They want us out!

[FreeMason]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7493782.stm

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Talks are continuing on a new security deal, but the US has said it opposes setting any timetable for withdrawal.

The UN mandate under which US troops stay in Iraq expires at the end 2008.

Correspondents say Mr Maliki may have an easier time getting the support of Iraqi MPs by proposing a deal which includes a withdrawal timetable.

US and Iraqi governments have been negotiating a detailed bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) since March and it was supposed to be concluded this month.

Many Iraqis want to see an end to the American military presence in their country, but are fearful of the consequences for security.

In violence on Monday, a female suicide bomber killed nine people and wounded 12 others in an attack on an Iraqi market, police said.

Respect for sovereignty

A statement from Mr Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors in the UAE: "The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal."

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq."

It was the first time that the prime minister had specifically suggested the setting of a timetable for a US withdrawal.

US officials in Baghdad did not issue an immediate reaction to the comments.

The American position has always been that setting a timetable for withdrawal gives an advantage to insurgents who have been battling US forces since the 2003 invasion which overthrow Saddam Hussein.

A possible withdraw from Iraq has become a major issue in the US presidential election campaign and could also figure prominently in local elections in Iraq in October.

Well, there you have it. The Iraqis want us out. Big surprise. And this time, its not just a few guerillas. It's the Prime Minister himself, as well as the general populace of Iraq. If we truly have any belief in democracy, then we need to leave.

[The Arbiter]

The Prime Minister doesn't want us out. He's just being nice to us and letting us pull out because all you libbies are tearing the country apart.

[Lincongrad]

Or maybe conservatives are by having us stay in the war.

I wish people would stop saying liberals are traitors and everything like that. It's blatantly offensive and pointless. People disagree with their government. That's not a problem. Suck it up. If it's giving 'comfort to our enemies', well yeah... that's one of those things. Any suggestion of backing out of a war is giving 'comfort to our enemies', even if the backing out has a completely valid reason. Which it does.

[Assarax]

Or maybe conservatives are by having us stay in the war.

I wish people would stop saying liberals are traitors and everything like that. It's blatantly offensive and pointless. People disagree with their government. That's not a problem. Suck it up. If it's giving 'comfort to our enemies', well yeah... that's one of those things. Any suggestion of backing out of a war is giving 'comfort to our enemies', even if the backing out has a completely valid reason. Which it does.

Well, Linc you have to remember that all liberals are commie bastards

[/sarcasm]

Seriously, good point Lincongrad. Its kinda ignorant to say that the Prime Minister doesn't want us out... have you ever met the guy? Can you say for certain what he does/doesn't want? The article says that he brought up a proposal for a timetable to withdraw US troops. That gives some indication that perhaps the Iraqi Prime Minister would like to see US troops leave.

[Melidan]

Sure.. Let's get out. Then we can all sit back and witness the greatest and bloodiest civil war in human history, paving the war for an Iranian invasion or a foothold for Al Qaeda.. Oh, don't forget pissing all over the honor of the more then 3,000 American heroes that have fallen there.

[FreeMason]

Well, from his statement he wants us out. He says he wants the "sovereignty of Iraq." And the people want us out as well. Remember that democracy is government by the people, so shouldn't we obey our own rule? Your statement is merely speculation. No one can know what he truly wants. All we know is what he said.

And I've said it before, I'm no liberal. I'm actually one of the most conservative people I know, and I live in Texas, so thats saying something. But it's not just liberals who hate this war. I was against the war from the begining. And Bush isn't even a real conservative himself. So don't just throw the word liberal around.

[James Davis]

My response to this would be somewhere along the lines of the cliche, "sometimes people don't know what's best for them." I'm all for getting out of Iraq, but I desparately want to see the progress that we've made not unravel the moment we leave.

I'm not saying that the Iraqi government is stupid, or naive, I'm just saying that they might not understand what an Iraq without American forces might look like. Keep in mind, things are going well, there can be no arguing that, but that is with over 100,000 US troops acting as super-cops trying to hold everything together.

In summary, we need to get out, but we need to be 110% sure that Iraq can handle things without us before we do.

[FreeMason]

Sure.. Let's get out. Then we can all sit back and witness the greatest and bloodiest civil war in human history, paving the war for an Iranian invasion or a foothold for Al Qaeda.. Oh, don't forget pissing all over the honor of the more then 3,000 American heroes that have fallen there.

Oh boy! Fearmongering! Lets think of the worst possible scenario within reason and tell everyone that it's definately going to happen!

Oh yes, and as for the 3,000 American heroes, yes they are heroes, but they died for nothing. Bush wasted the lives of 3,000 American soldiers, and for what? A bloody quagmire that's torn both Iraq and the U.S. apart. I have family in Iraq. I will always support the troops. But that does not mean I have to support the war.

[hArRyBeAvEr]

"Many Iraqis want to see an end to the American military presence in their country, but are fearful of the consequences for security."

I agree that the Iraqis want us out, but they're smart enough to realize what will happen if we leave without getting rid of the infestation of insurgents and what not.

[FreeMason]

My response to this would be somewhere along the lines of the cliche, "sometimes people don't know what's best for them." I'm all for getting out of Iraq, but I desparately want to see the progress that we've made not unravel the moment we leave.

I'm not saying that the Iraqi government is stupid, or naive, I'm just saying that they might not understand what an Iraq without American forces might look like. Keep in mind, things are going well, there can be no arguing that, but that is with over 100,000 US troops acting as super-cops trying to hold everything together.

In summary, we need to get out, but we need to be 110% sure that Iraq can handle things without us before we do.

