The War in Iraq

[FallenXxRaven]

Do you support it? What should we change about it? Are we benifiting at all or is it wasted lives? Discuss anything about it, but lets try not to get too political.
Personally I think it is completely useless, but what do you guys think?
(Dont forget that there is a poll too =P)

[devonin]

You need to provide:

a) more information for readers to respond to
b) some backup for your position
c) a much more focused topic for discussion

otherwise, it's not really a CT thread.

[Kamunt]

I agree with devo. Also, an 'indifferent/other' option in the poll could/would also be appreciated by many, I'm sure, since there's plenty of people out there who aren't completely one way or the other.

I personally find myself as a Democrat more often than not, though I dislike greatly the negative connotation that goes along with it. I, however, actually think that we "should" be in Iraq. Before the n00bs lunge at me, let me say that much of Iraq, especially in and around Baghdad, is still in lots of turmoil. Maybe it wasn't our place to enter in the first place, I choose to abstain my opinion on that matter for now, but regardless, we went in there with a mission and that mission is clearly not accomplished yet. Yes, the Iraqi people are "free", but there is still countless acts of terrorism occuring there--the government isn't stable, and many Sunni and Shiite (sp.?) still hate each other with a passion. This country isn't going to fix itself in a pretty way regardless of what happens, but we can't just let all of the hard work that's been put into freeing and stabilizing this country go to waste.

Also, the Iraqis may not be pulling their own weight, either, since part of our mission was /is to effectively train the/an Iraqi military so they can enforce law, peace and order in its own country. Last I heard, we've been trying to accomplish this, but it's clearly not working yet. XP

Here's your start. I've got more opinions, but I has homework to do.

[KilikOdagawa]

I'm going to use a common argument. September 11, 2001. 4 planes went down due to terrorism. Thousands died. This unified a nation. But now, our politicians want to pull away 6 years of work. As it stands, this war has us divided. Much like Vietnam. It makes no sense as to WHY anyone would want to stop this. i understand that people think it is a total waste of lives. But look at what we've done. We have destroyed the former government of Iraq. Now we rebuild it in a way that they could benefit.

Let me put it in a way that most people would understand. I'll be using MAJOR sarcasm. Pull the troops out. Let the terrorist do as they please. Let them come here so we can have ANOTHER 9/11.

[tsugomaru]

I don't completely believe that everything that Bush is doing is right but he does have information that citizens like us do not have. Not too long ago, we jested at a member from the army who worked as intelligence. We laughed at his arguments because he wasn't able to reveal it. Sometimes we have to trust what a leader does because he has information that we don't have.

It's hard to have an intelligent discussion on a topic like this where we are given very little information. We do know what has happened based on what the media has told us and the media could mean a lot of things. We receive information from the newspapers, television, and even the conspiracy theorists; but how much of this information is true?

So as my belief on the Iraq war is that no one is getting the information they need to help make a right decision.

~Tsugomaru

[ChAoSxxx]

Our stay over in iraq serves a purpose we are getting rid of important terrorist leaders and organizations that lead a very evident dangerous threat to the world. I wouldn't call this much of a "war" in this present time although the seriousness of death makes it real. I think of the war in Iraq as being policed, portraying americans as the officers that are trying to bring balance. I strongly disagree with any conspiracy theorists who say that we attacked ourselves for selfish reasons. America will persevere and we are making a difference no matter how much it is.

[Sullyman2007]

Yes, we had a slow start. Yes, it's been painful for alot of people, including me.
But something had to be done. I think we did the right thing. We are helping rebuid a country thats been at war with itself for a long time. We are helping eliminate a threat that puts the entire world in danger.
So yes, I support the war 100%.

All I have to say.

[Kamunt]

*waves at Kilik* Nice. I feel that way a lot, but I just don't feel like I have the huevos sometimes to just come right out and say it. At least your first paragraph. I'd be sarcastic anyways, if it suited my purpose. In all seriousness, though, if anything we NEEDED to get rid of Hussein. In the midst of the Red Scare, we put him into power in order to keep Communist influences out of the Middle East...a somewhat noble effort, I guess...but ultimately proving really stupid. -.-; At least he's gone, but we still have the rest of our/his mess to clean up yet in his wake...

[devonin]

I'm going to use a common argument. September 11, 2001.I'm going to dispute your "common" argument: September 11, 2001 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the nation of Iraq.

A terrorist organization based in afghanistan, sent people all of whom were egyptian and saudi arabian to attack the united states...are you seeing "iraq" in there anywhere?

