population by slaughtering up to 50,000 men, women, children, health care workers, and the sick and dying, the insinuation that America can somehow "also" prevail against insurgency seems at best myopic, at worst, bloodthirsty.
What beat the IRA was cutting the funding from the US for the terrorists and the Irish people turning their backs on them.
You make it sound as if they came out with their hands up waving a white flag.
I certainly don't mean to. The fact that you cut out the second sentence which described what you said kinda undermines any point you are trying to make/score though, I suppose. They lost public support for terrorist action, least it seemed that way at the time. I'm not surprised at an increase in support for the political side - the demographics essentially mean there is no real viable solution (much like Iraq) as the UK government screwed things up (much like Iraq)
But there are less bombings and fewer terrorist attacks, so I'd consider them beaten, for the most part. I don't see electoral support for Sinn Fein as a win for the IRA. I see that as a win for a potentially peaceful future - at least they have a voice there.
Originally posted by jhonan:
What 'beat' the IRA was political discussion, which is still on-going.
Which was what I said, so I don't quite get where your white flag comment springs from.
i cannot tell you what the future consequences of pulling out would be, no one can.
I didn't ask what the future consequences would be. I asked what you *think* the consequences would be. Surely you can tell us what you think. Or would you rather just propose doing it without really thinking about what the consequences might be?
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I do know what will happen if we stay. Increasing casualties on both sides, more hate of occupying troops, continued polarization of the country at home, excessive spending all for a cause that cannot be won. Bush even said that it won't be like wars of our fathers and grandfathers with a surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.
Ahh. I see, You only have a limited, one-sided, ability to tell what future consequences would be.
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
How will anyone know when we "won" this war, who decides?
In my opinion, we can say we've "won" when the size of the remaining coalition force is the same relative size as that in South Korea ( 31 thousand troops / 48 million people ). That would be around 20,000 soldiers on the ground.
But I don't know who gets to decide if we've "won". What do you think? Should it be the Iraqi Government? The U.S. President? The U.S. Congress? The European Union? A world-wide Popular vote? Osama bin Laden?