And we know what's best for them? That seems a bit arrogant. Do you know what the American Revolution was fought over? It was fought because the dominant world power at the time (Britain) thought that it knew what was best for the colonies. To use the "they don't know what's best for them" argument is to ignore the entire history of the United States.

[Lincongrad]

My response to this would be somewhere along the lines of the cliche, "sometimes people don't know what's best for them." I'm all for getting out of Iraq, but I desparately want to see the progress that we've made not unravel the moment we leave.

I'm not saying that the Iraqi government is stupid, or naive, I'm just saying that they might not understand what an Iraq without American forces might look like. Keep in mind, things are going well, there can be no arguing that, but that is with over 100,000 US troops acting as super-cops trying to hold everything together.

In summary, we need to get out, but we need to be 110% sure that Iraq can handle things without us before we do.

Completely agreed. I still don't know my thoughts on whether we should pull out or not, I'm just pissed when people say liberals are teh evul because they disagree with government policy.:deshelmet:

[Assarax]

I never said that we should leave. There would be severe consequences if we did. I just said that you can't say that the Iraqi Prime Minister doesn't want us out, even though he just made statements regarding a timetable.

I have family in Iraq too. My cousin's husband is an ex-marine who did two tours of duty and currently works for the US State Department. Doesn't mean I can't think the war in Iraq is wrong, I do, but there's a difference between supporting the war and supporting the troops. People tend to blend those two in together, when they shouldn't.

[The Arbiter]

Oh yes, and as for the 3,000 American heroes, yes they are heroes, but they died for nothing. Bush wasted the lives of 3,000 American soldiers, and for what? A bloody quagmire that's torn both Iraq and the U.S. apart. I have family in Iraq. I will always support the troops. But that does not mean I have to support the war.
You son of a bitch. Saying they died for nothing?!?! Bush WASTED their lives? It's a volunteer army you fool. Obviously you don't support the war.

[Pimptastic]

To what JD said the same happened in zimbabwe when they removed people the factories that western peoples had built not straight away but over time fell into worse and worse condition as the structure for improvement and maintainince wasnt implace and so now the z$ is worth less per $ note than toilet paper sheets as the money they had is drying up. The same could well happen with most skilled workers leaving the country and the fast pulling out leaving things half done.

They do say a time plan so my guess is over a few years, also america should probably look at the bills for that army it wont be cheap.

[Assarax]

You son of a bitch. Saying they died for nothing?!?! Bush WASTED their lives? It's a volunteer army you fool. Obviously you don't support the war.

Mhmm because calling people a son of a bitch is a great way to argue a point. I am still an admin, and I won't allow it. This has no reflect on my views, Arbiter, if someone called you an SOB same thing would apply. This is about keeping some civility in the conversation.

[FreeMason]

You son of a bitch. Saying they died for nothing?!?! Bush WASTED their lives? It's a volunteer army you fool. Obviously you don't support the war.

I'm an ass for saying the war has been pointless? Tell me one good reason why a single one of those soldiers should have died! We shouldn't have lost any soldiers to that hellhole in the first place! Bush has wasted their lives. I stand by that statement. And I hope that no more lives will be wasted on this pointless bullshit we call Iraq.

[The Arbiter]

And we know what's best for them? That seems a bit arrogant. Do you know what the American Revolution was fought over? It was fought because the dominant world power at the time (Britain) thought that it knew what was best for the colonies. To use the "they don't know what's best for them" argument is to ignore the entire history of the United States.
No, we fought the American Revolution because Britain was taxing us and not letting us represent ourselves in Parliament. "No taxation without representation." We are not taxing the Iraqis, and we are not even involved in their government.

[Lincongrad]

I agree that Bush wasted their lives. It makes me sick, actually. Or possibly Rumsfeld. But someone up there. They decided to serve their country out of patriotism, or the goodness of their hearts, or whatever, noble sentiments all, and how did we reward that? We got them into a stupid, stupid war. We should have stuck with Afghanistan.

That said, I still am not sure we should pull out. The current war in Iraq loses either way... we stay in and people die or we pull out and people die. Lose lose situation. Soldiers fighting over there now are still sacrificing themselves, even if it's for a cause right now (as opposed to earlier).

[The Arbiter]

I agree that Bush wasted their lives. It makes me sick, actually. Or possibly Rumsfeld. But someone up there. They decided to serve their country out of patriotism, or the goodness of their hearts, or whatever, noble sentiments all, and how did we reward that? We got them into a stupid, stupid war. We should have stuck with Afghanistan.

That said, I still am not sure we should pull out. The current war in Iraq loses either way... we stay in and people die or we pull out and people die. Lose lose situation. Soldiers fighting over there now are still sacrificing themselves, even if it's for a cause right now (as opposed to earlier).
Less people will die if we make Iraq stable. It's not impossible, it can be done. If we pull out of Iraq now, all of those innocent people will get slaughtered by terrorists. If we wait a little longer and re-build Iraq's army they can fend for themselves.

[James Davis]

And we know what's best for them? That seems a bit arrogant. Do you know what the American Revolution was fought over? It was fought because the dominant world power at the time (Britain) thought that it knew what was best for the colonies. To use the "they don't know what's best for them" argument is to ignore the entire history of the United States.

The principal difference between the Iraq War and the Revolutionary war is the simple fact that the British were exploiting the colonists (see above). In Iraq, we are doing no such thing. Sure, some of our oil companies have gotten contracts out of this, but so have British and Dutch oil companies.

