PDA

View Full Version : Iraq Survey Group: 'Go Big, Go long or Go home'


Volcana
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:28 AM
'Go Big' - Big increase in the number of troops in Iraq to put down the civil war.

'Go Long' - Fewer troops than present, but in Iraq for 10 - 20 years

'Go home' - Pull out now. Bush has fucked it up so badly, no amount of military force can effect a solution

*** ***

'"Go Big' - We can't. General Eric Shinseki was sacked by the Buish administration for saying it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure post-war Iraq. He was right, but we don't HAVE 'several hundred thousand' additional troops. And the Bushies have done such a good job alienating our allies who have big armies, nobody is offering to help us.

'Go Long' - Forget it. The American people won;t stand for it.

'Go Home' - Not as long as George W. bush continues to masquerade as president.

Conclusion?

Unless Nancy Pelosi cuts off his funding, it's 'Stay The Course' regardless of what the Amrican people want. It's not only Black people george bush doesn't care about. It's American people. or maybe, ultimately, just people.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:30 AM
Call for a ceasefire.

Conduct negotiations.

Impeach Bush + his evil regime.

Remove Bush + his evil regime.

Conduct a Nuremburg Tribunal.

Imprison Bush + his evil regime.

Sam L
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:34 AM
Bullshit propaganda. :yawn:

Go listen to a John Lennon song or something.

wta_zuperfann
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Anybody who likes Bush's war can go ahead and enlist. Make it your fight and we'll see how you feel about it afterwards.

BUBI
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:58 AM
Anybody who likes Bush's war can go ahead and enlist. Make it your fight and we'll see how you feel about it afterwards.
:worship::worship::worship:

RVD
Nov 26th, 2006, 12:25 PM
GO BIG - With 36 separate militia fighting in Iraq, and Iraq gripped by civil war, who does America help? Do we suppress every one of these militia? It's not humanly possible.

GO LONG - To stay the course would mean certain death for our soldiers with no gain discernable gain. This war is LOST, and this war is a dead horse being kick solely by the U.S. WAKE UP CONGRESS! http://deephousepage.com/smilies/deadhorse.gif

GO HOME - Is the ONLY sensible option available to us, at this point. Honestly, what could possibly be better for Americans than to see its military extracted from this failed and extremely embarrassing debacle? Iraq will resolve this without American interference, and will do it far better than we ever could. The U.S. administration is corrupt and has shown its true nature to the world at large. Why prolong the agony, and moreover, waste further funding on a fruitless war?

Lord Nelson
Nov 26th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Anybody who likes Bush's war can go ahead and enlist. Make it your fight and we'll see how you feel about it afterwards.
What if you are not American and are above the age limit to enlist,then what? I would have loved to have joined the U.S. navy where I could visit a girl in every port. :lol:

Sam L
Nov 26th, 2006, 01:15 PM
GO BIG - With 36 separate militia fighting in Iraq, and Iraq gripped by civil war, who does America help?

How about eliminating them all so democracy can take place?

Sam L
Nov 26th, 2006, 01:19 PM
Anybody who likes Bush's war can go ahead and enlist. Make it your fight and we'll see how you feel about it afterwards.

Only if when there's a terrorist attack you go volunteer and die instead of those who wants to eliminate terrorism. :)

Steffica Greles
Nov 26th, 2006, 01:36 PM
I'm totally torn.

On one hand Iraq is in chaos and as a British voter I feel some degree of responsibility for the actions of my elected government.

It is not clear that British and American troops are securing Iraq rather than merely exacerbating the situation. It's just heart breaking to see how many Iraqis are being maimed daily when most of them want peace and to be able to live their lives in safety. Most of the Iraqi people, from what I've heard, also want us to leave. Having said that, I don't think anybody, including journalists, whose movements are restricted, really knows what is going on in Iraq. It's so complicated and tumultuous.

Moreoever, the war was illegal and if we had no moral or intellectual justification for being in Iraq in 2003, then how can our troops legitimately be there now? And it's our young men and women who are being maimed, too. Often those who have dropped out of school and been deprived of other opportunities in their environments. They are indoctrinated with machismo and patriotism when really they are being sent as cannon fodder if they are powerless to force a cessation to the violence in Iraq. Would our middle-class politicians, whose sons and daughters go to university and become lawyers, doctors, academics, really be so vehement that we should "stay the course" if their children were in the armed services? I doubt it.

