|
|
#21 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
I am talking about the Taliban who were forbeably removed from the Middle East during the Gulf War. They would most likely return if we deserted the Middle East. However, given the longevity that they've been gone for their philosophies may have changed along with their purpose for being.
I agree, the occupation of Iraq is making them hostile, but leaving wouldn't help until they're stabilized. Again, if we leave we will have no intelligence there. With no intelligence they'll be able to freely gather and plot an attack on America. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Even if the Taliban and the United States did see eye to eye about it as you claim, it was only because of the post Cold War feelings of communism and the Red Scare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Um...so you just admitted that you were incorrect? Good of you. Moving right along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
That was a pointless post. Yes, i admitted I was wrong. Next perspective?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Well it's just that you phrased it as though you were still making a seperate point like "Yeah, that's as well as may be, but what about THIS!" except your 'this' didn't actually say anything seperate from what we already said, so I expressed my confusion.
Perhaps you can give me some non-taliban related reasons why leaving Iraq is a horrible bad idea? |
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Zythus' Rule. You Lose.
(Lol, since there isn't a wikipedia establish rule about mentioning Bush and Iraq fiasco on electronic communication, I took the liberty to make my own rule on par with Godwin's rule. Nor is this the first time bush and Iraq has been mentioned in any of the CT threads, its becoming like Hiter. Eh Devonin?) Anyhow, I fail to have any contribution to this thread besides establishing a revolutionary new rule. I guess mainly because I'm not hyped about the whole US election. Now I shall go write an article on wikipedia. ...Yeah....Shut Up... |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Eh, I'm okay with the focus of the discussion developing as the thread goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Quote:
Well, in my opinion, if America leaves Iraq it would collapse. The government it has now is fragile and new, so it's unstable as is. At least with American occupation we can make it moderately safer than without us. But that's not my main argument. My point is... I can only really describe it in an example. A group of people decide now the America is gone from their home land they will attack now to avenge their fallen fathers in the Gulf War. So they do. They gain nucleur weapons and wipe out the entire continent. All because America left Iraq and wasn't watching them as closely as they were before. Do you see my point of view now? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think that the mere idea that a -nation- entity is going to attack another one with nuclear weapons given the mutually assured destruction that would face any country that tried it is pretty ridiculous in the current political climate.
And since it is going to be a non-governmental organisation that would ever try it, the presence of Americans in Iraq isn't going to make any difference, they'd just buy their weapons from another country entirely. US Can't be in -every- country at once to make sure nobody is planning anything. The last attack was carried out by egyptians and saudi arabians with afghani support. Iraq doesn't seem to be the problem there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Like I said, it was an analogy. Shoot down the original theory, not the analogy. Pulling America out of iraq when it's too 'emotionally' unstable could and probably would be detrimental to the world's warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
It was plenty stable before they went in, and they destablized it. While I'm all in favour of making people clean up their own messes, they are making things worse and not better.
They should withdraw, and ask the UN to send in a peacekeeping force to maintain order. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
If you think being stabilized is having a murderous dictator running the country through genocide and terror then yes, Iraq was the most stable country on the face of the planet. Hell, so was Germany when Hitler ran it based on that version of stability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 346
|
Godwin's law + Zythus' law. You lose epically.
It is evident that Us prescence in Iraq is a huge disturbance, yet when withdrawn, I would think that Iraq will fall deeper into pandemonium. With no truly fortified government entwined with the whole clash of which sect of religion should gain supremacy, US leaving may leave crimson consequences. I think I do not need to remind you that Middle Easterns take their religion serious enough to initiate "divine judgment" saying it be the will of god. Iraq is a nation that will collapse into itself if it loses its framework, its a tad unfortunate that US became an element of this framework in the first place. (Vaguely, I recall reading articles that says some religious extremeists stand by traffic lights and used machetes to cut off women's arms if they weren't veiled.) Last edited by Zythus; 04-6-2008 at 02:09 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
Again, I completely agree with you and have no objections to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
See here's the thing though: The middle east has been forced to stay static by the west this whole time. It's a subcontinent running like it's still the colonial heydey of the late 19th century. Lines on a map forced on tribal cultures that don't line up with that map at all.
WHat needs to happen is a little chaos and instability. It's inevitable, and the longer it is resisted, the worse it will be. Iraq as a "country" isn't a country. It is functionally three countries, a suni, a shi'a and a kurdish country forced to live together now under an american style democracy. You can't elect a leader when your country should be three seperate and distinct countries. Did you know that the Kurds in Iraq/surrounding area are the single largest ethnic group ON EARTH that doesn't have their own country somewhere? There are 30 MILLION Kurds in that area, made to forcibly integrate into Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan etc etc. Saddam was a dictator yes, but a dictator has -always- been needed to keep multiple cultures being forced to cohabitate in line. Remove the dictator, and there is NO way you can slide a democracy in there and expect it to work. It is simply impossible. So the US can either do what it has done MANY times in the past, and install a dictator that seems friendly to the US (Surprise surprise, both Osama bin Laden -and- Saddam Hussein were such people. Put into power and armed by the US because they were a friendly alternative) or they can leave, and let the political landscape of the area finally get to sort itself out for once without foreign interference, or they can continue to occupy FOREVER, because if they want to insist on a democracy in the existing borders of Iraq, they will NEVER be able to leave. Last edited by devonin; 04-6-2008 at 02:39 AM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
True, the longer America occupies Iraq the more hostile it will get. But at the same time; leaving now would make it screwed up. It would be like letting the guards out of a prison. Who's to say there wouldn't be an uprising?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Did you read my post? An uprising is 100% absolutely inevitable unless the US stays there FOREVER. In fact an uprising is a GOOD thing, because a newly independant Kurdistan would be much more a friend to the west than any of the nations that would lose land and people to it. The status quo in the middle east is no longer viable because the US is slowly losing military, economic and cultural hegemony in the world, and oil is going to slowly move away from being the major commodity of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
So we're agreed that America shouldn't leave Iraq?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Um...no, not even a teeny tiny bit.
The US should never have been there, and barring time travel to fix it, should leave NOW. The enforced status quo that the US has built in the middle east IS going to collapse, there is no way around it unless the US wants to actually invade and occupy basically the entire middle east. Since the collapse is inevitable, the US would be far better served simply leaving now while they can pretend to salvage some pride, because the alternative is a bad bad thing for America. They will be forced out, via whatever means are necessary. That's where your big scary consequences come in: Attacks on the Americans that are there and refuse to leave will happen WELL before attacks on America -because- they left. The only remotely sustainable courses of action you can support that make any kind of logical sense are: 1) The US gets out now, and apologises to the UN for screwing up horribly and asks for help dealing with their mess 2) The US withdraws from the UN and invades at -least- Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Jordan, probably Kuwait too and tries to set up an american colonial system The only real alternative besides this is pretending that just a few more years will magically "fix" Iraq, demonstrating once and for all the complete and utter ignorance that the West has of how middle eastern culture even works. The level of sectarian violence will increase as the factions try to each take control of a sufficiently legitimate looking government for the US to call it a job well done and leave them to resume their dictatorship while popular opinion continues to mount against the US as a hostile occupying force. Eventually nations in the UN are going to start agitating for sanctions against the US, which will cause the US to use its veto powers, bringing to a head a major conflict of US versus the World that has been brewing pretty much ever since the collapse of the soviet union. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|