Additionally, we have invested billions of dollars not only in military spending, but also the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure and the propping up of the Maliki administration. We have given the Iraqis a lot more than they have given us. I'm not saying that gives us the right to run their country for them, but it certainly gives us the right to protect our interests there.

We know what we are doing. We have turned totalitarian regimes into highly successful democracies before (West Germany and Japan are prime examples), and we can do it again. The Iraqis will just have to trust our judgement.

It may sound arrogant, but the Iraqis really have very little choice in this matter. I hope we can work with them, but U.S. troops are going to be in Iraq for a while, even if Obama is elected.

[The Arbiter]

Exactly, JD. I posted something similar about the Revolutionary War a few posts above.

[leninrocks244]

Oh boy! Fearmongering! Lets think of the worst possible scenario within reason and tell everyone that it's definately going to happen!

Oh yes, and as for the 3,000 American heroes, yes they are heroes, but they died for nothing. Bush wasted the lives of 3,000 American soldiers, and for what? A bloody quagmire that's torn both Iraq and the U.S. apart. I have family in Iraq. I will always support the troops. But that does not mean I have to support the war.

*applauds*

[leninrocks244]

You son of a bitch. Saying they died for nothing?!?! Bush WASTED their lives? It's a volunteer army you fool. Obviously you don't support the war.

HUHDUUUR
He said that a few times already.

[The Arbiter]

HUHDUUUR
He said that a few times already.
He said that after I said what I said. HUHDUUR Sometimes I wonder if commies get an education...

[Snickers]

When the Prime Minister says he wants us out does not mean immediatly. He wants a time table so we can gradually pull out as his nation builds up. He knows that if we leave ASAP the country will go down the drain. If he sets the timetable it will last several years. The Iraqi people dont want us to leave immediatly either, they do want us out so they can be on their own but right now they want us there until the country builds up. I think everyone would like to see us out of Iraq, I do, but we need to do it responsibly and not just run from it and let it go to crap.

Also saying that our soldiers died for nothing is wrong. We know just what we are fighting for over there. Im sure yall remember 9/11 and how we as a country vowed to pursue and destroy Terrorist Oragnizations. Right now theres a large terror network in Iraq. We promised to go after these terrorist no matter where they are, we wont let them go to do their evil deeds agian. So if they are in Iraq, thats where we will go. In the process of hunting down these thugs we are also bringing new freedoms the region, people in Iraq have more freedoms now, They have elected their own prime minister, and other government officials. Our mission is also a humanitarian mission. Violence in Iraq has dropped dramatically, thats why they can offer up a withdrawl plan. As they grow, their dependence on us diminishes. We know what we are fighting for, you just dont get it. I have done 1 Combat tour in Afghanistan from November 2001 to March 2002 for the invasion. I have also done 3 Combat tours in Iraq from January 2003 to August 2003 for the invasion of Iraq, then my 2nd tour in May 2004 to January 2005. Then my last tour was in March 2006 to November 2006. I did all these tours as a Navy Corpsman assigned to various Marine Corp Battalions. I have recently finished up my 8 years with the U.S. Navy and have switched to the Army National Guard as a mechanic, So thats where I will be going in a month to train for that. So when I talk Iraq, I know what Im talking about, I was there and I was proud to do it. So dont talk crap about our mission until youve been there and if you ever get the balls to go, youll realize what we do. T.V. wont show you the reality of it, they wont show you the truth of it so watching the news isnt enough for you to cast judgement on our mission and what we are fighting for.

[Megamind]

Everyone knows that the American Revolution was fought over tea...the Brits tried to force you to drink tea and you didn't like it...so you threw them out :P

To JDs last statement all I can say is HAIL US IMPERIALISM...seriously (we need a head shake smiley)

To Snickers...firstly I would like to say that I admire your attitude and what you've done...but if this was really about chasing terrorists then you should have attacked Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia...they all have a documented history of harboring terrorists...which as far as I know Iraq doesn't...at least as far as I remember there was no proof that Iraq had anything to do with Al Queda(sp?) until after the American invasion...

In closing I would just like to say that in my opinion you (the Americans) made a mistake when you stayed in Iraq after removing Saddam...I honestly think a swift withdrawal would have been better in the long run...as it is now I am pretty convinced that when you leave (whenever that is) the Kurds will try and brake off and form their own state which will force Turkey to react (probably in a very violent matter), the shia and sunny factions will go to war against each other (with Israel and Iran using it to fight a proxy war)

Worst case scenario...sure...but I honestly think Iraq is FUBAR...


BTW I agree with almost everything FreeMason has written...just wanted to throw hat out there :P

[Hubb]

You son of a bitch. Saying they died for nothing?!?! Bush WASTED their lives? It's a volunteer army you fool. Obviously you don't support the war.

Whoa, dude! Chill! Let's try and get away from the name-calling. It just makes people mad, and nobody listens to what you have to say if you curse them. Seriously, stop. I'm guilty of it, too, and I'm going to try and stay away from that immature shit from now on (unless someone needs a good clowning).

However:

I agree that Bush wasted their lives. It makes me sick, actually. Or possibly Rumsfeld. But someone up there.

To say the President "wasted" their lives is a bit melodramatic. These brave men and women served their country and gave the Ultimate Sacrifice. To make things appear as if Bush (or Rumsfeld) decided to "waste" the lives of our servicemen and servicewomen is a bit naive. Think what you will about the war, I can understand that sentiment. I wish things had been done differently, but they weren't. If Al-Malaki wants to discuss timetables, that's fine. I'm sure he's hoping to please his new overlords in Tehran by doing so.

Okay, that was sarcasm, but if anyone discusses timetables, it shouldn't be American politicians sitting on their fat asses. It should be the Iraqis.