On the other hand....

There are echoes of 1991 when Bush Senior resiled from his course and turned away from invading Iraq, leaving the Shiites to be butchered by Saddam. I fear that if we leave now, having been largely responsible for this mess (we are not fully responsible because 99% of civilian deaths at the moment are insurgents killing innocents), then Iraq can only descend into civil war and genocide. Millions rather than thousands will perish.

If we left and those events transpired, Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster which Britain and the U.S would carry on its shoulders for the next 100 years. This is not to mention the fact that the country may become a hub for anti-western terrorists and possible future world wars by making the region even more unstable. If there is one thing which we can do in all of this mess it is to support the democratic government we have allowed the Iraqi people to elect, and to attempt to consolidate by keeping our troops in place and continuing to train the Iraqi police, however fraught such an endeavour may be because of infiltration from insurgents. However bad things may be for Iraq at the moment, and however illegitimate this war was in the first place, there is some hope for Iraq at the moment if we stand fast and focus on the small positives.

Which do I agree with? I vacillate daily.

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 12:39 AM
How about eliminating them all so democracy can take place?And specifically how do you do that?

If you can answer this one very complex question, then you are infinite light years ahead of the world's best thinkers and strategists.

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 12:48 AM
I'm totally torn.

On one hand Iraq is in chaos and as a British voter I feel some degree of responsibility for the actions of my elected government.

It is not clear that British and American troops are securing Iraq rather than merely exacerbating the situation. It's just heart breaking to see how many Iraqis are being maimed daily when most of them want peace and to be able to live their lives in safety. Most of the Iraqi people, from what I've heard, also want us to leave. Having said that, I don't think anybody, including journalists, whose movements are restricted, really knows what is going on in Iraq. It's so complicated and tumultuous.

Moreoever, the war was illegal and if we had no moral or intellectual justification for being in Iraq in 2003, then how can our troops legitimately be there now? And it's our young men and women who are being maimed, too. Often those who have dropped out of school and been deprived of other opportunities in their environments. They are indoctrinated with machismo and patriotism when really they are being sent as cannon fodder if they are powerless to force a cessation to the violence in Iraq. Would our middle-class politicians, whose sons and daughters go to university and become lawyers, doctors, academics, really be so vehement that we should "stay the course" if their children were in the armed services? I doubt it.

On the other hand....

There are echoes of 1991 when Bush Senior resiled from his course and turned away from invading Iraq, leaving the Shiites to be butchered by Saddam. I fear that if we leave now, having been largely responsible for this mess (we are not fully responsible because 99% of civilian deaths at the moment are insurgents killing innocents), then Iraq can only descend into civil war and genocide. Millions rather than thousands will perish.

If we left and those events transpired, Iraq would be an unmitigated disaster which Britain and the U.S would carry on its shoulders for the next 100 years. This is not to mention the fact that the country may become a hub for anti-western terrorists and possible future world wars by making the region even more unstable. If there is one thing which we can do in all of this mess it is to support the democratic government we have allowed the Iraqi people to elect, and to attempt to consolidate by keeping our troops in place and continuing to train the Iraqi police, however fraught such an endeavour may be because of infiltration from insurgents. However bad things may be for Iraq at the moment, and however illegitimate this war was in the first place, there is some hope for Iraq at the moment if we stand fast and focus on the small positives.

Which do I agree with? I vacillate daily.Excellent post Steffica Greles. I often disagree with your position, but in this case your logic serves to encompass the entire picture. Now all that's left to do is to decide.

To leave these men and woman of your country in such a constant deteriorating situation is tantamount to turning your back and giving up on them. The only certainty between now and when a decision is finally made, is the number of lives lost due to indecision. Hasn't this been the case for the last 2 years already? :shrug: And whether you realize it or not, you answered the question within the first three paragraphs. :)

A decision MUST be made, regardless of how unpopular it may be, for at least a step is made that will force the next decision, and the next, and the next...

...until a final resolution is decided upon.

Volcana
Nov 27th, 2006, 01:12 AM
GO HOME - Is the ONLY sensible option available to us, at this point. Honestly, what could possibly be better for Americans than to see its military extracted from this failed and extremely embarrassing debacle? Iraq will resolve this without American interference, and will do it far better than we ever could. The U.S. administration is corrupt and has shown its true nature to the world at large. Why prolong the agony, and moreover, waste further funding on a fruitless war?The problem is, george bush simply isn't going to agree to this option. US forces will be in Iraq in large numbers til bush is out of office.

