Thread for Opponents of Iraq War: "Why"?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people constantly state that "our reasons for going to war were flawed, therefore we should pull the troops out"?

At this point, how we got there is largely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that we are there. What should be the issue at hand is what is best for the iraqi people and our troops.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't think trying to save Iraq is worth 2.5 billion a week to anyone other than the contractors.

2. I think the bulk of the troops would prefer to be at home permanently, rather than being home for 6 months between 15 month tours in Iraq.

3. If we are going to stay, we should invoke the draft so that we have enough troops so that their tour is 12 months with 24 months at home between tours.

My father got 3 1/2 years between tours in Vietnam.

[John Kilduff]

Old dogg,

You are making the very same sort of assertions we hear from the Neo-Cons. The missing element is a rational, detached analysis of prospects for success or failure in the endeavors you describe.

It's all very well to cite the good things that will happen IF various Iraqi factions reach political accomodation with each other, but ON WHAT BASIS should that be considered feasible and likely to occur?

It's all very well to describe how good it will be IF Iraq can be transformed into a free democratic state, but ON WHAT BASIS is that to be considered likely to occur if the U.S. stays in Iraq?

If these questions cannot be convincingly answered, then the goals being sought are being sought purely on a "wished-for" basis.

The predominant actions of the Iraqi factions appear to belie the notion that the Iraqis desire to reach political accomodation with their rivals.

The actions of the Iraqi government (participation in factional death squad killings, a long vacation during the present crisis) belie the notion that the Iraqi government is interested in stability or accomodation over factional pre-eminence.

The actions of the Iraqi people in general, in their NOT routing the al-Qaeda terrorists themselves by sheer dint of numerical superiority and lack of sympathy for the terrorists, belies the notion that getting rid of al-Qaeda in Iraq is one of the populace's foremost concerns. If the vast majority really and strongly wanted to get rid of the terrorists, they would. The terrorists would have no haven if nearly the entire populace were against them. al-Qaeda terrorists would be slaughtered or ridden out of the country on rails - if the Iraqi populace really cared enough.

Asserting that the war can be won is not an argument. Wishing that the Iraqi factions will unite in political accomodation is not an analysis of the chances of that actually occurring (and their actions and history point in the other direction). Hoping that Iraq will become a free and democratic state has no bearing on the likelihood of that actually occurring. Citing all the bad things that will occur if that does not transpire does not make it more likely to occur. Listing the good things that could happen is not an assessment.

I'd like to hear from you, or the Neo-Cons, or from anyone: actuals reasons why the things you would like to see are likely to occur. So far NOBODY has offered any sound reasons. All they do is point to bad effects or good effects IF this, or IF that...the notion of analyzing what is actually likely to occur seems entirely forgotten and neglected. Yet that is the most important part of the entire picture.

Do you have any sound reasons to suppose that the things you would like to see in Iraq are actually likely to occur if the U.S. stays? If so, what are those reasons?

George Bush hasn't answered that question. Condoleeza Rice hasn't answered that question. Dick Cheney hasn't answrered that question. Joe Lieberman hasn't answered that question. Christopher Hitchens hasn't answered that question. Victor Davis Hansen hasn't answered that question. None of the U.S. generals that have been in Iraq have answered that question. Iraqi government officials haven't answered that question. Can you?

Thanks for reading.

[Moseley]

I am willing to bet that if the U.S. govt were to say we are going to stay for as long as it takes, and that anyone, male/female, under the age of 35 had to register for the draft, and that the govt was going to draft enough people so that nobody had to serve more than 12 months in Iraq between 24 months at home, at lot less people would be in favor of the war.

Oh yea. We don't have enough troops to handle another conflict properly, so we would need to draft enough for that also.

[old dogg]

[ QUOTE ]



Do you have any sound reasons to suppose that the things you would like to see in Iraq are actually likely to occur if the U.S. stays? If so, what are those reasons?




[/ QUOTE ]

Not really sure what it is you are looking for....a guarantee?
There are many compelling reasons why the United States should not precipitously withdraw its military from Iraq. The general chaos and anarchy that would likely result from a U.S. military with*drawal could lead to the collapse of Iraq's govern*ment, dissolution of Iraqi armed forces, a refugee and humanitarian crisis, a middle-class exodus, and—in the worst-case scenario—a regional confla*gration that would require renewed U.S. military intervention in even greater numbers.

A precipitous troop withdrawal would also be a disastrous setback in the war against terrorism. Such a retreat would weaken efforts to contain Iran and likely destabilize the Middle East well beyond Iraq's borders. It would undermine not only U.S. national interests, but also American ideals, such as freedom and democracy.

The United States has a responsibility to leave an Iraq that is in better condition than it was in when Saddam's regime was toppled. Iraqis must be given a chance to build a stable, secure nation that respects its own citizens and does not threaten its neighbors. Only a free and democratic Iraq will become a long-term military ally and economic partner for the United States.

U.S. Agency for International Development personnel and democracy-promotion non-governmental organizations are risking their lives to promote good gov*ernance, the rule of law, and human rights in offices and military bases located throughout Iraq. U.S. forces should be permitted to provide the security umbrella necessary for these efforts to succeed. Abandoning the Iraqis in their time of need would condemn them to a life of chaos and could spawn another Saddam-type authoritarian government— or worse.

I can't tell you the things I would like see happen will happen. All I can tell you is if we don't stay they likely won't happen.
My personal belief is...Failure is not an option!

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I don't think trying to save Iraq is worth 2.5 billion a week to anyone other than the contractors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source of statistic?