We have a responsibility, though, to ensure there will be stability in Iraq before we leave. If we leave now (by now, I mean in four to five months), things will be left undone, and it'll be a country of militias and warlords in two to three years.

By the way, I'm staying out of the flamefest. Don't make me clown you. That's to no one in particular, just in general. :lightsabers:

[FreeMason]

To anyone who was offended by my comments:

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to belittle or disrespect anyone in our military. What I said only came from the fact that I don't think that the 3,000+ men and women who died in Iraq should be dead. I value human life over corpses any day, and it makes me angry that our country can sit back and let them die and somehow find a way to justify it. I have an uncle in Iraq who has already been on multiple tours of duty. I have a cousin who recently joined the Navy, though he has not been deployed yet. Both have a wife and kids. And I can't stand the idea of them dying and their wives widowed and their kids fatherless. And the same goes for all military families, especially the ones of the men and women who have died. I don't think we should be putting our soldiers in danger for people who want us out anyway, in a country we only invaded because our president lied to us. So I say again: I'm sorry. If you are in the military, or are a veteran, you are one of the bravest people on the planet. I will support you always. I just think that the best way to support you is to bring you home.

Sincerely,
FreeMason

[bigdaddychacha]

Hubb, I'm glad to hear you say that you're going to stay above the fray this time! Things are always better when we all take the high road.

The Arbiter -- at it again, I see...:angry:

JD, no offense, but what you are saying sounds exactly like the text-book definition of Imperialist Apologist Arguments.

"We're only dominating them for their own good," never sounds good in the long run. All empire-building nations put a lot of capital into their colonies; whether that gives them the right to administer to everything in those territories, well...the historical judgment generally seems to be that it doesn't.

An adequately-done Iraqi job in today's Iraq will still be better than a top-notch American job. Someday you've got to take the training wheels off and give the kid a chance to wreck his bike; you can't be an overprotective parent forever or the kid will never mature.

[leninrocks244]

He said that after I said what I said. HUHDUUR Sometimes I wonder if commies get an education...

And he never said that before in any other thread??????? And he's the one who started this one, which is clearly against the war. And I need an education?

[Zagato]

Only the US forces out? Strange.
Does he favour the British/Georgian/SouthKorean/Australian/Polish/etc. occupying forces more?

[leninrocks244]

Georgia has an organized army???

[FreeMason]

Only the US forces out? Strange.
Does he favour the British/Georgian/SouthKorean/Australian/Polish/etc. occupying forces more?

I wouldn't be surprised if he did. America is the nation that started this war. America is viewed as the main occupier there. And I think it's assumed that if we leave, the other coalition forces will leave as well. But most of the insurgents' anger is directed at America, and thus, he wants America out.

[James Davis]

JD, no offense, but what you are saying sounds exactly like the text-book definition of Imperialist Apologist Arguments.

"We're only dominating them for their own good," never sounds good in the long run. All empire-building nations put a lot of capital into their colonies; whether that gives them the right to administer to everything in those territories, well...the historical judgment generally seems to be that it doesn't.

An adequately-done Iraqi job in today's Iraq will still be better than a top-notch American job. Someday you've got to take the training wheels off and give the kid a chance to wreck his bike; you can't be an overprotective parent forever or the kid will never mature.

First of all, don't worry about offending me, I've been called a lot worse than a supporter of U.S. imperialism.

As for the base of your argument, I completely disagree with you on our intentions in Iraq. In my mind, it is very clear we do not want Iraq as a colony, or as an oil tributary, as many on the left claim. We have taken definite steps towards cutting Iraq loose as a free country again.

When we invaded, the ruling power of Iraq went as follows:
-Saddam in power
-US military occupation
-US civilian administrator/CPA/Iraqi Governing Council
-Elected Iraqi government.

The United States has methodically given more and more power back to the Iraqis. With the steps that have been made, I simply cannot see how an accusation of deliberate imperialism on the part of the United States can be sustained.

I'll actually thank you for bringing up the parent-child analogy, because I have a slightly different take on that. When do most children want independence from their parents? When they're roughly 16. Adolescence is in full swing, hormones are raging, and most of us don't have a clue as to what the real world is all about. Kids that age think they're ready, but are they? Of course not! While this analogy is hardly a legitimate argument in this discussion, it is interesting to twist it different ways.

[The Arbiter]

First of all, don't worry about offending me, I've been called a lot worse than a supporter of U.S. imperialism.

As for the base of your arguement, I completely disagree with you on our intentions in Iraq. In my mind, it is very clear we do not want Iraq as a colony, or as an oil tributary, as many on the left claim. We have taken definite steps towards cutting Iraq loose as a free country again.

When we invaded, the ruling power of Iraq went as follows:
-Saddam in power
-US military occupation
-US civilian administrator/CPA/Iraqi Governing Council
-Elected Iraqi government.

The United States has methodically given more and more power back to the Iraqis. With the steps that have been made, I simply cannot see how an accusation of deliberate imperialism on the part of the United States can be sustained.

I'll actually thank you for bringing up the parent-child analogy, because I have a slightly different take on that. When do most children want independence from their parents? When they're roughly 16. Adolescence is in full swing, hormones are raging, and most of us don't have a clue as to what the real world is all about. Kids that age think they're ready, but are they? Of course not! While this analogy is hardly a legitimate arguement in this discussion, it is interesting to twist it different ways.
o/ JD

[FreeMason]

First of all, don't worry about offending me, I've been called a lot worse than a supporter of U.S. imperialism.

