Iraqi soldiers: "When America leaves we'll quit"

[Annies_Beaver]

[ QUOTE ]
My real question for anti-war people (honest question, I really want to get people's take on this) is do we have the obligation to "enlighten" the rest of the world, sometimes by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't group people into "pro-war" and "anti-war." It don't work that way. I'm against this latest Iraq War but I was for the first Iraq War. I'm for wars that are justifiable and well-prosecuted and against wars that are waged under false pretenses with no plan for victory.

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't group people into "pro-war" and "anti-war." It don't work that way.

[/ QUOTE ]But they do it on tee vee all the time...

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My real question for anti-war people (honest question, I really want to get people's take on this) is do we have the obligation to "enlighten" the rest of the world, sometimes by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't group people into "pro-war" and "anti-war." It don't work that way. I'm against this latest Iraq War but I was for the first Iraq War. I'm for wars that are justifiable and well-prosecuted and against wars that are waged under false pretenses with no plan for victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

My fault really, I meant Anti-Iraq-war, was clear in my head, forgot to elaborate. Forgiveness Prease.

Cody

[Bobbo539]

[ QUOTE ]


Reading this and thinking about the lies told by our President makes me physically ill.

[/ QUOTE ]

The President did not lie, it was widely believed worldwide that Saddam had nuclear weapons, President Clinton even remarked that Iraq had nuclear weapons in his 1998 State of the Union address. Saddam did have WMD's (but it was assumed Bush was referring to Nuclear Weapons when he talked of WMD's). Even then, there is no proof Saddam didn't get rid of his nuclear programs, as there was a lot of uranium and mustard gas gone unaccounted for. If thats the "lie" you are referring to, then you need to look up the definition of lie.

The bottom line is the US went into Iraq for a number of reasons:
1- to assure our safety (If Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons then this is weakened, but there has been terrorist activity in Iraq).
2- To free Iraqi's and let turn them into a democracy. Like the war or not, Saddam is responsible for at least 200,000 civilian deaths within his own country, and the Iran - Iraq war which was started for no reason other than annexation of a nation killed over a million.
3- To set the example that oppressive states that kill their own citicens and violate UN resolutions will not be tollerated.
4- To concentrate and fight opponents of Democracy in one place. If Iraq is able to set up a stable iberal democracy with a free market in the next 5, 10, 20 years, it could be the start of a dominoe effect in the region. If not, then it will be nearly impossible to create a democracy in many of these countries ruled by Islamofacists. If Iraq (and also Afghanistan) is able to prosper relative to other countries in the region, more countries mights start to turn to democracy over time. With this assumption, many Islamofacists, anti US radicals, terrorists, etc are fighting the United States in one frontier: Iraq.

You can argue that the costs of the Iraq war (human, money, "image", etc) do not outweigh the benefits of the war, but to say Bush started the war in bad faith and lied the US into war is wrong. Nobody has given any evidence of any such lie.

[MidGe]

For a couple of people that in the last two weeks revised their position entirely, saying that they could not predict the future and hence give a timetable for leaving Iraq, it riles me that the same two guys can be so adamant that a dems win would equate with a terrorist win!

Seems they can see into the future, or at least make the claim, when it suits them!

Regardless of all the lying to get us into the war, i also remember the famous fly-in to the a/c carrier, with a mission accomplished messages!

Those two dudes are a menace to humanity, as well as being accomplished demagogues and liars.

I wonder by how much has Cheney fortune and associated interests, increased in value since the start of the war. That is what the lifes of courageous young soldiers are being sacrificed for.

Oh, by the way my country, much to my shame is part of the original coalition of the willing. I guess, I was lied to by my government too, a government that later acknowledged they were misled by US intelligence [read gullibility or Machiavellism of your president].

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
The President did not lie, it was widely believed worldwide that Saddam had nuclear weapons.

[/ QUOTE ] When you don't lie but it simply turns out you were wrong, you admit you were wrong. George W Bush has NEVER admitted anything went wrong with Iraq. And that goes not just for the alleged objective, but also on the strategy, the planning, the execution and the tactics.

The latter, as you notice, are never wrong. They just change. Way to go.

[ QUOTE ]
President Clinton remarked that Iraq had nuclear weapons in his 1998 State of the Union address.