Hussein's government viewed Al-Qaeda as zelous idiots who were incapable of running their own organization. Al-Qaeda viewed Hussein's government as western lapdogs who were almost as bad as America. No link has ever been shown that conclusively connects them except for hostility and rude dismissals of the others' organization.

"The invasion of Iraq is because of 9/11" is frankly, complete nonsense.

"9/11 was used as an incredibly flimsy excuse to carry out a war that the Bush administration had been planning out months before 9/11 even happened, and after 9/11 multiple documents and memos and affadavits of orders have come to light revealing that the Bush administration -demanded- that intelligence specialists "find a link with Iraq"" is not only not nonsense, but carries with it a shocking amount of evidence.

As for "Helping rebuild" Iraq: Cleaning up your own mess isn't laudable. We expect six year olds to clean up their own mess as a matter of course, we don't praise them for doing it, we punish them for not doing it.

Forcing a western style representative democracy on nations that are still highly tribal and partisan is not just a bad idea, it's a -horrible- idea and simply demonstrates the complete hubris of the United States that its way is the best way, and serves primarily to highlight the exact reasons why these terrorist organizations take umbridge with American foreign policy.

Does anyone else find the concept of a 231 year old country telling the nation from whence came all of humanity millenia earlier how they are supposed to act more than a little hilarious?

[Sullyman2007]

The invasion of Iraq is because of 9/11" is frankly, complete nonsense.
I couldn't agree more. If I remember correctly, Iraq didn't even come into the big picture until about a year AFTER 9/11. Afghanistan was the main focus of attention during that time frame.

Forcing a western style representative democracy on nations that are still highly tribal and partisan is not just a bad idea, it's a -horrible- idea and simply demonstrates the complete hubris of the United States that its way is the best way, and serves primarily to highlight the exact reasons why these terrorist organizations take umbridge with American foreign policy.
I see what your saying here, but we went into Iraq to help theese people. I really don't think they had anything close to a stable government, and the only way for us to help them is if they do. Or better yet, for them to help themselves. Right?:?

[FallenXxRaven]

Alright, lets try this again.
First off, even though the Iraq War has nothing to do with 9/11.. what happened to Osama? We switched most of our troops to trying to find the man who devised the plan to attack our country, so I already see a flaw with this war. But I DO support the fact that we did go in there to look for WMDs, but we didn't find anything. Thats what we went in there to do, and I don't think we're doing that anymore.
Also, I had no problem with going after Saddam, after all he did commit a crime against humanity.. attempted genocide on the Kurds. But once again, what about Osama?
So far I do, in fact, support the war but we caught saddam on December 13, 2003, yet it is 2007, so why are we still there? Simple, to force democracy on them, and devonin said it perfectly... Forcing a western style representative democracy on nations that are still highly tribal and partisan is not just a bad idea, it's a -horrible- idea
But fine, Bush was determined, and we got an election in 2005, and that didn't seem to go so well. So obviously they don't want it, why didn't we leave?
So around 2006 what were doing what in Iraq? Besides getting bombed on a daily basis? Well, Iraq went to hell is what, fat load of good were doing there huh? There was pretty much nothing but death in 2006 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_in_Iraq ). And the same for 2007 thus far http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_in_Iraq
I'm still new to CT but I hope I made enough of a point to why I am against the war.

[Kilroy_x]

Sometimes we have to trust what a leader does because he has information that we don't have.

No we don't. More importantly, all of the pre-war intelligence that I know of was available to or was made available to the international intelligence community. The UN did not favor war. That's a significant indication of something.

We receive information from the newspapers, television, and even the conspiracy theorists; but how much of this information is true?

Why stop there? Why not question what the validity of second hand sources in all instances? Look, there comes a point when you either trust your intuition or you don't. Even if you don't you can still use silly heuristic devices like averaging death count reports or what have you.

Our stay over in iraq serves a purpose we are getting rid of important terrorist leaders and organizations that lead a very evident dangerous threat to the world.

That's highly questionable. Security in Iraq seems to be dramatically worse than when the old regime was there. Furthermore American military presence has given terrorist recruiters ample new propaganda, Iran has entered the fray, sectarian violence is increasing and by some accounts the US established government apparatus is engaging in genocide of Sunni Muslims. So yeah, maybe not that thing you just said.

But something had to be done.

Why?

We are helping rebuid a country thats been at war with itself for a long time.

In what sense? Under the reign of Saddam there was order. It came with the price of an almost complete lack of freedom and countless lives, but it probably can't be called war. By removing Saddam we created a power vacuum. We created war.

We are helping eliminate a threat that puts the entire world in danger.

Explain.

So yes, I support the war 100%.