Maybe one day, we'll know the real reason bush wants the US military in Iraq. But it's not the safety and/or security of Iraqis or Americans.

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 01:51 AM
The problem is, george bush simply isn't going to agree to this option. US forces will be in Iraq in large numbers til bush is out of office.

Maybe one day, we'll know the real reason bush wants the US military in Iraq. But it's not the safety and/or security of Iraqis or Americans.I was about to post my hope that Congress will do what it did in 31 May 7331 May 73 - The Senate took strong action prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated by Congress to be used for combat activities in Laos or Cambodia. http://www.landscaper.net/timelin.htm... and halt funding in Iraq, forcing the withdrawal of American troops.
http://hnn.us/articles/31400.html

But then I look at this Congress, and I'm not so sure that they have a strong enough continence to do what needs to be done. Ultimately, and yet again, it will come down to 'the people' saying enough is enough. But like you stated, that will more likely occur in 2008.

Qrystyna
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:51 AM
I thought this article in Time Magazine made good points....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555130,00.html

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:17 AM
I thought this article in Time Magazine made good points....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555130,00.htmlOriginally, I was not in favor of the idea of partitioning. However, now it just may be the way to go. However, it would have to take place under the condition that the Iraqi central government [in representation of all parties] decides its future, with absolutely no interference nor coercion from the West.
But then another part of me looks over my shoulder at Israel and Palestine, and wonders if this will work. In other words, each of the three Iraqi regions [local governments] will have its own military. So what is the guarantee that the West will not do the same with one or two of these regions that they’ve already done with Israel at some point in the future?
The U.S. still desires Middle East oil; which is why we MUST relinquish control and allow the new democratic government(s) there to rule of its own accord.
Again, I don’t foresee that happening.

But I hope I'm wrong. :)

Steffica Greles
Nov 27th, 2006, 11:17 AM
Excellent post Steffica Greles. I often disagree with your position, but in this case your logic serves to encompass the entire picture. Now all that's left to do is to decide.

To leave these men and woman of your country in such a constant deteriorating situation is tantamount to turning your back and giving up on them. The only certainty between now and when a decision is finally made, is the number of lives lost due to indecision. Hasn't this been the case for the last 2 years already? :shrug: And whether you realize it or not, you answered the question within the first three paragraphs. :)

A decision MUST be made, regardless of how unpopular it may be, for at least a step is made that will force the next decision, and the next, and the next...

...until a final resolution is decided upon.

Well first of all I'm still celebrating having been agreed with :banghead: :bowdown: :dance: :haha: :woohoo: :hatoff: :bigcry: :crazy:


As I've said, I'm torn. And I remain torn. So whether this is my actual position or I'm just playing devil's advocate, I don't know.

You're right that nobody can make a decision, but perhaps that is because the best decision is to keep things as they are. In a sense, the decision has already been made and now we have to make the best out of a very dire situation. However preposterous that may sound, given that over 200 Iraqis were killed just on Thursday, surely conditions can get even worse?

I'm talking about visions of convoys of refugees heading in all directions, in some cases passing one another, constantly being raped and massacred by militias. If you knew what happened when Britain partitioned India and Pakistan in the 1940s, you'd know what I mean. Look at Sudan at the moment or Rwanda in the past. The reality is that Iraq is a safer place to live than either of those places. And that is because there is at least some degree of security in some areas. The difference is that the Iraq war is covered far more extensively by our press. And we have at least allowed the Iraqis to vote and elect their own government -- even one which was against the preference of Britain and America. Millions and millions risked their lives to turn out. Should we throw the baby out with the bath water?

If the British and Americans left to save their own troops, millions more Iraqis may die. In Rwanda the claim has been that the country was abandoned. In Sudan the same may happen. Iraq, from the top of my head, is a country with approximately 30 million people. As far as we know, even the highest estimates count the dead at less than 750,000. I'm saying literally multiple millions could die if we leave now. And, if that happened, we would look back and ask ourselves why we panicked when things were not as forlorn as they seemed. As I've said, if the country becomes a base for terrorism, in a region already unstable due to Iran, Syria and Israel, and millions die because we left the Iraqi people to their fate, then that would be a far greater burden for our countries to sustain in itself; and that is to not even contemplate world wars.

