Okay, let's say these democrats in congress and the senate get their way and every uniformed man and woman is pulled out of Iraq today. What'll happen? I'll spell it out for you...
The terrorists that we're fighting over there are a very patient bunch. As soon as the last soldier leaves, what do they do? They kill everyone over there who supported the new Iraqi government and the new leaders. Then they set up another Saddam or Taliban type regime, and they start making chemical/biological/nuclear weapons again, and then it's only a matter of time before said weapons make their way into a New York subway and blow it up, or some skyscraper in Atlanta and blow that up with truck, or maybe even wherever the radioactive cloud might decide to drift. You don't think these people are a threat? It is their stated goal to kill every single infidel they run into, Americans in particular. And this is why we should not pull our troops out of Iraq until, and not a second before, the new Iraqi government can defend itself with it's own troops.
It's not a "quagmire", the troops are not "broken, living hand-to-mouth". Hell, even Democrat senator Joe Lieberman, who has been over there himself several times, says that it's a great success over there. So why don't the people of this country see the success? Think the media might have something to do with that? "Today, another car bombing outside of Baghdad", "10 more Marines killed in Iraq today", "Another roadside bomb struck a humvee as..." etc. etc. etc. What about the good news of which there is plenty? Do you ever hear or see or read about the new schools, the democratically-held elections, the growing economy, the new jobs being created? Nope, the way the media portrays it, you'd think every freaking neighborhood in Baghdad gets blown up at least once a week when they're getting sattelite dishes! Is it bias, laziness, or concern of ratings? You pick...
'Alright smart-ass, why did we go to Iraq in the first place?'
Read the 9-11 commission report and all the other damn reports. It has been proven that not only did Saddam HAVE weapons of mass destruction himself, but he's funded Al-Qaeda and others linked directly to Osama Bin Laden.
'But it's not worth the cost of 2,000 American lives!'
The men and women that, and I stress this, volunteered, for the armed services understood the situation over there, and what they were getting into. They signed the contract knowing the great possibility that they could be sent to Iraq.
Compared with past wars, this one's pretty damn tame.
The 42,000 people that die from car wrecks every year in the U.S. also signed a "contract" with the government (getting a driver's license), knowing there's a possibility they could crash in fiery ball of mangled metal when they go down the road.
Hey, maybe we should pull the citizens out of the road! An equally stupid suggestion to pulling out of Iraq, folks, and that's the news! Thank you and good night! D:
No, it's not. What is your definition of "success"? Put your objectivism to use already.
Having said that, I wouldn't want to be the next president. That's one ugly mess: fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.
If you pull out, you'll leave a very angry bunch of people in Iraq with a free hand to do whatever they want. It'll be a great terrorist hotbed, and with Iraq no longer occupied, more of them will begin targeting the US (idle hands and all that).
But if you don't pull out, it'll cost lives and lots of money. As a Libertarian, I'm sure you appreciate that the government is digging a grave for itself due to the debt.
And that's ignoring Iran. As if things weren't bad enough, now there's a lunatic running a fundamentalist theocracy that's determined to get the bomb.
The mistake was going there in the first place.
Name:
John2005-12-02 22:00
>>3 "The mistake was going there in the first place."
Yeah, Bill Clinton missed his chance to, and look what happened on 9/11...
Name:
WIthdraw Plz2005-12-02 22:09
Murtha's proposal (which has been very much misreported) is probably the most reasonable approximation to what we want. After elections, pull our troops out of hot zones. Let the government handle it after the elections. Keep marines in Kuwait so as to have a quick responce to emergencies in the area. The emerging government won't be very pretty, but at least it will be a real Iraqi government, instead of an American colony. The cost of having Iraq be a shitty place to live in does not outweigh the cost of having to be it's crutch for the next three years.
The 'terrorists' that we're fighting over there are Sunnis who are pissed off about American occupation. Technically, half of the attacks over there are not terrorism. We're dealing with people who are attacking military targets in an attempt to thwart colonialism. Most of these attacks aren't even being claimed by terrorist groups, it's just desperate people fighting for the wrong cause. We can stop a lot of this violence by not helping them think they're going to be defending their home from us.
There is no realistic scenario in which this economically broken economy will ever be able to develop weapons in the forseeable future. That's an absurd scenario.
The reason we went to Iraq in the first place was to dismantle Suddam's weapons program. We did so prematurely. Instead of sending in troops to dismantle the government, we should have strongarmed weapons inspectors into Iraq with force. This might or might not have worked, Bush chose to forgo this option for the sake of a preemptive strike.
Suddam Hussein was a very very bad man. However, it is not the business of the united states to overthrow dictators for the sake of humanity. We only needed to dismantle weapons, and instead we conquered the country. We've helped rebuild the police force as much as we could, but our troops are now causing more insurgency than they are stopping.
Name:
John2005-12-02 23:34
>>5
That's the kind of response I like. You make some interesting points...
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 0:23
However, it is not the business of the united states to overthrow dictators for the sake of humanity
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the sake of oil, nimrod. I say kill all the fuckers and take the oil. Neutron bombs rock!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 2:58
Withdraw, pay war reparations to the Iraqis and stop propping up Chalabi types. Let the Iraqi people decide what to do with the oil (they do not want it privatized and sold off to foreign companies). Let them build their own country and stop stirring up tribal tensions that weren't there before.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 4:16
>>4 Yeah, Bill Clinton missed his chance to, and look what happened on 9/11...
