Get the troops out of the Middle East!

[Go_Oilers_Go]

I just very recently watched The Kingdom and I felt that it raised some very interesting points. The States have been involved in the Middle East for a very long time. While the States may feel that because it is the most powerful country in the world it has the right to get involved in the affairs of other nations, these other nations may have extremists who do not want the infidels infiltrating their lands. I do admit that the States have done some good things in the Middle East, but terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda will never rest as long as the States remain involved in the Middle East. I strongly feel that the terrorists do have the resources to eventually launch another terrorist attack on American soil if the troops (as well as all other Americans) do not get out ASAP. As much as it pains me to say this, we must leave the Middle East to its own devices. The States cannot shape the world the way they want it to be, as has been proven in both Vietnam and Korea. Therefore, we must let the Middle East settle its own affairs (although it will likely involve much bloodshed). Something will eventually arise from the chaos in the Middle East and take control, but the States are preventing that from happening. And the States/other nations should get out because the events in the Middle East do not threaten them directly. However, our presence in the Middle East directs a threat at us as demonstrated by the events of 9/11 which in the view of Al-Qaeda technically was not an unprovoked attack.

[hayatewillown]

My dads out in Iraq.
He says that the troops should not pull out.

Why don't you ask the troops?

Fools, Sure, the army would probably say it, but my dad has asked the opinions of the marines and corpsmen that he works with and they say that they want to fight for their country and help the middle east.

Yeah, lets leave, but remember this, because if we do pull out, that little government that we are trying to reestablish in the middle east is going to fall apart in the next month.

DO NOT TAKE IT FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT DO NOT CONTROL THE MILITARY, TAKE IT FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE TROOPS THEMSELVES.

And this message wasn't completely meant towards you, if it seemed like I was flaming, I wasn't, I'm simply expressing my freedom of speech and showing my opinion on whether we should pull out or not.

[ AND for future reference, this war is nothing about oil, it's simply a benefit we can gain if we help ]

[MixMasterLar]

The way Bush is handling the war, we might as well get out.

He's pissing around untill get gets out of office, then another predsident will take them out

[sexyinpink]

nope, its about oil, bush's oil business is drying up and so is his daddy's, thats why he went in

[arsonistsgetallthegirls]

We should have never started the war to begin with.
Now that were there, the best thing to do is to finish what we started as to not make all our efforts in vain.

edit: you guys do know this is a war against Islamo-Fascism right?
oil is just a "benefit" that "just so happens to be in the area"

[gnr61]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (6 members and 2 guests)
gnr61, arsonistsgetallthegirls, Kilroy_x, Masterofpirates, Master_of_the_Faster, sexyinpink

Fix this.

[Relambrien]

The war in Iraq was pretty much a lose-lose situation as soon as it became apparent that it would be nearly impossible to establish a stable democratic government there capable of running and defending its own country.

If we pull out, the government falls apart, civil war erupts, other countries come in and everyone loses.

If we stay, we'll be in there for decades fighting off insurgents and enemies that are replaced as soon as they're killed, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars and pushing us deeper into debt. And then, thirty years from now when the government actually begins to work, we'll pull out and begin to suffer the consequences of thirty years of occupation. If WWIII hasn't erupted by then, that is.

[devonin]

Fools, Sure, the army would probably say it, but my dad has asked the opinions of the marines and corpsmen that he works with and they say that they want to fight for their country and help the middle east. What they are doing in Iraq is neither fighting for America, or being especially helpful to the middle east. No democratic government elected in Iraq is going to hold power for any length of time after America finally leaves, unless America maintains a permanant presence there, or the Iraqi government is exactly as heavy handed as the previous regime.

You can't impose a western style democracy on a highly partisan, largely tribal society. This isn't a place where the second most popular party forms the opposition and lively debate is had before decisions are made, this is a place where the second most popular party is in a state of revolt from the get go.

Yeah, lets leave, but remember this, because if we do pull out, that little government that we are trying to reestablish in the middle east is going to fall apart in the next monthWhich should tell you more about the plan to put the government in power in the first place than it does about continued American military presence there.