Regarding losses to our troops, around 127 British troops have died. That's less than half of those that died in the Falklands War, a conflict of far less magnitude in terms of the future of world security. I have not heard the press or anybody else mention that fact. Over 2000 American troops have been killed, but was it not at least twenty times that number in Vietnam? Of course, that does not justify waiting for the numbers of dead to rise to those of Vietnam, and if anything it should warn against remaining in Iraq. But are we not closer to achieving something than the Americans ever were in Vietnam? And surely that collation of casualties at least demonstrates that Iraq is not a disaster on the scale of previous conflicts.

Of course, I know your position as well. I get days when I feel the same as you. And I know that oil has a great part to play in this war.

But I hope I've demonstrated to you now why it is that I'm not clear that a hasty decision needs to be made.

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 11:15 PM
Well first of all I'm still celebrating having been agreed with :banghead: :bowdown: :dance: :haha: :woohoo: :hatoff: :bigcry: :crazy:


As I've said, I'm torn. And I remain torn. So whether this is my actual position or I'm just playing devil's advocate, I don't know.

You're right that nobody can make a decision, but perhaps that is because the best decision is to keep things as they are. In a sense, the decision has already been made and now we have to make the best out of a very dire situation. However preposterous that may sound, given that over 200 Iraqis were killed just on Thursday, surely conditions can get even worse?

I'm talking about visions of convoys of refugees heading in all directions, in some cases passing one another, constantly being raped and massacred by militias. If you knew what happened when Britain partitioned India and Pakistan in the 1940s, you'd know what I mean. Look at Sudan at the moment or Rwanda in the past. The reality is that Iraq is a safer place to live than either of those places. And that is because there is at least some degree of security in some areas. The difference is that the Iraq war is covered far more extensively by our press. And we have at least allowed the Iraqis to vote and elect their own government -- even one which was against the preference of Britain and America. Millions and millions risked their lives to turn out. Should we throw the baby out with the bath water?

If the British and Americans left to save their own troops, millions more Iraqis may die. In Rwanda the claim has been that the country was abandoned. In Sudan the same may happen. Iraq, from the top of my head, is a country with approximately 30 million people. As far as we know, even the highest estimates count the dead at less than 750,000. I'm saying literally multiple millions could die if we leave now. And, if that happened, we would look back and ask ourselves why we panicked when things were not as forlorn as they seemed. As I've said, if the country becomes a base for terrorism, in a region already unstable due to Iran, Syria and Israel, and millions die because we left the Iraqi people to their fate, then that would be a far greater burden for our countries to sustain in itself; and that is to not even contemplate world wars.

Regarding losses to our troops, around 127 British troops have died. That's less than half of those that died in the Falklands War, a conflict of far less magnitude in terms of the future of world security. I have not heard the press or anybody else mention that fact. Over 2000 American troops have been killed, but was it not at least twenty times that number in Vietnam? Of course, that does not justify waiting for the numbers of dead to rise to those of Vietnam, and if anything it should warn against remaining in Iraq. But are we not closer to achieving something than the Americans ever were in Vietnam? And surely that collation of casualties at least demonstrates that Iraq is not a disaster on the scale of previous conflicts.

Of course, I know your position as well. I get days when I feel the same as you. And I know that oil has a great part to play in this war.

But I hope I've demonstrated to you now why it is that I'm not clear that a hasty decision needs to be made.:haha: @ your celebration smilies. :lol:

You've made valid points and I can certainly understand your reluctance in deciding the next course of action. However, 'inaction', as we've already witnessed, is a very terminal position to take.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not suggesting that we just pick up and leave without completing the training of the Iraqi Police and possibly their military. However, if we are true to our word in that we will allow Democracy to rule, then we should fully honor that pledge.

You make the point that our leaving may create chaos and death numbering in the millions. But then again, it may not.
Honestly, it’s a case of ‘death by a thousand cuts’, or a ‘knife through the heart’ at this stage. In other words, the damage is done. Our governments screwed up BAD, and there will be countless deaths to follow whatever the decision. In the meantime, the U.S. economy will begin to suffer as the months progress.

Will there be heinous acts perpetrated upon the innocents? YES.
But ther already are. I've read enough about our own military raping and murdering Iraqis of all ages, to last a lifetime though. And personally, I've had enough.