As for the base of your argument, I completely disagree with you on our intentions in Iraq. In my mind, it is very clear we do not want Iraq as a colony, or as an oil tributary, as many on the left claim. We have taken definite steps towards cutting Iraq loose as a free country again.

When we invaded, the ruling power of Iraq went as follows:
-Saddam in power
-US military occupation
-US civilian administrator/CPA/Iraqi Governing Council
-Elected Iraqi government.

The United States has methodically given more and more power back to the Iraqis. With the steps that have been made, I simply cannot see how an accusation of deliberate imperialism on the part of the United States can be sustained.

I'll actually thank you for bringing up the parent-child analogy, because I have a slightly different take on that. When do most children want independence from their parents? When they're roughly 16. Adolescence is in full swing, hormones are raging, and most of us don't have a clue as to what the real world is all about. Kids that age think they're ready, but are they? Of course not! While this analogy is hardly a legitimate argument in this discussion, it is interesting to twist it different ways.

I honestly think we want Iraq, not necessarily as a colony, but a a puppet gov to increase our influence in the mid-East. Why else would we deny them a timetable for withdrawal when they ask for one? Iraq is still a seperate nation; it deserves its soverignty.

We would want it as a puppet gov because:
1) It would give us influence in OPEC (not much, but a little bit in the right place can go a long way)
2) There are nations in the mid-East which dislike us/our allies. A pawn in that region would give us a slight advantage.

These ideas may sound appealing, but it is not our right to strip another nation of its soverignty. And now that our puppet Maliki has publicly refused to be our pawn, things are going to get even more unsteady over there. Personally, I think the only way the Iraqis will unite at this point is when they decide that they've had enough with American occupation and come together to drive us out, which is why we should pull our troops out before we overstay our welcome (as though we haven't already).

[Lincongrad]

Not sure a timetable is a good idea. I mean, all the death squads/terrorists have to do is stockpile arms and lay low until we're gone. But we need some plan of withdrawal, even if it's not 100% concrete.

[DarkNoble]

Snickers that's a big change going from a corpman to a mechanic. Working on people to working on machines. SHould be less stressful at least. BTW do they still do all the training for corpman in Great Mistakes I mean lakes?

[IronsightSniper]

But then their egos won't go prego!

[James Davis]

I honestly think we want Iraq, not necessarily as a colony, but a a puppet gov to increase our influence in the mid-East. Why else would we deny them a timetable for withdrawal when they ask for one? Iraq is still a seperate nation; it deserves its soverignty.

We would want it as a puppet gov because:
1) It would give us influence in OPEC (not much, but a little bit in the right place can go a long way)
2) There are nations in the mid-East which dislike us/our allies. A pawn in that region would give us a slight advantage.

These ideas may sound appealing, but it is not our right to strip another nation of its soverignty. And now that our puppet Maliki has publicly refused to be our pawn, things are going to get even more unsteady over there. Personally, I think the only way the Iraqis will unite at this point is when they decide that they've had enough with American occupation and come together to drive us out, which is why we should pull our troops out before we overstay our welcome (as though we haven't already).

If we were trying to set up a puppet government in Iraq, then why did we give them free and open elections? The UN was watching those elections very closely, and there was never a peep out of them about any kind of dysfunction in any part of the elections.

If we wanted a puppet government we could have easily installed people who were friendly to US interests. We've done it in the past, with mixed results. We want Iraq as an ally against terrorism, sure, but I think it's going a bit too far to say that we want to run the country for them.

[Snickers]

We will always have some troops in Iraq at various bases. They wont be ther patrolling the streets but they will be behind the scenes advising the Iraqi military and Training them. They will not kick out every single American there. They need our knowledge and our teachings for their military so their military can handle the security problem. Our troops are there to fill in security until their military is up and running and can take over on their own. Once that is acheived youll see alot more troops coming home. And if we really needed a Pawn in the Mid-East, we have Kuwait and Afghanistan so when Iran screws up we can hit them from 2 sides and Iraq will sureley let us do operations out of Iraq.

Dark Noble: They do still have the Corpsman Training at Great Lakes, Thats where they do the basic medical stuff. Once you complete that and depending on assignment, like me I went straight to the field with the Marines so I went through Marine Infantry School and got qualified as a Fleet Marine Force(FMF). Once I completed all that I got assigned to 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment. So are you thinking about joining the Navy? If so consider this, 6-7 month deployments with about 8 months home for however long your in, and this is with or without the War. The Navy is always in their boats visiting other countries and stuff. Just know what your getting yourself into.

[Lmcfalcon12]

Its about freaking time is really all I can say.

[leninrocks244]

I'm still in shock to know that shit Georgia has an organized military.

[leninrocks244]

First of all, don't worry about offending me, I've been called a lot worse than a supporter of U.S. imperialism.

As for the base of your argument, I completely disagree with you on our intentions in Iraq. In my mind, it is very clear we do not want Iraq as a colony, or as an oil tributary, as many on the left claim. We have taken definite steps towards cutting Iraq loose as a free country again.

When we invaded, the ruling power of Iraq went as follows:
-Saddam in power
-US military occupation
-US civilian administrator/CPA/Iraqi Governing Council
-Elected Iraqi government.

The United States has methodically given more and more power back to the Iraqis. With the steps that have been made, I simply cannot see how an accusation of deliberate imperialism on the part of the United States can be sustained.

I'll actually thank you for bringing up the parent-child analogy, because I have a slightly different take on that. When do most children want independence from their parents? When they're roughly 16. Adolescence is in full swing, hormones are raging, and most of us don't have a clue as to what the real world is all about. Kids that age think they're ready, but are they? Of course not! While this analogy is hardly a legitimate argument in this discussion, it is interesting to twist it different ways.