AND for future reference, this war is nothing about oil, it's simply a benefit we can gain if we help

nope, its about oil,

oil is just a "benefit" that "just so happens to be in the area"


No matter what you want to say it was about, under no circumstances could it have been about oil starting about two months into the military action. They've spent a sufficient amount of money now on this invasion that it would take them somewhere around 60 years of solid resource exploitation to come -close- to breaking even on this. It has nothing to do with oil now, if it ever did, because they won't make remotely enough money from the oil to justify it. Now its about stubbornness, arrogance and exercising rule by fiat.

Now that were there, the best thing to do is to finish what we started as to not make all our efforts in vain. Hate to break it to you, but I'm hard pressed to think of a single solitary possible outcome of the invasion of Iraq that would even -start- to make the sheer number of dollars and lives that have been thrown into this not be in vain.

[Kilroy_x]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (6 members and 2 guests)
gnr61, arsonistsgetallthegirls, Kilroy_x, Masterofpirates, Master_of_the_Faster, sexyinpink

Fix this.

Fix what? Am I the Sisyphus of internet discourse now? sigh...

I do admit that the States have done some good things in the Middle East, but terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda will never rest as long as the States remain involved in the Middle East.

This might be attributed to a territorial imperative of sorts. Of course stating this doesn't really contribute anything to the thread, but whatever.

I strongly feel that the terrorists do have the resources to eventually launch another terrorist attack on American soil if the troops (as well as all other Americans) do not get out ASAP.

Here we have something interesting. American military presence in the middle east is clearly imperialistic and coercive; but the mere presence of Americans? Now based on political and religious beliefs and ideology it is possible that terrorists might consider the presence of individual American's to be a violation of something or other, but this brings up the critical question of whose terms we address issues on.

As much as it pains me to say this, we must leave the Middle East to its own devices.

What about our Middle Eastern allies like Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc.?

Something will eventually arise from the chaos in the Middle East and take control, but the States are preventing that from happening.

Will this something be acceptable given our alternatives? The something at least in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan will likely be Theocracy, oppression, and genocide.

However, our presence in the Middle East directs a threat at us as demonstrated by the events of 9/11 which in the view of Al-Qaeda technically was not an unprovoked attack.

In the view of Al-Qaeda, yes. We could conceivably find views of any nature though. Ward Churchill famously referred to the victims of the World Trade Center attacks as "little Eichmann's" in the view that they represented capitalist oppression, in much the traditional Marxist sense. This categorization is slightly less than accurate for a number of reasons, but the view exists nonetheless.

What you are using as criticism is valid, but it still needs to respond to some fairly solid counterarguments.

My dads out in Iraq.
He says that the troops should not pull out.

Why don't you ask the troops?

Does your father represent all the troops?

Fools, Sure, the army would probably say it, but my dad has asked the opinions of the marines and corpsmen that he works with and they say that they want to fight for their country and help the middle east.

Do the handful of soldiers your father associates with represent all the troops?

Yeah, lets leave, but remember this, because if we do pull out, that little government that we are trying to reestablish in the middle east is going to fall apart in the next month.

It seems likely at this point that the Iraqi government would be completely unsustainable without long-term US military occupation (as in, a decade or longer as of time of this post). Would you support that kind of occupation?

DO NOT TAKE IT FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT DO NOT CONTROL THE MILITARY, TAKE IT FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE TROOPS THEMSELVES.

Why the President? Commander of the armed forces or not I don't see how he has any special understanding of the desires of the troops.

[ AND for future reference, this war is nothing about oil, it's simply a benefit we can gain if we help ]

...in which case there is something about oil involved, so it's reasonably conceivable this war is something about oil. More importantly a number of things seem to suggest a presence of vultures if not hawks in our present state of affairs. No-bid contracts, for instance. Also the fact that the US turned down offers of assistance from the UN and other nations, in terms of both security and rebuilding. It's possible there are other factors behind these sorts of things, but you would need an additional argument to establish one way or the other.

We should have never started the war to begin with.
Now that were there, the best thing to do is to finish what we started as to not make all our efforts in vain.

How would you propose we finish?

edit: you guys do know this is a war against Islamo-Fascism right?
oil is just a "benefit" that "just so happens to be in the area"

There has been no consistent ideological motivation for this war. It was originally supposed to have been about self-defense. Then for maybe a week it was supposed to have been about retribution. More recently it has been about "spreading democracy" or some such nonsense. Now it's more or less about "unfu(king what we can before we leave". During these shifts, the most consistent claims about the nature of the war have come from certain critics, who see mainly a profit motive behind it. Maybe their consistency can be attributed solely to dogmatism, or maybe the fact that everyone else has been inconsistent reveals them to be the most honest observers around. Who knows.