I look at where Iraq is today and aside from an ineffective and powerless government, I do not see them being any closer to the type of Democracy we envisioned since the day Bush claimed 'Mission Accomplished'. In fact, the situation has quickly deteriorated into all out chaos since. :scared: The per day deaths have soared!! :eek:
So what good are we doing Iraq by remaining? :shrug:

I hate that so many Iraqis have to die when we withdraw. But I must also consider the American military who should not be fighting this illegal war.

Moreover, part of main problem has to do with the 36 separate militia fighting. That's incredible!! That would equate to a possible 36 separate 'fronts' that we must battle. How do we, the U.S. and the British, discern friend from foe?
Regardless of what our two governments say, Iraq is in the grips of a full blown civil war, and have been for some time.
The best response for our troops would be to withdraw and for world governments to offer diplomatic, and/or military supply assistance of some sort. That's IF we can decide which of the 36 militia are the good guys. Heck, even our puppet Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has turned against the coalition.

Whatever the eventual decision and outcome, we can be fairly certain that it won’t be anything to be proud of.

Sam L
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:00 AM
And specifically how do you do that?

If you can answer this one very complex question, then you are infinite light years ahead of the world's best thinkers and strategists.

Well in order for me to give you that answer I'll have to be a General in Iraq. I do have a few general ideas but it's useless sharing anyway. And I wouldn't want to talk about it on a message board.

RVD
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:57 AM
Well in order for me to give you that answer I'll have to be a General in Iraq. I do have a few general ideas but it's useless sharing anyway. And I wouldn't want to talk about it on a message board.Oh come on...
I'm sure you have some great ideas. :)

...and I swear I won't laugh...:lol:

Oopsie. :angel:

Steffica Greles
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:23 AM
:haha: @ your celebration smilies. :lol:

You've made valid points and I can certainly understand your reluctance in deciding the next course of action. However, 'inaction', as we've already witnessed, is a very terminal position to take.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not suggesting that we just pick up and leave without completing the training of the Iraqi Police and possibly their military. However, if we are true to our word in that we will allow Democracy to rule, then we should fully honor that pledge.

You make the point that our leaving may create chaos and death numbering in the millions. But then again, it may not.
Honestly, it’s a case of ‘death by a thousand cuts’, or a ‘knife through the heart’ at this stage. In other words, the damage is done. Our governments screwed up BAD, and there will be countless deaths to follow whatever the decision. In the meantime, the U.S. economy will begin to suffer as the months progress.

Will there be heinous acts perpetrated upon the innocents? YES.
But ther already are. I've read enough about our own military raping and murdering Iraqis of all ages, to last a lifetime though. And personally, I've had enough.

I look at where Iraq is today and aside from an ineffective and powerless government, I do not see them being any closer to the type of Democracy we envisioned since the day Bush claimed 'Mission Accomplished'. In fact, the situation has quickly deteriorated into all out chaos since. :scared: The per day deaths have soared!! :eek:
So what good are we doing Iraq by remaining? :shrug:

I hate that so many Iraqis have to die when we withdraw. But I must also consider the American military who should not be fighting this illegal war.

Moreover, part of main problem has to do with the 36 separate militia fighting. That's incredible!! That would equate to a possible 36 separate 'fronts' that we must battle. How do we, the U.S. and the British, discern friend from foe?
Regardless of what our two governments say, Iraq is in the grips of a full blown civil war, and have been for some time.
The best response for our troops would be to withdraw and for world governments to offer diplomatic, and/or military supply assistance of some sort. That's IF we can decide which of the 36 militia are the good guys. Heck, even our puppet Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, has turned against the coalition.

Whatever the eventual decision and outcome, we can be fairly certain that it won’t be anything to be proud of.

But you seem to be suggesting we should withdraw from Iraq however many more lives are lost as a result? I can't understand the premises of that assertion. Other than that American lives should be saved, which, while understandable, would appear to be America washing its hands having done so much damage.

There can be no disputing that the situation in Iraq CAN get so much worse. There is no evidence that our troops are helping -- that is true. But there is no way of calculating how many more or fewer will lose their lives if we leave. As I've said, even journalists are restriced in what they can witness because of safety issues. We don't really know what the hell is going on there. Personally I cannot see how the death rate will decline if we leave, given that almost all of the deaths that we know of appear to be Iraqis killing Iraqis. These are deep-rooted religious tensions which were there long before we invaded and have now only been exacerbated with the power vacuum that has been engendered.