So you support aspects of the war such as the occasional soldiers decision to shoot an innocent man and plant a weapon and shovel on him?


Ok, my take. This isn't a war, it's an occupation which is encountering organized and deeply entrenched guerrilla fighters, representing a variety of religious, national, and cultural interests including those of Iranian government and known terrorist groups. Zarqawi was killed not long ago, for instance. He represents a non-iraqi interest, but thankfully in a perverse sort of way the active militants of Iraq are still mostly of Iraqi interest.

The US created a power vacuum. If we left now Shiite Iraqi clerics would likely end up creating a new government, not democratic in nature. That is if the Iranians didn't step in as apparently they promised to do in such an instance. In either case the Sunni muslims of the region would likely suffer tremendous violence against them. The Kurds, although armed to the teeth and experienced fighters, would probably have a hard time in their inevitable attempt to establish an independent Kurdistan.

One more thing. When the American military presence leaves Iraq, so too will the people actually doing all the important work; contracted mercenaries. If it was just the American military leaving it wouldn't be that big a deal, but since PMC's; at least the legally sanctioned variety; are to my knowledge not allowed under international law to operate without fulfilling special conditions, Kurds especially will suffer a dramatic loss in military power.

It would probably still be sound to withdraw at this point, all things considered, but these days there's likely no way to do anything without dramatic losses. There were plenty of opportunities to prevent where we ended up today, even after the invasion. We could have actually allowed international rebuilding to occur instead of restricting rebuilders to Americans. That would likely have alleviated certain tensions or at least spread the weight of the tensions along a broader base. Unfortunately, whatever is decided from this point on will almost inevitably be remembered as a wrong decision because it will have clear and dramatic costs.

[Kamunt]

I see what your saying here, but we went into Iraq to help theese people. I really don't think they had anything close to a stable government, and the only way for us to help them is if they do. Or better yet, for them to help themselves. Right?:?
Yeah, Sully, "America's" attitude towards Iraq seems to be "We need to help them to help themselves." Which I can understand and appreciate, no doubt, but it could obviously be debated how well this is going, and how much progress the Iraqis are even making towards this goal.

Does anyone else find the concept of a 231 year old country telling the nation from whence came all of humanity millenia earlier how they are supposed to act more than a little hilarious?
This is mostly irrelevant, but what's funny to me is that I was under the impression that all human life began in Africa.

EDIT for Kilroy-age.

That's highly questionable. Security in Iraq seems to be dramatically worse than when the old regime was there. Furthermore American military presence has given terrorist recruiters ample new propaganda, Iran has entered the fray, sectarian violence is increasing and by some accounts the US established government apparatus is engaging in genocide of Sunni Muslims. So yeah, maybe not that thing you just said.
Good to see you're still as big of a dick as ever, Kilroy. I've missed this forum so.

In what sense? Under the reign of Saddam there was order. It came with the price of an almost complete lack of freedom and countless lives, but it probably can't be called war. By removing Saddam we created a power vacuum. We created war.
You said it yourself: the Iraqi citizens had nearly no freedom, and their insane dictator killed countless thousands of his own people. This is just me, but I would rather live knowing that my country is trying to be fixed, rather than live knowing that saying the wrong thing in the wrong place (read: just about anywhere outside the home) could get me killed within the week. It's just me, again. I could innocently die either way, but I'd still rather die knowing that soon, my country's peoples could live without so much of the same death I had just experienced for the last time.

So you support aspects of the war such as the occasional soldiers decision to shoot an innocent man and plant a weapon and shovel on him?
Yup. Still a dick. Just be rational, Kilroy: he CLEARLY doesn't mean he supports such actions, who in their right mind would? He supports 100% the War and its purpose, not the retarded actions of the demented few.

[Kilroy_x]

You said it yourself: the Iraqi citizens had nearly no freedom, and their insane dictator killed countless thousands of his own people. This is just me, but I would rather live knowing that my country is trying to be fixed, rather than live knowing that saying the wrong thing in the wrong place (read: just about anywhere outside the home) could get me killed within the week.

That's not the contention. The claim was made that Iraq was in a state of constant war. That claim was false.

Yup. Still a dick. Just be rational, Kilroy: he CLEARLY doesn't mean he supports such actions, who in their right mind would? He supports 100% the War and its purpose, not the retarded actions of the demented few.

The retarded actions of the demented few constitute individual units of the larger object "war". You can't say "I support the war 100%" and not support something which is part of the war, it's definitionally incoherent.

[Kamunt]

That's not the contention. The claim was made that Iraq was in a state of constant war. That claim was false.