[/ QUOTE ]President Clinton did not set out to wage a unilateral and foolish war. That's a difference.

[ QUOTE ]
The US went into Iraq for a number of reasons:
1- to assure our safety (If Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons then this is weakened, but there has been terrorist activity in Iraq).

[/ QUOTE ]There has been no terrorist activity to speak of which was directed against the United States coming out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Saddam supported guerrillas, terrorists and politicians who operated for Palestinian resistance and against Israel. I trust you see the two as different.

As you safety, it can be argued that the invasion of Iraq worsened the overall safety of the region and the western world.

[ QUOTE ]
2- To free Iraqi's and let turn them into a democracy. Like the war or not, Saddam is responsible for at least 200,000 civilian deaths within his own country, and the Iran - Iraq war which was started for no reason other than annexation of a nation killed over a million.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you forgetting that in the Iraq-Iran war, Saddam was supported by the West? And that includes the U.S.

But we were OK when Saddam was simply persecuting only the "Left" opposition in his country. (Saddam's Ba'athist "ideology" is secular and extreme nationalistic, very much like the Turks' Kemalism.) Weren't we?

[ QUOTE ]
3- To set the example that oppressive states that kill their own citizens and violate UN resolutions will not be tolerated.

[/ QUOTE ] Give me a break. This can't be serious. The truth is, If it ain't got oil, we're not interested.

[ QUOTE ]
4- To concentrate and fight opponents of Democracy in one place. If Iraq is able to set up a stable liberal democracy with a free market in the next 5, 10, 20 years, it could be the start of a domino effect in the region.

[/ QUOTE ]This is the (debunked) domino effect in reverse. The truth of the matter (and the Bush administration has been repeatedly warned about it) is that democracy might be a very, very tough concept to sell to the Middle East countries.

But is democracy ultimately good for the interests of the United States? The results are already in, as they say, in various Middle Eastern countries, with varying degrees of "liberalism" in their democratic regime: In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood marks significant gains. In Algeria, the democratic and secular government was forced, only a few years, to declare martial law in order to prevent extremist Muslims from gaining power through the ballot box. In Iran, the voters elected an even more radical islamist. In Lebanon Hezbollah is on the march. In Iraq, it looks as though the best the United States can hope for is a ...Shia majority. (Let's hope the Shia honcho is honest about being a born-again democrat, right? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) Everywhere we have truly free and unrestricted elections, the Muslims mark gains.

So, clearly <u>the current strategy is NOT working</u>.

For the proper strategy (and tactics) I have said enough already, elsewhere. But I won't bet on it.

Mickey Brausch

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
My real question for anti-[Iraq-]war people is do we have the obligation to "enlighten" the rest of the world, sometimes by force.

[/ QUOTE ]Nope.

No obligation.

Simply a matter of interests, pure and (brutally) simple, which is what dictates the actions of countries and tribes from time immemorial.

[ QUOTE ]
Hell if we can do it by dropping a McDonalds in their capital, I'm all for that too

[/ QUOTE ]You're on to something much bigger than you probably intended with this joke. Cultural imperialism is stronger and more lasting than just a military occupation. History shows this quite clearly.

Mickey Brausch

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Reading this and thinking about the lies told by our President makes me physically ill.

[/ QUOTE ]

The President did not lie, it was widely believed worldwide that Saddam had nuclear weapons, President Clinton even remarked that Iraq had nuclear weapons in his 1998 State of the Union address. Saddam did have WMD's (but it was assumed Bush was referring to Nuclear Weapons when he talked of WMD's). Even then, there is no proof Saddam didn't get rid of his nuclear programs, as there was a lot of uranium and mustard gas gone unaccounted for. If thats the "lie" you are referring to, then you need to look up the definition of lie.


[/ QUOTE ]

The style of this post looks very familiar......Yawn.

Do we all now get one guess as to who 'Bobbo539' really is?

[No_Skillz_]

[ QUOTE ]

3- To set the example that oppressive states that kill their own citicens and violate UN resolutions will not be tollerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

USA does kill their own citicens and violate UN resolutions. Do you think that the rest of the world should attack USA because of that?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-10.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/listbyyear.do
(Ps. http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html Damn I hate USA politics)

[govman6767]

This thread went way off topic.

Can't you people read the soldiers words and understand.