You affirm that we should train the Iraqi police force before we leave. Well that is one of the primary reasons why our troops are there -- to protect the police force while it is being trained. And, from what I have read, some of them are now on duty.

The war is indeed illegal and it is a great travesty that those who orchestrated it on both sides of the Atlantic have not been held to account. But, legality aside, and objectively speaking, would it not be an even greater injustice if we left Iraq in such a way that millions of lives were lost instead of hundreds more of our own troops? It's a tough choice, but it's a stark one.

And people talk about staying, but having an "exit strategy". That's a term which has gained currency this last year. I cannot see how that will help the situation. Surely that is what the militias want, so that they can start preparing to seize power. And, once the plan is established, they will press home their advantage with even more thrust and brutality on both our troops and Iraqi civilians.

The key difference between me and you is that I think in one more year things can have improved. You seem convinced that Iraq is a quagmire in which the British and Americans have become stuck while trespassing. Up until recently I completely I agreed with that argument. My reasoning is that the Iraqi police now seems to be coming to fruition and gradually they can start to assume authority.

And I am cynical about why it is there is suddenly such a cry from Americans to withdraw the troops. There has been in Britain for a long time. It's as if the escalation of deaths among their own troops has finally convinced them to make a sharp exit. There does not seem to be much consideration for the Iraqi people in all of this. Of course we are all concerned about our own troops, but we owe it to the Iraqi people to act responsibly and in their best interests, and I'm not sure that leaving just yet would leave them any safer. Once again, I feel there is ample evidence that there would be genocide if we left Iraq now. It is true that most of the Iraqi people (from what we hear, which one can never be sure about) want us to leave. But that stands to reason; these troubles coincided with the invasion. The political reality is different from the hear say on the streets, however.

samsung101
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:45 PM
Go home has always been the final chapter - from Bush to
everyone else. When they're done, done all they can, go
home. So, that's not a new option.


Go long?
DNC is in charge of Congress, and the USA public has shown we
have the staying power of a moth, so that's not it.

One final push, makes sense.

The generals months ago called for that. As we hand over more
to the Iraqi army, and pull back to mainly just training, put into
place one more large, several month long, push w/our forces in
a major role. This isn't a new option - Bush and the generals
talked of it early in the year.

It also gives the Democrats just enough to say, see, we backed
the President on this final option. We didn't retreat...when in fact,
since they've already told the Islamic nuts that's their plan, it's
a moot point.

That's all we can do w/a Democratic Congress, even with a slight
majority. The GOP minority can stall, filibuster, delay, but, in the
end, that is what will happen. Bush can veto, but, the Dems can
slam thru things w/the usual RINO suspects in place to support them.



The fact is we showed the world we are Spain at the voting booth.

That's done.
History.
We are what we are now.


As Islamic fascists celebrate, and put more people in harms way
around the world, as they have done for a couple of decades...and
more so now. They found media tactics to guide our behavior
at home. They found a big new weapon, and are using it wisely -
our media, and our attention span.

None of which will do anything to deter the long, multi-year struggles
in Somalia, Sudan, Darfur, former Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Middle East, etc.
Since all involve Islamic nuts, the USA cannot do much to assist, for
humanitarian or terrorist reasons....we no longer have the public will
to fight Islamic terrorists. We decided that on the 7th of November.

Band Aid time.

samsung101
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:57 PM
After WWII, we forget the European theater was a mess. For years.
Jews from the camps were often kept at same style camps as they
were w/o a home, family, a nation to go back to. W/o papers and
money, they were homeless, and treated badly in many cases for
a long, long time. The USA poured billions and billions into the
continent, and set up bases to provide security for the region.

All the while, Europe promised to build an army to defend itself.

It never really has. Still isn't. The EU has been around for some
time, where's that huge EU military force?

After WWII, the Jews from the camps who were left behind, hundreds
of thousands of them, were a big problem for the world, even if the
world generally didn't know much of their plight.

Truman ordered a study on this later on, and ordered
Eisenhower to do more, and do it better, faster. What they
were doing, was not acceptable. Our future president was
in charge of it, and the past president said it wasn't good enough.
Things changed slowly.

After WWII many Nazi officials stayed in power in Germany, no one had
time to go after the judges or teachers or others, they were after the
soldiers and leaders. That didnt work out so well either. Many Nazis
escaped prosecution entirely with European and USA help, or just by
running away before the mess cleared up.