Oops, that was my bad, then. I totally misread there, and wasted my time taka-taka-ing that out.

The retarded actions of the demented few constitute individual units of the larger object "war". You can't say "I support the war 100%" and not support something which is part of the war, it's definitionally incoherent.

If you are going to be persistent, then what percentage would you suppose constitutes "I support the war completely except for the the retarded actions of the demented few"? I'm going with 96% as a preliminary estimate.

[Kilroy_x]

I think it's silly to try to quantify your support for something so complicated at all, you can only qualify it. Or at least, to quantify it would remove some of its significance. If someone says "I support the war 97.83 percent", I'm going to ask what the exception(s) are that constitute the 2.17% of non-support. Why not just skip that?

Incidentally, 100% is a value that can easily be expressed qualitatively. If you want to say "I support the war completely except for the the retarded actions of the demented few", then just say it. Drop the "completely" and be prepared to answer follow up questions, but yeah. Saying you support 100% of anything though will likely carry implicit meaning that's unintended if what you are talking about is complicated to any extent.

[ChAoSxxx]

You guys are thinking too hard. We are here for one reason and one reason only. To get rid of all the terrorist organizations and liberate the middle east.

[Kilroy_x]

The problem is that if that's our intent, our actions are hardly getting us closer to actualizing it. I'm not sure why the military destruction of the larger portion of Middle Eastern government's is synonymous with liberation, let alone a good thing. Could you explain that for me please?

[jewpinthethird]

I'll let Dick Cheney do all my talking for me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

Mind you, this was 8 years before Iraqi Invasion. We went to war on false pretenses. We did not go to war to free the Iraq people, we went to war because Saddam Hussein was a threat to our national security, was harboring terrorists, and had weapons of mass destruction. None of which where ever proven true. It was only after Saddam lost his power that we started the campaign "Operation Iraqi Freedom", which was to set up democracy in Iraq...which we've tried, and it has failed miserably for the past 5 years.

I mean, it's not like this is the first time the United States has ever invaded a country under false pretenses. The Mexican-American war was initiated because President Polk, a Southerner, wanted to annex Texas, which was then Mexican territory, so that he could install another Slave state tipping congress in favor of slavery. War profiteering is not new either. The escalation of the Vietnam conflict was based on a a nonexistent event. The War in Iraq was based on nonexistent "evidence."

And don't forget, we are still fighting in Afghanistan...you know, the place that actually had terrorists?

Let's not forget the dozens, upon dozens of innocent Iraqis that are dying everyday in Iraq's current civil war...which we started. (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) Saddam was a evil man and a ruthless dictator, but at least he was able to keep some kind of order among the tribes.

I'm sorry to say that I sympathize with the "terrorists" (the new "red scare"), who are actually "nationalists" and tired of the Western occupation and exploitation of their land. The United States' interest in the middle east is not democracy, but profit. Kind of like how we overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala in favor of a militaristic dictator. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS) Why did we do this? Because the United Fruit Company "owned" a majority of the land in Guatemala, exploited the poor indigenousness people of Guatemala, and did not pay taxes on any of it's exports. The democratic government sought to take back the land, which was RIGHTFULLY THEIRS, and give it back to the people, who needed the land to live. The United States declared Guatemala a communist nation and invaded.

If your are too dense to absorb any of this information, I feel sorry for you, but history will recognize this war and this administration as a plague on the United States. I am sure of it.

ps. War on Terror? HAHAHAHA, f*ck the United States and starting it's stupid idealogical wars like the War on Drugs...or the War on Obesity. We'll never win. Your tax dollars at work.

pps. Also, who does the government work for? The United States people. It was our founding fathers' intention to give the power of the government to the people (democracy...huuuuuuur). Yes, I know we aren't a democracy, we are a Republic, but that does not mean the elected officials of our government should be able to do whatever they want. The President is not our elected king. The people of the United States should always question the authority. It's the ultimate check and balance.

[KilikOdagawa]

You guys are thinking too hard. We are here for one reason and one reason only. To get rid of all the terrorist organizations and liberate the middle east.

Beautifully said





The problem is that if that's our intent, our actions are hardly getting us closer to actualizing it. I'm not sure why the military destruction of the larger portion of Middle Eastern government's is synonymous with liberation, let alone a good thing. Could you explain that for me please?

The government we have set up there, no matter how terrible it's doing, is having some success. Tell me.. Have you seen the pictures with the Iraqi people holding up signs saying "Thank you America"? Have you? The news will probably never show them.

[Kilroy_x]

The government we have set up there, no matter how terrible it's doing, is having some success. Tell me.. Have you seen the pictures with the Iraqi people holding up signs saying "Thank you America"? Have you? The news will probably never show them.