If we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a harsh dictator, why didn't we invade Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other country in Africa???

[The Arbiter]

If we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a harsh dictator, why didn't we invade Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other country in Africa???
Saudis and Africans don't have nukes. Also, I don't know why we haven't invaded Iran yet.

[The Arbiter]

If we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a harsh dictator, why didn't we invade Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other country in Africa???
Saudis and Africans don't have nukes. Also, I don't know why we haven't invaded Iran yet.

[James Davis]

If we invaded Iraq because Saddam was a harsh dictator, why didn't we invade Iran or Saudi Arabia or any other country in Africa???

I think you completely missed what I was saying. I wasn't talking about our justifications for going into Iraq, I was talking about the consistent, verifiable steps that the U.S. has taken to give the power back to the Iraqis.

[FreeMason]

Saudis and Africans don't have nukes. Also, I don't know why we haven't invaded Iran yet.

Um...last I checked...Saddam didn't have any nukes either.

Oh, and we haven't invaded Iran for a few reasons:
1) The American people will not support it,
2) We still have no real proof of any weapons programs,
and, most importantly
3) it would be stupid and pointless.

By the way, if anyone's interested, the latest developments in the Iran situation are here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7495869.stm

[James Davis]

Um...last I checked...Saddam didn't have any nukes either.

Oh, and we haven't invaded Iran for a few reasons:
1) The American people will not support it,
2) We still have no real proof of any weapons programs,
and, most importantly
3) it would be stupid and pointless.

By the way, if anyone's interested, the latest developments in the Iran situation are here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7495869.stm

Yeah, there is no way we will invade Iran right now, or even in the near future. Our military is sapped, and it would be disastrous to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I could see Israel bombing Iranian nuclear development structures, but I don't think the U.S. is going to be doing anything about Iran anytime soon.

[FreeMason]

Yeah, there is no way we will invade Iran right now, or even in the near future. Our military is sapped, and it would be disastrous to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I could see Israel bombing Iranian nuclear development structures, but I don't think the U.S. is going to be doing anything about Iran anytime soon.

Israel would not be that stupid. If they were to do that, every soverign nation in the Muslim world would come down on them. Hard. Pretty much every nation over there is dying to find an excuse to destroy Israel, so many of them would undoubtably go to Iran's aid.

[Hubb]

Israel would not be that stupid. If they were to do that, every soverign nation in the Muslim world would come down on them. Hard. Pretty much every nation over there is dying to find an excuse to destroy Israel, so many of them would undoubtably go to Iran's aid.

Don't be so sure of that. There's at least one other Muslim nation that doesn't want to see Iran have nuclear weapons: Saudi Arabia. Other Sunni nations may not flock to Iran's banner if Israel bombed their nuclear facilities.

Also, Israel will bomb those facilities. Make no mistake about that. Hard to blame them when Iran's president continuously talks about "wiping out the Zionist scourge" in the Middle East.

This is not a discussion about Israel's claims to the territory, ancient or otherwise, so don't turn my reply into a springboard for such a debate. Bottom line: Israel is there now, regardless, and has to defend themselves. It's a horrible situation, and it sucks for everyone, but it is what it is, regardless of how any of us feel about it.

[James Davis]

Another factor to throw in the ring. We know that:

-Israel has nukes.
-They have the means to deliver them, unlike all Arab nations.
-They will use them if they feel threatened.

The Muslim nations that would love to destroy Israel have to keep this in mind.

[FreeMason]

Another factor to throw in the ring. We know that:

-Israel has nukes.
-They have the means to deliver them, unlike all Arab nations.
-They will use them if they feel threatened.

The Muslim nations that would love to destroy Israel have to keep this in mind.

True. But they couldn't nuke all the nations around them b/c then they'd get hit by the fallout.

[James Davis]

True. But they couldn't nuke all the nations around them b/c then they'd get hit by the fallout.

I could see them taking that unpleasant route in the face of annihilation by convetional means.

[The Arbiter]

I highly doubt Israel would nuke any of them unless they nuke Israel first.

[Hubb]

I highly doubt Israel would nuke any of them unless they nuke Israel first.

Israel wouldn't nuke first. If they had one inbound, though, they'd probably throw their whole arsenal and turn the Middle East into glass.

Hopefully this will remain conjecture and we'll never have to worry about it.

[leninrocks244]

Saudis and Africans don't have nukes. Also, I don't know why we haven't invaded Iran yet.

Neither did Iraq, apparently.

[leninrocks244]

I think you completely missed what I was saying. I wasn't talking about our justifications for going into Iraq, I was talking about the consistent, verifiable steps that the U.S. has taken to give the power back to the Iraqis.

I know, I was just throwing a question out there.

[leninrocks244]

Um...last I checked...Saddam didn't have any nukes either.

Oh, and we haven't invaded Iran for a few reasons:
1) The American people will not support it,
2) We still have no real proof of any weapons programs,
and, most importantly
3) it would be stupid and pointless.

By the way, if anyone's interested, the latest developments in the Iran situation are here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7495869.stm

And just look at the terrian of Iran. It's mostly mountain and desert. It's naturally fortified.

[Snickers]

If we are to do any military action agianst Iran right now, it wouldnt be an invasion. We would just bomb targets with our missles and aircraft. We wont do an invasion because right now our military isnt large enough to sustain it and to complete the occupation since we are in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Once the missions are done in Iraq and Afghanistan then it would be more probable.