Also, I think the Iraqi people would feel it is worth it.

For all the people that think we should pull out of Iraq immediately, what do you think will happen to the country once we leave or do you care?

[John Kilduff]

Thanks for your responses.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Do you have any sound reasons to suppose that the things you would like to see in Iraq are actually likely to occur if the U.S. stays? If so, what are those reasons?




[/ QUOTE ]

Not really sure what it is you are looking for....a guarantee?
There are many compelling reasons why the United States should not precipitously withdraw its military from Iraq. The general chaos and anarchy that would likely result from a U.S. military with*drawal could lead to the collapse of Iraq's govern*ment, dissolution of Iraqi armed forces, a refugee and humanitarian crisis, a middle-class exodus, and—in the worst-case scenario—a regional confla*gration that would require renewed U.S. military intervention in even greater numbers.

A precipitous troop withdrawal would also be a disastrous setback in the war against terrorism. Such a retreat would weaken efforts to contain Iran and likely destabilize the Middle East well beyond Iraq's borders. It would undermine not only U.S. national interests, but also American ideals, such as freedom and democracy.

The United States has a responsibility to leave an Iraq that is in better condition than it was in when Saddam's regime was toppled. Iraqis must be given a chance to build a stable, secure nation that respects its own citizens and does not threaten its neighbors. Only a free and democratic Iraq will become a long-term military ally and economic partner for the United States.

U.S. Agency for International Development personnel and democracy-promotion non-governmental organizations are risking their lives to promote good gov*ernance, the rule of law, and human rights in offices and military bases located throughout Iraq. U.S. forces should be permitted to provide the security umbrella necessary for these efforts to succeed. Abandoning the Iraqis in their time of need would condemn them to a life of chaos and could spawn another Saddam-type authoritarian government— or worse.

I can't tell you the things I would like see happen will happen. All I can tell you is if we don't stay they likely won't happen.
My personal belief is...Failure is not an option!

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see not a guarantee, but rather a reasoned analysis of why the things you would like to see happen in Iraq, will be at least likely to happen, if the U.S. stays in Iraq.

I take it you can't provide any such reasoned rationale for why these desirable goals will be likely to happen. Apparently, nobody can.

There are many factors pointing to why those things you would like to see happen in Iraq, won't happen. What makes you think they probably will happen?????????????????????????

"Failure is not an option" implies that force of will and persistence can avert failure. What if those traits and actions will not be sufficient to succeed given the circumstances?

Do you believe that faith is an adequate substitute for reason? I want to see reasons why success in Iraq is likely. Nobody can offer them.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. I don't think trying to save Iraq is worth 2.5 billion a week to anyone other than the contractors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source of statistic?

Also, I think the Iraqi people would feel it is worth it.

For all the people that think we should pull out of Iraq immediately, what do you think will happen to the country once we leave or do you care?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been on the news..CNN etc. Bush wants another 50 billion for the surge; the war costs over 2billion a week already.

You know what. I think we should stay. And we should send those Americans over there, who have benefited the most from our free society.

We'll start with those 30-35yrs old, as they have lived longer than those 18-24, they have lived free longer.

Then we'll send those 30-35yr olds, who have accumulated the most wealth, since they stand to gain more from our free society continuing. The stockbrokers and commodities trades would make excellent soldiers. They stand up well under pressure.

So, we start with those 30-35yrs old with the most wealth and work our way down to those just above the middle class level 30-35yrs olds. Then we start with the 25-30 richest etc. etc.

By the time we are done, it may make a dent in equalizing the all the poor fish we sent to Vietnam while the fat cats coked it up in the U.S.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
My personal belief is...Failure is not an option!

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal belief is that you should enlist; get your kids to enlist if you are too old; recruit all your relatives who are eligible. Go knock on your neighbors door and ask them to enlist. Recruit at your local church!

It's time our troops didn't have to spend 15 months at a time in Iraq!

DO SOMETHING rather than type, if you're so hot on saving Iraq.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. I don't think trying to save Iraq is worth 2.5 billion a week to anyone other than the contractors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source of statistic?

Also, I think the Iraqi people would feel it is worth it.

For all the people that think we should pull out of Iraq immediately, what do you think will happen to the country once we leave or do you care?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been on the news..CNN etc. Bush wants another 50 billion for the surge; the war costs over 2billion a week already.

You know what. I think we should stay. And we should send those Americans over there, who have benefited the most from our free society.

We'll start with those 30-35yrs old, as they have lived longer than those 18-24, they have lived free longer.

Then we'll send those 30-35yr olds, who have accumulated the most wealth, since they stand to gain more from our free society continuing. The stockbrokers and commodities trades would make excellent soldiers. They stand up well under pressure.

So, we start with those 30-35yrs old with the most wealth and work our way down to those just above the middle class level 30-35yrs olds. Then we start with the 25-30 richest etc. etc.

By the time we are done, it may make a dent in equalizing the all the poor fish we sent to Vietnam while the fat cats coked it up in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

you didn't answer my question.

Plus I'm too fat to be a soldier now anyway.

[old dogg]

What is your reasoned rationale why they won't happen?

Yes I do believe "will and pesistence" are a main ingredient in assuring success in any venture one undertakes. Without them you may as well just give in to defeat right from the beginning.

Faith ... Thats right I have faith.
Faith in our country.
Faith in our military.
Faith in our people.
Faith that what we are doing is right.
Faith that we will be victorious.

My belief and resolve are steadfast... Failure is not an option!