I've heard anecdotal evidence of such things. What are you arguing? I laid out a number of factors, all of which need to be considered in order to determine what action would minimize negative outcome at this point. It's perfectly possible that every one of those individuals you speak of would be kidnapped, raped, and disemboweled if we left but that fewer people would be killed overall or less disutility would be caused on the whole. It's an ugly consideration and an ugly war, but unless you have a way to accept 1 million deaths as equally or more acceptable than 1,000, it has to be made.

Oh, and good job on apparently reading Zinn jewpin.

[jewpinthethird]

The government we have set up there, no matter how terrible it's doing, is having some success. Tell me.. Have you seen the pictures with the Iraqi people holding up signs saying "Thank you America"? Have you? The news will probably never show them.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u266/felixjawesome/Cheneydiditforthelulz.jpg

Hey, Kilik, did you watch that video in my post? Did you even look at my post? I'm guessing you didn't.

Also, I haven't read Zinn, most of my argument is based on common sense and a recent discussion in my Southern Border class about the parallels between the United State's involvement in the history of South America and other historical events.

[Kilroy_x]

Ah.

[jewpinthethird]

Ah.

But I have no doubt Zinn has been a major influence on me, if only indirectly.

[Kamunt]

Well, I'm out of valid arguments to support my stance on this issue. It's difficult being the minority opinion, isn't it? Sigh. Nice picture, jewpin, I see what you did there. I did watch the video, and Kilik's comment on the "Thank you, America", etc. pictures and signs are still very real. Of course those are never in the media, because the liberal media hates good news. Even if 70,000~+ Iraqi civilians have been so far (yes, I clicked the IBC link), that's still nothing in comparison to the over 1,000,000 Hussein was responsible for killing during his time ruling the nation with an iron gauntlet. Plus, it's not like those 70,000 deaths were directly the fault of just America; notice how I said "directly", so don't waste your finger strength keying out the fact that "it's our fault the Iraqis are dying at all in the first place". Especially since I did it for you. This may be looking at things through rose-colored glasses, but again, we are trying to help them, at least. There's hope for them becoming stabilized again with a much better government, a lot more than there was back when Hussein was still in power. He was an evil, evil man and he needed to be taken out (of power)--you can't possibly deny that. At risk of my temper, how could you just stand by and watch as a nation's people are mercilessly killed, some by means as gruesome as plastic-grinding machines, by the nation's own leader? That's sick.

[Kilroy_x]

Well, I'm out of valid arguments to support my stance on this issue.

...are you sure you had any to begin with?

Even if 70,000~+ Iraqi civilians have been so far (yes, I clicked the IBC link), that's still nothing in comparison to the over 1,000,000 Hussein was responsible for killing during his time ruling the nation with an iron gauntlet.

It's not nothing, in comparison to anything or otherwise. It's 70,000~+.

Plus, it's not like those 70,000 deaths were directly the fault of just America; notice how I said "directly", so don't waste your finger strength keying out the fact that "it's our fault the Iraqis are dying at all in the first place". Especially since I did it for you.

How is that significant? America invades, events unfold, people that wouldn't have died die. If you know your actions will cause harm to innocents you shouldn't take them. Individuals in government knew these actions would cause harm to innocents, as proven by the wonderful video Jewpin linked to. So what's the substance of your distinction?

This may be looking at things through rose-colored glasses, but again, we are trying to help them, at least.

Why is this significant?

There's hope for them becoming stabilized again with a much better government, a lot more than there was back when Hussein was still in power.

This specific contention requires hard support, especially considering the sheer number of individuals who disagree with you.

He was an evil, evil man and he needed to be taken out (of power)--you can't possibly deny that. At risk of my temper, how could you just stand by and watch as a nation's people are mercilessly killed, some by means as gruesome as plastic-grinding machines, by the nation's own leader? That's sick.

How is that any sicker than execution by decapitation? Or the use of suicide bombers in public areas to kill men, women and children?

Saddam wasn't evil. The things known as evil are as human as anything else. Saddam was simply a man who took the wrong path on the road to salvation*.





*in the sense that "salvation" is derived from a phrase meaning "to salt". In this sense we all require salvation to preserve us and keep us from going bad.

[devonin]

Of course those are never in the media, because the liberal media hates good news.I particularly like this line, because there is demonstrably a conservative (read: republican) bias to the media rather than a liberal bias. The republicans -love- to point to "The liberal leftist media" but you can do (and there have been done) objective and exhaustive studies on media portrayal of political parties in the US, and quite objectively, more news says more things about why the conservative republicans are good or the liberal democrats are bad than vice versa. Claiming "Liberal bias" in the media is simply not the case in the United States.