If we pull out, the government falls apart, civil war erupts, other countries come in and everyone loses.

Best case scenario at this point is probably that we pull out, Iran moves in, the Kurds successfully establish an independent Kurdistan and the greater portion of Iraq is incorporated into Iran. Hopefully the introduction of stability would prevent further sectarian violence. Then again, it might exacerbate situations since the composition of Shiites to Sunnis in Iran is much the same as in Iraq.

[arsonistsgetallthegirls]

How would you propose we finish?
Exactly why i left that part out. I have no idea what we should do next.
Thats why I'm not a general.
Suppose i did know then i guess that we would need to incapacitate major threats to the US while not starting new fights within the middle east (Iran for instance)

You can't wage war on an idea and expect to win, much less eradicate the idea, or all of it's followers.

No matter what you want to say it was about, under no circumstances could it have been about oil starting about two months into the military action. They've spent a sufficient amount of money now on this invasion that it would take them somewhere around 60 years of solid resource exploitation to come -close- to breaking even on this. It has nothing to do with oil now, if it ever did, because they won't make remotely enough money from the oil to justify it. Now its about stubbornness, arrogance and exercising rule by fiat.

True, I see your point but i still think oil did play a small part in the start,
but thats why i said benefit, not cause.

and i definitely didn't say anything about Bush's ties to oil companies.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

This thread is just asking for flaming. It's not like any new insight can be offered on the situation, especially considering the author of this thread immediately tosses out the credibility of his opinion by telling us his inspiration came from a TV show that can't even be described as loosely based on facts.

As I browse the replies to this post, I see a bunch of people who obviously know nothing about the situation and have only someone else's valid opinion to repeat back to us, except garbled because they don't comprehend it.

The start of The Kingdom is historically factual information. Thus, the makers of the movie provided what they could potentially see as a result of events that are as much as 40 years past.

[Relambrien]

Best case scenario at this point is probably that we pull out, Iran moves in, the Kurds successfully establish an independent Kurdistan and the greater portion of Iraq is incorporated into Iran. Hopefully the introduction of stability would prevent further sectarian violence. Then again, it might exacerbate situations since the composition of Shiites to Sunnis in Iran is much the same as in Iraq.

I agree, and when the best case scenario is something like that, I think it's safe to say "Everyone loses." Except maybe Iran, and the Kurds if they don't lose too much in the establishment of their own country.

[devonin]

As I browse the replies to this post, I see a bunch of people who obviously know nothing about the situation and have only someone else's valid opinion to repeat back to us, except garbled because they don't comprehend it.And you possess the keen and unique insight to know the extent to which our ideas are supposedly incorrect?

Just because being not a member of say, the United States Intelligence Services, we lack the complete facts of the situation, doesn't mean that those of us with an interest in foreign affairs can't take advantage of the Freedom of Information Act to have a reasonably educated opinion on the situation.

While I don't believe anybody here can claim to be an authority, I still feel confident in rejecting your claim that "We all know nothing"

[jecht3009046]

Whoever said we're there only for oil needs to actually read an article or two of ANYTHING about the war.
It's ignorant to say that our troops are there for one specific reason. Sure oil is one of them, and as hayatewillown said, if we pull out now, they're current gov't in progress will succumb to either a civil war or invasion from surrounding countries. We are there for a good cause, believe it or not, but I won't say that we aren't there for bad reasons too. It's almost certainly true that we are staying in there in such a manner in order to gain some form of monopoly over their oil supply, but it's wrong to assume that's the only reason we're there.
On another note, there was, as it has been said on various occasions, some relation between Bush's family and a cousin, or close relative of Osama Bin Laden, which may or may not account for the fact that the chase for him ended.
Anyways, America's troops are there for likely both good and bad reasons. As for how the troops feel, let them speak for themselves. From news coverage, it seems as though they feel they are doing the right thing (yes, I understand that the news may be corrupted, but the fact still remains that some feel they should be there). Whether or not American troops should be there could be asked in a question similar to, "Would we rather lose 100 American soldiers, or 1000 innocent civilians from the Middle East?" Being innately selfish, many might say that it is none of our business what goes on over there, and that we might as well stay here, but that's perfect for those people, seeing as they aren't the ones who are over there fighting for other's freedom. Those who believe that 1000 innocent civilians are more important than their life are the people who are over there right now fighting for what they believe. I personally think that, considering how sticky this whole issue is, that our dumb-nut president has been doing an alright job. I don't support him on much anything else, nor would I have made the same decisions about the war, but no decision in this case is an easy one.
Really, only time will tell whether or not our soldiers are there for a good reason.