Last I checked, the terrorists who flew those aircraft into the twin towers had nothing to do with Iraq. Iraq was secular, and Saddam was hostile to theocratic elements.
It's all just a power game after all.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-03 10:58
"However, it is not the business of the united states to overthrow dictators for the sake of humanity."
>>10
So why have you installed many more than you've knocked out? LULZ
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 17:09
>>4
Yeah, Bush Sr. actually DID go in there... and look at what happened on 9/11...
Maybe it's because Iraq had nothing to do with AL Qaeda's actions.
Bill Clinton also wasn't eager to go in there and raise hell without the proper evidence, much less sacrifice the lives of U.S. troops.
Read the 9/11 Report (very boring, yet informative to a point). I can't understand how that book was a NY Times bestseller for weeks (which I assume means that it was read by millions), yet Republicans still make false claims that are taken as gospel by their supporters, which are explicitly debunked in that book (which isn't some James Joyce novel, it's pretty easy to understand).
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-06 17:17
>>13
If you bring up Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11, they'll just bring about decades old shit about how saddam tortured his own people blah blah blah. You can't get through to them even with unrefutable facts.
Half the points raised are Powell defending the fucktard administration. The other half are newspaper articles, or don't support either position.
If the author had provided something a bit more substatial, I might be convinced. As it is, it's something to keep in mind for future consideration, but by no means definitive.
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
This is dated June 16, 2004. Do you have credible evidence to debunk this?
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 0:54
>>15 >>17
All the evidence listed in those links is basically just stuff like "al Quaeda guy is reported to have maybe talked to someone in Iraq and perhaps agreed on something," or "military forces uncovered something in Iraq belonging to al Quaeda." You could say the same damn things about the USA. Ever looked up the links between the Bush family and the bin Laden family? Keep digging up more political spin for us, though. I'm sure you bookmark everything that goes in line with your Bush-worshiping beliefs, so it shouldn't take too much effort.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 1:29
>>17
LOL 18 here, I just read your opening and noticed the commission report you sited conflicts with what you claim it says. Did YOU read it? Check out page 66. Basically, you've been self-owned.
yes, Saddam did have WMDS, as in used to have, as in had, as in did not HAVE when we invaded, as in central pretext for war is undermined.
America has always sucked at the empire game anyway.
Name:
John2005-12-07 8:23
>>23
lawls hwo do i spot convoy of trucks going into syria before invasion?//?/ :B
It's only undermined because you're undermining it. Stfu.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-07 9:21 (sage)
Just like how you failed because you're failing it. Stfu. You have no credible proof to back up your BS, just half-baked cockamamy outdated paranoia and the hopes people will believe it. Ooooh, mystery trucks, can't be lollipops in there, gotta be WMDs, because I think so. Yeah, yeah. Duuuude, he used it own his OWN PEOPLE. I'm so scared I shit myself. HARBLE.
Name:
John2005-12-07 14:07
>>25
Well, you can just keep telling yourself along with most of the rest of the country that there's absolutely no threat. Just keep telling yourself that, and ah... good luck with it. e_e
I don't know about you, but I was terrified of Iraq and Saddam before Bush told me to be
Name:
John2005-12-08 17:22
>>27
My point is that you're an idiot if you think this country won't face another attack...
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 17:33
>>29
no shit, genius. it doesn't mean you have to be paranoid schitz about it.
Name:
John2005-12-08 21:05
>>30
I'm not being a paranoid schitz about it, but everyone else is acting like it's just some little nuisance.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-08 22:57
We should just nuke Iran, Iraq, China and North Korea and get it over with.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-09 2:25
>>19
I know, it's sad, how some people get their normal news from Newsmax and Sean Hannity.
Name:
John2005-12-09 2:39
Fuck you hippy, Sean Hannity is speeks the truth! Far more than that piece of LIEberal garbege the 9-11 commission report. Only LIEberal proffesers and hippies read that bullshit, because theyr'e dumb enuff to be suckered into going to coledge. I never went to coledge, and I get all my smarts from the Good Book, I learn more in Church than you tree-hugging hippy trash ever will in your dirty LIEberal colleges.
Dick Chaney was absolutley correct in saying that that our Great Nation will be attacked again by Saddam's terrorists from Iraq if you elected Kerry. And all the God-fearing people of the South led us to victery and elected George Bush again.
George Bush is the Greatest President who ever lived. He will bring this country to glory as a Christian nation. God Bless America!
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-09 2:49
>>34
I want to laugh cuz it's funny, but ... damn, you might be serious.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-09 3:00
>>34
What an idiot. You can't spell, either. Maybe college (or at least high school) could have helped you out a bit with that, and it probably would have given you some common sense as well.
Name:
Anonymous2005-12-09 3:06
>>35 >>36
It's obviously someone posting under his name to make him look bad. John is pretty stupid, but he's not that stupid.
>>37
Uh, yeah, that ain't me. I don't always agree with Sean Hannity, I'm not Christian, I'm in college, and the 9/11 commission report is good evidence for my points.