[Grandiagod]

the liberal media hates good news.

Every bit of credibility that you had left was destroyed the second I read that.

Whether it is true or not is another debate, but the parroting back of such obvious Conservative propaganda as if it served to prove a point just reeks of idiocy.

[jewpinthethird]

Of course those are never in the media, because the liberal media hates good news.

Funny, because the months leading up to the Invasion of Iraq, the media was very pro-war. You weren't complaining then. Or during the Clinton administration when liberal bashing was all the rage. Also, I don't watch the news, it's a garbage. Everyone with half a brain knows that.

[OrganisM]

I've yet to see a justification for the war that's not on false pretenses or unsubstantiated ideas.

That's the frustrating thing: you try to get people to defend their point of view, and instead you get "nyah nyah I'm not listening" the moment their pitiful logic collapses.

[jewpinthethird]

I've yet to see a justification for the war that's not on false pretenses or unsubstantiated ideas.

That's the frustrating thing: you try to get people to defend their point of view, and instead you get "nyah nyah I'm not listening" the moment their pitiful logic collapses.

Well, the people defending the War in Iraq probably haven't had to think a day in their lives, so it's not entirely their fault. I mean, why think when you can have your Parents/Church/Government think for you?

[lord_carbo]

I personally find myself as a Democrat more often than not, though I dislike greatly the negative connotation that goes along with it.
Democrat? Negative connotation?

Try explaining that you're more conservative than democratic, esp. in NJ amongst high schoolers (I am a libertarian, but if I had to choose on the one dimensional political spectrum, I am more conservative). Simple: you don't. You say you're a libertarian and, when they ask (it's inevitable), explain that libertarianism emphasizes personal and economic freedoms. You listen as the person you talk to says, "Oh, I do too!" Then you roll your eyes.

Bush is not a republican. He is a big government, deficit spending evangelist. There hasn't been a republican in office after Reagan, which is unfortunate because he, for the most part, set a good example for the republican party. George Bush criticized Reagan's ideas on terrorism. In late 1983, he had troops deployed troops in Lebanon along with Israel, but Israel started pulling out. Later a major barracks bombing took place. He stood his ground at the time. But in early 1984, less than 6 months later, he finally went, "**** it, these guys are nuts." He pulled troops out of Beirut right away and started pulling them out of Lebanon. Greatest move in foreign policy in the last 25 years, no?

I'm going to use a common argument. September 11, 2001. 4 planes went down due to terrorism. Thousands died. This unified a nation. But now, our politicians want to pull away 6 years of work. As it stands, this war has us divided. Much like Vietnam. It makes no sense as to WHY anyone would want to stop this. i understand that people think it is a total waste of lives. But look at what we've done. We have destroyed the former government of Iraq. Now we rebuild it in a way that they could benefit.

Let me put it in a way that most people would understand. I'll be using MAJOR sarcasm. Pull the troops out. Let the terrorist do as they please. Let them come here so we can have ANOTHER 9/11.
America is all, "I demand you to be as good as us or else." We do not go off dictating that. It has never worked, and it never will. Government has a lot to learn from history still. History is almost never wrong. Failed policies are doomed to fail again. Drug war? The new Prohibition. Iraq? The new Vietnam. Vietnam was started with the same principles as the Iraq War, and Vietnam is seen as the biggest waste of time/resources in American history by many.

And I echo devonin on Hussein/Al-Queda.

I see what your saying here, but we went into Iraq to help theese people. I really don't think they had anything close to a stable government, and the only way for us to help them is if they do. Or better yet, for them to help themselves. Right?:?
Trade with them and set good examples. Trade and they will get the money to industrialize, then the money from that to get education, and follow the example of America in terms of tolerance and culture.

pps. Also, who does the government work for? The United States people. It was our founding fathers' intention to give the power of the government to the people (democracy...huuuuuuur). Yes, I know we aren't a democracy, we are a Republic
Yeah, the definition of democracy has changed. America was built as a republic, a representative democracy, whatever you want to call it. Most people quote Jefferson as saying he was against democracy, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” But he said that in the classical sense of the word democracy.

The more you know.

Well, I'm out of valid arguments to support my stance on this issue. It's difficult being the minority opinion, isn't it?
It's not because you're the minority. Perhaps you should reevaluate this with a more open mind and come back later. Start with the facts and logic, and make your opinion from them. Do not weed out what you want to hear and suppress what you don't to stand with your previous moral evaluation.