After WWII Berlin and other places were divided, and that was full of
all kinds of political problems - it was not decided easily or nicely. It
was a nightmare for the League of Nations and other world groups.

Look what Stalin and the Soviet Union did, what nations they just
usurped, against USA and British plans...and for decades people
suffered under Communist oppression. Our WWII friend turned out
to be our enemy afterall, even though we always knew he was more
for than friend..

Millions died due to Stalin's rule and violent dictatorship.

Nothing goes neatly or easily.

How would history have looked at Truman or Churchill or Stalin or
Eisehnower or McArthur or FDR if they had 24/7 news and political
media on their every move, counter move, and plan? If CNN and
MSNBC and The Today Show were around to cover all they did
in WWII, the failures, mistakes, and death toll (thousands died
in practice runs for D-Day and other military moves).....

For all the good the USA did for France and Europe, for decades,
these same nations have generally disliked America, disliked American
presence, disliked American power....sounds familiar.

timafi
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Sam Sam Sam:rolleyes: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

mykarma
Nov 29th, 2006, 03:55 AM
Anybody who likes Bush's war can go ahead and enlist. Make it your fight and we'll see how you feel about it afterwards.
For real. :worship::worship::worship:

Qrystyna
Nov 29th, 2006, 05:46 AM
Wow, the propaganda bot is going crazy, posting multiple times in a row, right after the other! :o :lol:

RVD
Nov 29th, 2006, 07:07 AM
But you seem to be suggesting we should withdraw from Iraq however many more lives are lost as a result? I can't understand the premises of that assertion. Other than that American lives should be saved, which, while understandable, would appear to be America washing its hands having done so much damage.

There can be no disputing that the situation in Iraq CAN get so much worse. There is no evidence that our troops are helping -- that is true. But there is no way of calculating how many more or fewer will lose their lives if we leave. As I've said, even journalists are restriced in what they can witness because of safety issues. We don't really know what the hell is going on there. Personally I cannot see how the death rate will decline if we leave, given that almost all of the deaths that we know of appear to be Iraqis killing Iraqis. These are deep-rooted religious tensions which were there long before we invaded and have now only been exacerbated with the power vacuum that has been engendered.

You affirm that we should train the Iraqi police force before we leave. Well that is one of the primary reasons why our troops are there -- to protect the police force while it is being trained. And, from what I have read, some of them are now on duty.

The war is indeed illegal and it is a great travesty that those who orchestrated it on both sides of the Atlantic have not been held to account. But, legality aside, and objectively speaking, would it not be an even greater injustice if we left Iraq in such a way that millions of lives were lost instead of hundreds more of our own troops? It's a tough choice, but it's a stark one.

And people talk about staying, but having an "exit strategy". That's a term which has gained currency this last year. I cannot see how that will help the situation. Surely that is what the militias want, so that they can start preparing to seize power. And, once the plan is established, they will press home their advantage with even more thrust and brutality on both our troops and Iraqi civilians.

The key difference between me and you is that I think in one more year things can have improved. You seem convinced that Iraq is a quagmire in which the British and Americans have become stuck while trespassing. Up until recently I completely I agreed with that argument. My reasoning is that the Iraqi police now seems to be coming to fruition and gradually they can start to assume authority.Pardon me if I summarize, for I’m feeling quite drained for some reason. Could be that I’m catching the virus that everyone around me is already suffering from. :mad:

At any rate, here is my ‘bullet’ / ’answer’ response. ;)

* Should we withdraw even if [hundreds of thousands, or even millions] more Iraqi lives will be lost?
Absolutely. And for the following reasons as well:
- 36 militias are battling it out and vying for power. These are Iraqis, mind you;
- Iraq is unfortunately fighting a full blown Civil War;
- The U.S. was asked to leave, and this, by the way, is the current sentiment of the majority;
- The longer we stay, the more energized and centralized the terrorists become.
- We no longer know who [entirely] the enemy is, or what the enemy looks like;
- Even the trained police forces are targeting U.S. military AND other Iraqis.