To lenninrocks comment about the Terrian in Iran. For the US military its not a big deal, the Army has units designated for Mountain Warfare such as the 10th Mountain Division. plus we have helicopters and aircraft that can trasport troops around.

[leninrocks244]

If we are to do any military action agianst Iran right now, it wouldnt be an invasion. We would just bomb targets with our missles and aircraft. We wont do an invasion because right now our military isnt large enough to sustain it and to complete the occupation since we are in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Once the missions are done in Iraq and Afghanistan then it would be more probable.

To lenninrocks comment about the Terrian in Iran. For the US military its not a big deal, the Army has units designated for Mountain Warfare such as the 10th Mountain Division. plus we have helicopters and aircraft that can trasport troops around.

For the love of Christ, use Firefox. It has spell check.

[DarkNoble]

I was in the Navy back in the 90s. Gunner's Mate :). I did my time in the Navy Reserve so I was never underway.

[Snickers]

Yeah being stuck on a ship for long periods of time suck. When I deploy with the Marines, we always go on the LHD's to Iraq and other parts of the World. I spend most of my time on land thank goodness. But you got lucky never having to go on deployment at sea or anything.

Lenninrocks thats a bit disrespectful and If I do believe most of it is correct spelling and if there is any errors its not a big deal Im sure you make them to. Its like you have a grudge agianst me or something. Jeeze...

[The Corporal]

I'm not going to read this whole topic because I know I'd probably get pretty pissed off at someone. Plus, I'm cutting back on political discussion (which you'd know if you read the affirmative action thread :) ). If the legal government of Iraq wants us out, let's get out. But please, don't cut spending on military training, military modernization, or security programs - we'll need them in about ten years because Iraq will become the next Somalia, with the sole difference being that Iraq will also be the largest terrorist training ground on the planet. And if the Iraqi people beg to have us back, they can take their pleadings and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine, no reason to have any more of our people die for those ingrates.

[FreeMason]

I'm not going to read this whole topic because I know I'd probably get pretty pissed off at someone. Plus, I'm cutting back on political discussion (which you'd know if you read the affirmative action thread :) ). If the legal government of Iraq wants us out, let's get out. But please, don't cut spending on military training, military modernization, or security programs - we'll need them in about ten years because Iraq will become the next Somalia, with the sole difference being that Iraq will also be the largest terrorist training ground on the planet. And if the Iraqi people beg to have us back, they can take their pleadings and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine, no reason to have any more of our people die for those ingrates.

Um...I don't know whether to applaud that or argue with it. I like the "if the legal government of Iraq wants us out, let's get out. But please, don't cut spending on military training, military modernization, or security programs" and "they can take their pleadings and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine, no reason to have any more of our people die for those ingrates" parts, but I'm not sure I agree that Iraq will necessarily become a terrorist breeding ground. That's worst case scenario. I think if we respect the wishes of the people and the gov, we will have a loyal ally in the mid-East, so long as their gov survives (which I think it has a good chance of doing). I also think it would be a good diplomatic move in the mid-East in general, because if we let the Iraqis handle their own business that kind refutes the whole "imperialist America" thing. Overall, it would be a good step toward better relations with the Islamic world. I would also suggest removing our troops from Saudi Arabia (and yes, we do have some there), considering that's what got bin Laden pissed at us for in the first place.

[Hubb]

For the love of Christ, use Firefox. It has spell check.

Maybe you should use spellcheck, too. You said:

And just look at the terrian of Iran.

Check yourself before you insult someone else.

Also:

I would also suggest removing our troops from Saudi Arabia (and yes, we do have some there), considering that's what got bin Laden pissed at us for in the first place.

Someone already followed that suggestion, in 2003.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3584.htm

Read the section on US/Saudi Arabian Relations.

[FreeMason]

Someone already followed that suggestion, in 2003.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3584.htm

Read the section on US/Saudi Arabian Relations.

Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't heard about it.

[Villalba]

Somalia is an anarchy. Truth be told, it is better off without a govt, even through violence erupted, there is no corruption, no income taxes, and everything is run by the private sector. When the corrupted govt was in power, the nation had only one airline, now they have like 15. Thats the positive side of the Somalia Anarchy. Negative is violence, and no Law & Order.

Iraq, if we pulled out, there will be violence, the Prime Minister will be overthrown, and the police force will be overun by radical extremist. And that is the best thing that can happen. The worst, well everything American forces risked their lifes for, the sacrifice will be all for nothing. Sience someone will most likely take power, sign agreements with Mahmoud Ahmadehijad. Hijack some nuclear weapons and hold the world hostage.

[Hubb]

Somalia is an anarchy. Truth be told, it is better off without a govt, even through violence erupted, there is no corruption, no income taxes, and everything is run by the private sector. When the corrupted govt was in power, the nation had only one airline, now they have like 15. Thats the positive side of the Somalia Anarchy. Negative is violence, and no Law & Order.

Iraq, if we pulled out, there will be violence, the Prime Minister will be overthrown, and the police force will be overun by radical extremist. And that is the best thing that can happen. The worst, well everything American forces risked their lifes for, the sacrifice will be all for nothing. Sience someone will most likely take power, sign agreements with Mahmoud Ahmadehijad. Hijack some nuclear weapons and hold the world hostage.

Actually, Somalia has a transitional government. I can't believe you'd actually say even though there is violence, there is no corruption. Also, what do the number of airlines, specifically, have to do with the "positive side of the Somalia Anarchy?"

So basically what you're saying is this:

Positive=No govt. corruption, more airlines

Negative=Violence, total absence of Law and Order

:rolleyes: Your correlation seems a little bit lopsided to me.