Also, I don't watch the news, it's a garbage. Everyone with half a brain knows that.
Except the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Well, especially the Colbert Report. Most trustworthy news source around.

Well, the people defending the War in Iraq probably haven't had to think a day in their lives, so it's not entirely their fault. I mean, why think when you can have your Parents/Church/Government think for you?
I let Reason Magazine, Richard Dawkins, and post-1940's Milton Friedman think for me. They're usually right, anyway.

[Kamunt]

All right, I've said stupid stuff to make people attack me!! Good to see I'm still normal. I'm going to stop trying to defend myself so much and just give in, since it seems the more and more I shout from up here on my pedestal, the more and more in-the-clouds my head seems to get. Better watch for those thunderheads approaching...

...are you sure you had any to begin with?
Meh. The feeling comes and goes. I'd respond to more of your responses, but I clearly don't have access to enough data to do this. My logic is a bit fuzzed right now, anyways, since in all honesty, I've stopped following the 'war' so much in the past year-ish. Not like I don't know at ALL what's happening, though. But, is it true that Bush is actually criticizing the Iraqi government in not working hard enough to properly train its military, or something to that end? This is the latest I've heard.

I particularly like this line, because there is demonstrably a conservative (read: republican) bias to the media rather than a liberal bias. The republicans -love- to point to "The liberal leftist media" but you can do (and there have been done) objective and exhaustive studies on media portrayal of political parties in the US, and quite objectively, more news says more things about why the conservative republicans are good or the liberal democrats are bad than vice versa. Claiming "Liberal bias" in the media is simply not the case in the United States.
:( Really? That's so weird, I watch a lot of the news, and I really haven't noticed this. It's obviously not apparent from what I've been posting in this thread, but I'm an insightful person. I don't just accept what's thrown at me as the truth, and in all honesty, I hate a lot of Republicans just in general... CNN, ABC, Fox, Fox News, NBC...I'm not oblivious about this, too, am I?... :?

Every bit of credibility that you had left was destroyed the second I read that.

Whether it is true or not is another debate, but the parroting back of such obvious Conservative propaganda as if it served to prove a point just reeks of idiocy.
:< D'oh. I'm not a conservative, I swear. >.> I didn't feel at all idiotic keying that line out. It's really what I've noticed, though it wasn't something I want to admit for a long time. Think about it, every time you watch the news, it's seemingly always filled with really depressing stuff, like the latest convicted rapist, or how this year is already the bloodiest year in the Iraq conflict so far. That's probably one big reason why I love getting my news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, because it's upbeat and hilarious, not necessarily lampooning any one side all the time. Das good teley.

Democrat? Negative connotation?
Namely, that I support fags having rights and killing babies and going against the will of God in general. That I'm lazy, that I "don't really do anything in Congress", don't finish what I start. That connotation. :/

Try explaining that you're more conservative than democratic, esp. in NJ amongst high schoolers (I am a libertarian, but if I had to choose on the one dimensional political spectrum, I am more conservative). Simple: you don't. You say you're a libertarian and, when they ask (it's inevitable), explain that libertarianism emphasizes personal and economic freedoms. You listen as the person you talk to says, "Oh, I do too!" Then you roll your eyes.
Nice. I would have to assume that this knowledge comes from personal experience?

Bush is not a republican. He is a big government, deficit spending evangelist. There hasn't been a republican in office after Reagan, which is unfortunate because he, for the most part, set a good example for the republican party. George Bush criticized Reagan's ideas on terrorism. In late 1983, he had troops deployed troops in Lebanon along with Israel, but Israel started pulling out. Later a major barracks bombing took place. He stood his ground at the time. But in early 1984, less than 6 months later, he finally went, "**** it, these guys are nuts." He pulled troops out of Beirut right away and started pulling them out of Lebanon. Greatest move in foreign policy in the last 25 years, no?
I love this, though I'm not completely sure why. That seems so true, yet it's so odd that I've never even thought of that before. Republicans, or rather, conservatives in general, dislike big government powers, don't they? Gah. It's times like these that make me wish I'd retained more from Government class... As for the rest of that paragraph, I recalled a very hilarious SuperNews cartoon regarding the "first Republican presidential candidate debate of 2008" while reading it. Reagen came up a lot, let me just say that.

Yeah, the definition of democracy has changed. America was built as a republic, a representative democracy, whatever you want to call it. Most people quote Jefferson as saying he was against democracy, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” But he said that in the classical sense of the word democracy.

The more you know.
I actually don't believe I've heard of this before, but I can easily believe that Jefferson did say that. The more I know, indeed.