* It is a literal guarantee that the current ‘power vacuum’ will be filled. The larger question is, will it be filled by someone sympathetic to the West, or not?
- I can’t possibly imagine leadership sympathetic to the West. After all, we annihilated Iraq...completely destroying their infrastructure, and killing a reported 655,000 people. (That was as of 10/2006, and give or take a few 10's of thousands) http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

* Primary reason for U.S. troop presence (depending on what mood you catch the White House in)
- To eliminate the threat of WMDs. (Threat has since been proven nonexistent, and a LIE)
- To eliminate terrorist threats against the U.S. (Threat has since been proven nonexistent, and a LIE)
- To eliminate terrorist threats against our allies in that region [Well guess what, Iran was the most probable threat. However, since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iran has become more powerful AND has been reportedly supplying bombs to both Shiites and Sunnis as far back as 8/6/2005 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1813621,00.html ; AND recently training Shiite Militias http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5703572 . Now who do you suppose these Iranian-backed, supplied and trained, militia are targeting? :hehehe:

* Exit Strategy is not defined as a ‘winning’ strategy, but rather as a ‘How does the U.S. withdraw with as much of its dignity intact as possible’ strategy.

Now, you and I find ourselves at a crossroads of sorts, where I’ve already decided we should withdraw our troops, and you advise staying the course for another year. Your position is: I think in one more year things can have improved. and My reasoning is that the Iraqi police now seems to be coming to fruition and gradually they can start to assume authority.Both of which tells me that you have not been paying close attention to the most recent news reports. Though the majority of my reasons listed should be reason enough, I believe you may find the following links concerning the Iraqi Police interesting.
Might I also add that if our troops are in fact training and prepping the Iraqi Police, then what on God’s green earth are we training them to do? :scared:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111400137.html
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2206
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article362151.ece
And I am cynical about why it is there is suddenly such a cry from Americans to withdraw the troops. There has been in Britain for a long time. It's as if the escalation of deaths among their own troops has finally convinced them to make a sharp exit. There does not seem to be much consideration for the Iraqi people in all of this. Of course we are all concerned about our own troops, but we owe it to the Iraqi people to act responsibly and in their best interests, and I'm not sure that leaving just yet would leave them any safer. Once again, I feel there is ample evidence that there would be genocide if we left Iraq now. It is true that most of the Iraqi people (from what we hear, which one can never be sure about) want us to leave. But that stands to reason; these troubles coincided with the invasion. The political reality is different from the hear say on the streets, however.Americans aren't suddenly calling for troop withdrawal. There has been years of call for troop withdrawal. However, the only difference now is that high ranking Republicans are now echoing the call along with Democrats. AND, now with the U.S. House of Representatives in democratic control, the President is now 'officially' considered a Lame Duck Presidency. Oh, I should also mention the fact that the U.S. Congress is considered a Lame Duck Congress as well. Both meaning that it may be near impossible for the President and a Democratic controlled House to move one solitary Military Bill through.

Finally, if Congress votes to halt funding to support the war effort, regardless of who thinks what, the U.S. troops are coming home, regardless of what the President desires. :wavey:

Steffica Greles
Nov 29th, 2006, 04:08 PM
Now, you and I find ourselves at a crossroads of sorts, where I’ve already decided we should withdraw our troops, and you advise staying the course for another year. Your position is: and Both of which tells me that you have not been paying close attention to the most recent news reports.

You may well be right. You make cogent arguments. But, at least to me, cogent counter arguments can still be made.

As a matter of fact, my newspaper is The Independent (brilliant paper!) which you regularly cite. I have indeed been paying close attention, and I cited in my first post that I was aware that militias have infiltrated the Iraqi police. But the question is to what level. And nobody knows; indeed, nobody even knows whether anything the journalists tell us is fully accurrate. Maybe that's even more reason to leave :confused:

Forgive me for more assumptions about America (I may be wrong!), but from what I've seen of your news channels the debate is never the most edifying and politicians are never given the interrogation that they are here. In Britain there are constantly journalists and commentators with new insights on both the left and right.

And there are some of the left advocating remaining, while some on the right advocating immediate withdrawal. So the issue really cuts across political persuasions.

I'm yet to be persuaded, given the level of killings of Iraqi civillians, that withdrawal from Iraq can be justified. You know that I agree with you over the bogus premises for the war and that it was illegal.

In Sudan, the U.N are required to send troops to prevent the "final solution" to what has already been genocide. Hundred of thousands more will die if they are not protected. If we leave Iraq to its fate with millions likely to be removed from their homes and perish, how can be justify intervening in Sudan?

Do you understand where I'm coming from?