Also, everything is not run by the private sector, as I stated earlier when pointing out the transitional government of Somalia. The transitional government uses militias to control the populace. Sounds to me like "Somali anarchy" sucks a fat one.

[Villalba]

No, im not talking about the good things of Somalia, im basically talking about the positive and negative things in having an Anarchy, im just using Somalia as an example. And your are absolutely right, somalia was only an Anarchy when the civil war started, now is a transitional government run by the Somalian clans.

Positive = people are better off, even if they live in fear, they are not socialist anymore, but a free market economy. The airline part was just an example of growth, when the socialist government was in power the national airline, had only one airplane, now there are about fifteen airlines, sixty aircrafts, about 7 international destinations, and more domestic routes. this is Africa were talking about, a dark continent with the poorest nations.
Negative = Well, piracy...and no Law & Order. Clan fights among eachother. Is kinda similar, to what happens if California police department runs out of funds.

[leninrocks244]

Maybe you should use spellcheck, too. You said:



Check yourself before you insult someone else.



Nah. Usually, I'm a good speller. But Snickers spells like a 7th grader, so I just suggested that he should use Firefox. No need to get all riled up because a Socialist Commie pig "insulted" a Conservative, ma'm.

[leninrocks244]

Um...I don't know whether to applaud that or argue with it. I like the "if the legal government of Iraq wants us out, let's get out. But please, don't cut spending on military training, military modernization, or security programs" and "they can take their pleadings and shove 'em where the sun doesn't shine, no reason to have any more of our people die for those ingrates" parts, but I'm not sure I agree that Iraq will necessarily become a terrorist breeding ground. That's worst case scenario. I think if we respect the wishes of the people and the gov, we will have a loyal ally in the mid-East, so long as their gov survives (which I think it has a good chance of doing). I also think it would be a good diplomatic move in the mid-East in general, because if we let the Iraqis handle their own business that kind refutes the whole "imperialist America" thing. Overall, it would be a good step toward better relations with the Islamic world. I would also suggest removing our troops from Saudi Arabia (and yes, we do have some there), considering that's what got bin Laden pissed at us for in the first place.

I have to agree with that whole statement.

[Hubb]

My reason for being "riled up" has nothing to do with you being a "socialist commie pig" or Snickers being a "conservative."

We've been down this road before, and I'd rather not do it again. All I'm saying is add something else to the conversation other than "use spell check."

I truthfully don't want to fight with you, so don't take my posting as the start to another flamefest.

You watch what you say. I'll watch what I say. If somebody else acts like a dick, they'll get called out by somebody (probably one of us). Deal?

Also, I'm not a ma'am. I'm a dude. LOL.

Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't heard about it.

No problem, dude. Not trying to be a dick in any way. Just want people to argue with the facts, and that means me, too. :)

[leninrocks244]

My reason for being "riled up" has nothing to do with you being a "socialist commie pig" or Snickers being a "conservative."

We've been down this road before, and I'd rather not do it again. All I'm saying is add something else to the conversation other than "use spell check."

I truthfully don't want to fight with you, so don't take my posting as the start to another flamefest.

You watch what you say. I'll watch what I say. If somebody else acts like a dick, they'll get called out by somebody (probably one of us). Deal?

Also, I'm not a ma'am. I'm a dude. LOL.

Alright, I'll hold my tounge for now.

[bigdaddychacha]

No, im not talking about the good things of Somalia, im basically talking about the positive and negative things in having an Anarchy, im just using Somalia as an example. And your are absolutely right, somalia was only an Anarchy when the civil war started, now is a transitional government run by the Somalian clans.

Positive = people are better off, even if they live in fear, they are not socialist anymore, but a free market economy. The airline part was just an example of growth, when the socialist government was in power the national airline, had only one airplane, now there are about fifteen airlines, sixty aircrafts, about 7 international destinations, and more domestic routes. this is Africa were talking about, a dark continent with the poorest nations.
Negative = Well, piracy...and no Law & Order. Clan fights among eachother. Is kinda similar, to what happens if California police department runs out of funds.

Is it still alright to call Africa a "dark continent?"

Is that thinly veiled racism towards California I detect? Actually, it's probably similar to what happens in just about any state where law enforcement funding runs out. You think Indiana meth labs are going to shut themselves down, barring an explosion, if all the Hoosier cops take time off?!?

While I was in Vietnam about three weeks ago, I learned that they considered the consolidation of several independant airplanes into a single Vietnam Airlines (VA) with uniform standards, dress codes, expanded international destination listings, a larger fleet of planes, etc. to be a vast improvement over the way it used to be. It sounds similar to what you described in Somalia, but in reverse with the improvements still happening, under socialism, no less! Maybe modernization finds its way into anywhere eventually, whether the place exists under Communism, Transitional Government, or even sometimes in complete Anarchy (I'm capitalizing them because this is CN, afterall!)

I sincerely doubt that Somalia is as great under Anarchy/Transitional Government as make it sound.

[The Corporal]

I hate to have to say it like this, but talking about "the good things in Somalia right now" is kinda like talking about "all the good things Hitler did." Maybe it's gotten better in the last 10 years, but it is in no way "good." Come to think of it, there are precious few places in Africa where you can really call the human situation "good." Increasing Islamic fundamentalism in Saharan Africa, genocide in Sudan, tribal conflicts throughout the western coastal and central regions, dictatorship in Zimbabwe, war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, AIDS in South Africa....if it weren't for the negative racial connotations that accompany the term "dark continent," that would be a very apt term for Africa.