It's not because you're the minority. Perhaps you should reevaluate this with a more open mind and come back later. Start with the facts and logic, and make your opinion from them. Do not weed out what you want to hear and suppress what you don't to stand with your previous moral evaluation.
:( I have a very open mind, thank you. Again, it may not seem like it, but I've read very carefully everything that's been said so far in this thread. I feel like a retard, naturally, since it's obvious that I wasn't thinking hard enough while smacking my keyboard to type out those previous 'replies'. Or, maybe I'm just making excuses now....*face-in-hand* I don't even know. :|

Except the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Well, especially the Colbert Report. Most trustworthy news source around.
Words to live your life by. 8-) Three cheers for Comedy Central, producing something actually good for society.

[lord_carbo]

Reagen came up a lot, let me just say that.
Reagan is the average republican's role model.

Republicans, or rather, conservatives in general, dislike big government powers, don't they?
Yes. But not neoconservatives like Bush and Fox News.

Nice. I would have to assume that this knowledge comes from personal experience?

Yes. Two things: youth often are unclear on their own beliefs regarding the economy because they are often not a part of it. And secondly, some don't think "right to own a gun" as a freedom off the bat, rather, just homosexuality and that stuff. I asked if that person was for universal health care and gun control. Answered yes to both.

Being in support of freedom just sounds really good. Who wants to say they're anti-freedom?

[Kilroy_x]

But, is it true that Bush is actually criticizing the Iraqi government in not working hard enough to properly train its military, or something to that end? This is the latest I've heard.

As of several years ago, yes. Our administration complained about the ineffectiveness of Iraqi military and security forces training and how only one out of about 9 initial groups was nearing operational status. I sort of wonder if progress has even occurred since then though, actually.

[Kamunt]

Reagan is the average republican's role model.
This, I figured out pretty easily. I suppose it's pretty understandable.

Yes. But not neoconservatives like Bush and Fox News.
This, I also figured out pretty easily. :roll: I suppose there's a reason why other Republicans are really beginning(?!) to dislike Bush.

Being in support of freedom just sounds really good. Who wants to say they're anti-freedom?
Heh. I forget where exactly, but I definitely remember reading a quote from Dubya himself saying, "There should be limits on freedoms." Of course, I'm sure it was taken completely out of context, and plus this is Bush we're talking about here. EDIT: Not, of course, that I'm implying anything or nothing. >_<

EDIT 2: Woah, duple-edit.
As of several years ago, yes. Our administration complained about the ineffectiveness of Iraqi military and security forces training and how only one out of about 9 initial groups was nearing operational status. I sort of wonder if progress has even occurred since then though, actually.
...You know, it's funny, now that you mention this, I actually do think I'd heard about this awhile back. :? I may just do a bit of looking into this the next time I'm free of homework (read: never).

[Relambrien]

President Bush made a speech tonight on the current status of Iraq and his plans for the future. Here's a transcript of the speech for your debating pleasure (taken, ironically, from a Fox News website)


Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.

We are now at such a moment.

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq's government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq's young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. Finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al-Qaida. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al-Qaida, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al-Qaida once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America's support. They pledged they would never allow al-Qaida to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: "Our tomorrow starts today."

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al-Qaida that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheiks who helped lead the revolt against al-Qaida was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: "We are determined to strike back and continue our work." And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.

Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago, much of Diyala province was a sanctuary for al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al-Qaida stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq's national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq's military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.

Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.

And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

General Petraeus also recommends that in December, we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus's recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is `return on success.' The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al-Qaida a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror and that will make us safer here at home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al-Qaida could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al-Qaida, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.

To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the international compact to revitalize Iraq's economy, by participating in the neighbors conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the frontlines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year, I received an e-mail from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: `We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.'

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al-Qaida. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.


A Rhode Island Senator represented the Democrats and made a response. I'll try and find it as well.

[jewpinthethird]

I tried making a drinking game out of the speech...you know, do a shot of whiskey every time the president said the words: freedom, WMD, al Qaeda, Terroris(t)(m), Iran, etc., but my liver quit halfway through the speech.

The democrat response was typical too...and by they I mean, it's the same crap that's been going on for 6 years. Nothing new. Iraq still sucks. Good things are happening, but the President admits that the war in Iraq (separate from the War on Terror) is a war that will not end on his term. Then he goes on to blame the Iraqi government for not doing it's job. So, we invaded a country, forced democracy upon them, things ain't working...and somehow it's the Iraqi government's fault.

I also like how he blurred al-Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq as if they are one and the same. They aren't, we are still fighting in Afghanistan.

ps. Lulz at the letter.