If we pulled out of Iraq immediately...

[GoodCallYouWin]

"

Save the arguments about the past for the historians. If you want to talk about whether America's current actions are right or wrong, analyze America's actions based on current conditions and justifications.
"

The media and our politicians would like you to believe that this war is unlike every other; that this war is unrelated to the last war, or the war before that or any of the other wars. In truth, these wars are not unrelated but rather the natural succession to the other; simply, brutal, naked imperialism.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
"

Save the arguments about the past for the historians. If you want to talk about whether America's current actions are right or wrong, analyze America's actions based on current conditions and justifications.
"

The media and our politicians would like you to believe that this war is unlike every other; that this war is unrelated to the last war, or the war before that or any of the other wars. In truth, these wars are not unrelated but rather the natural succession to the other; simply, brutal, naked imperialism.

[/ QUOTE ]

WW2?

[CharlieDontSurf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" Saddam is the one who ordered gas attacks on innocent civilians. It's not our fault that Iran, Al Qaeda, and the former Sunni ruling elite are doing everything in their power to cause chaos and make America look bad. "

Well, when you prop up Sadaam and send him weapons, money and yes even biological agents, when you fund the people who turned into Al-Qaeda and when you over throw the democratically elected government in Iran, subverting the first Muslim democracy in the middle east, I would say you bear some of the responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I grant you, in arguendo, that America made mistakes in the past, that has little relevance on whether or not the current war in Iraq is just. For example, let's say that a father gives his child a gun and tells him to shoot his mother. The father then realizes that his previous action was wrong and tries to get the gun back from the child to prevent him from killing her. Is the father not justified in taking the gun away from the child?

Save the arguments about the past for the historians. If you want to talk about whether America's current actions are right or wrong, analyze America's actions based on current conditions and justifications.

[/ QUOTE ]


The father takes away the gun by killing the child. He then kills the mother who attacks him after becoming outraged that the father killed the child. The relatives in the kitchen attack the father for killing the mother, he then kills the relatives for attacking him unprovoked. And it goes on and on and on till one side of the family kills the other or everyone is dead.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
" Saddam is the one who ordered gas attacks on innocent civilians. It's not our fault that Iran, Al Qaeda, and the former Sunni ruling elite are doing everything in their power to cause chaos and make America look bad. "

Well, when you prop up Sadaam and send him weapons, money and yes even biological agents, when you fund the people who turned into Al-Qaeda and when you over throw the democratically elected government in Iran, subverting the first Muslim democracy in the middle east, I would say you bear some of the responsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if I grant you, in arguendo, that America made mistakes in the past, that has little relevance on whether or not the current war in Iraq is just. For example, let's say that a father gives his child a gun and tells him to shoot his mother. The father then realizes that his previous action was wrong and tries to get the gun back from the child to prevent him from killing her. Is the father not justified in taking the gun away from the child?

Save the arguments about the past for the historians. If you want to talk about whether America's current actions are right or wrong, analyze America's actions based on current conditions and justifications.

[/ QUOTE ]


The father takes away the gun by killing the child. He then kills the mother who attacks him after becoming outraged that the father killed the child. The relatives in the kitchen attack the father for killing the mother, he then kills the relatives for attacking him unprovoked. And it goes on and on and on till one side of the family kills the other or everyone is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's basically the idea, yeah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU

[GoodCallYouWin]

WWII was caused by naked imperialism; it was just the imperialism of the Nazis. There is nothing inherently 'evil' about American Foreign Policy in that it is the natural foreign policy of any uncontested super power. It just happens to be a very bad idea for all involved, aside from a few key special interests.

[boracay]

not a good question IMO. you're not leaving much choice there.
1. as you probably know osama isn't a prime target for a long time. ask yourself why is that? two most probable answers: he's either dead or he's on safe somewhere. i really doubt state enemy No.1 wouldn't be a prime target otherwise.

2. what has OBL to do with situation in iraq? if OBL or AQ would be a real prime target, there definitely wouldn't be an attack on iraq, since iraq under saddam was AQ/fanatics totally free like no other western country. in fact iraq could be US strongest supporter in the whole region regarding religious extremism if that would be a goal.

3. what's the point of your question actually? are you denying that extremism is getting worse every single quarter? either army forces there are not capable of solving the situation or not maybe that is not even a goal. since extremism there is rising every single quarter for years, how could you advocate that occupying forces are doing a good job there since everything talks otherwise? just remember, there was no AQ in iraq before the war and now compare how strong they were 3 years ago and now.

4. of course OBL/AQ wouldn't renounce his jihad. they are insane fanatics. that's why their network/bases should be destroyed as much as possible. was that ever a true goal? how much afford were put in destroying them in their prime territory, pakistan? not much. are they really trying to destroy them in northern afghanistan now? rather they are trying to teach us main AQ centers are in iran, which is another complete lie. they want us to believe shia iran is the reason for extremism in iraq, although most attacks are made by sunnis and while much higher percentage of sunnis (96% if not wrong by last polls) demand leaving iraq for US forces. paradoxically, US is even arming sunnis.

5. probably much better question would be: <u> should US army leave iraq if iraqi government ask them to leave? </u>
or maybe: <u> should US army leave iraq if there would be a most democratic (see the irony here?) choice - a referendum by iraqis? </u> i would definitely say yes in that case. would situation in iraq improve then? probably not in a short time, but it probably be better in 5 years.

6. another good question might be also: <u> do you believe US is safer after attacking iraq or would US be safer if there wouldn't be that adventure? </u>
or maybe: <u> do you believe US is stronger after attacking iraq or would it be stronger without that? </u>
and with those questions also: <u> would you blame more AQ for that or miscalculation of one particular group's interests. </u>

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing inherently 'evil' about American Foreign Policy in that it is the natural foreign policy of any uncontested super power.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that it is natural and predictable for a state to act like a state means it isn't evil?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"The fact that it is natural and predictable for a state to act like a state means it isn't evil?"

Yes, basically. What is morality but accepted social norms?