[Engler]

My dads out in Iraq.
He says that the troops should not pull out.

Why don't you ask the troops?

Fools, Sure, the army would probably say it, but my dad has asked the opinions of the marines and corpsmen that he works with and they say that they want to fight for their country and help the middle east.

Yeah, lets leave, but remember this, because if we do pull out, that little government that we are trying to reestablish in the middle east is going to fall apart in the next month.

DO NOT TAKE IT FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT DO NOT CONTROL THE MILITARY, TAKE IT FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE TROOPS THEMSELVES.

And this message wasn't completely meant towards you, if it seemed like I was flaming, I wasn't, I'm simply expressing my freedom of speech and showing my opinion on whether we should pull out or not.

[ AND for future reference, this war is nothing about oil, it's simply a benefit we can gain if we help ]

I couldn't agree with you more.

[devonin]

I couldn't agree with you more.

Why?

[Snowcrafta]

hey guys

bush is awesome

[Kilroy_x]

...

hey guys

bush is awesome

Why?

[jewpinthethird]

Okay, so let's say Iraq and 9/11 are related somehow (they aren't, but humor me).

2974 civilians died as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

An estimated 75,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our War in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan....you know, where al-Qaeda is...the one's who orchestrated the attack?)

But who cares, right? They're only Iraqis. I mean, anything to preserve our Western materialistic consumer-whore way of life. I don't care how many Muslims die as long as I get to drive my Hummer with the heater blasting and the windows down in the dead of winter through the quiet suburbs of whitebread america to the nearest drive-thru Starbucks to get a motherf*cking latté.

Who's with me? Go America! Go Capitalism! Profit by any means necessary. Crush the weak. Economic and civil Darwinism at its finest.

[Go_Oilers_Go]

Okay, so let's say Iraq and 9/11 are related somehow (they aren't, but humor me).

2974 civilians died as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

An estimated 75,000 Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our War in Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan....you know, where al-Qaeda is...the one's who orchestrated the attack?)

But who cares, right? They're only Iraqis. I mean, anything to preserve our Western materialistic consumer-whore way of life. I don't care how many Muslims die as long as I get to drive my Hummer with the heater blasting and the windows down in the dead of winter through the quiet suburbs of whitebread america to the nearest drive-thru Starbucks to get a motherf*cking latté.

Who's with me? Go America! Go Capitalism! Profit by any means necessary. Crush the weak. Economic and civil Darwinism at its finest.

I wonder if anyone didn't detect the sarcasm there.

[lord_carbo]

Go Capitalism!
Capitalism != government corruption and corporatism.

Congratulations, you have made the exact same mistake thousands of other anti-capitalism people make. Certainly MORE GOVERNMENT is our solution to an out-of-control government, no?

Then again, it's hard to tell with you. I have the feeling you're just being a half-assed polemic.

[soulmark]

If you were to view the movie "Control Room", you would see how some Iraquis feel about our ability to change a country that has been warring over 6,000 years. How can our 200 year old culture change what is going on in a culture that we don't even understand?

The United States cannot even solve it's own complex issues with sound bites. How then is it possible, while not even understanding the middle east in it's greater complexity, to create a stable and working government there.
The United States population is roughly divided in its political views. How do the movers and shakers expect iraq to somehow become a social political monolith?

[Maid]

If you were to view the movie "Control Room", you would see how some Iraquis feel about our ability to change a country that has been warring over 6,000 years. How can our 200 year old culture change what is going on in a culture that we don't even understand?

The United States cannot even solve it's own complex issues with sound bites. How then is it possible, while not even understanding the middle east in it's greater complexity, to create a stable and working government there.
The United States population is roughly divided in its political views. How do the movers and shakers expect iraq to somehow become a social political monolith?

It's simple. It won't.