LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Senate Chambers (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445)
-   -   Vacating Hell: Iraq (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=177847)

Windu Chi 04-24-2007 05:07 PM

Vacating Hell: Iraq
 
Well, ladies and gentleman and boys and girls, the democrats are finally or trying to grow some balls. They are hell-bent it seems, to get the troops outs out of that bloodbath and bring honor back to this country, for those of you who still care for honor.

But of course, with Bush and his delusional supporters of that dishonorable war still at the helm, their relentlessness in ending this war won't have a chance in hell in succeeding.

Hell is most likely to become a vacation spot, then this action becoming successful.

But there is always a possibility.

For those of you who has took up residence in neighborhood rock for the last couple months.
They, are trying to pass a war spending bill that require the troops to start to begin canceling their reservations in hell by Oct 1, 2007
and finaly get them out there by April 1, 2008.

But, lets be serious this is not happening.

But some will stay!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Associated Press
Under the bill, U.S. forces could remain in Iraq after the 2008 date, but would be restricted to three non-combat missions: protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other similar organizations, and training and equipping Iraqi forces.

I would say Iraq will become the 51st state of the United States of America[ in the next decade or so. :lol:

Comments ?

CLONECOMMANDER501 04-29-2007 08:44 PM

I think that we can't win, Vietnam and Korea failed so why try a broken plan?

Nancy Allen`` 04-30-2007 03:02 AM

For those that take a moral stance, how moral is it to leave the people of Iraq to die from the strife that had been created with the invasion? We're stuck in Iraq; stay and we anger the world further including Iraqis and terrorism, leave and the violence goes on unchecked and enemies can use it for point scoring and even demonstrate that America and it's allies are weak and can be defeated. We cannot win, no matter what we do.

Det. Bart Lasiter 04-30-2007 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
For those that take a moral stance, how moral is it to leave the people of Iraq to die from the strife that had been created with the invasion?

How moral is it to stay and let our soldiers die alongside the Iraqis the administration subjected to this war? No matter what we do the killings there will continue. A ~1400 year long conflict won't end just because we want it to.

Nancy Allen`` 04-30-2007 10:01 PM

Exactly. So the difficult situation is do we try and atone for our crimes by trying to defend the people of Iraq by sacrificing our sons and daughters in an effort to limit the killing or pull out and just let the Iraqis die, failing them in their time of need? All the possible answers to this question are wrong.

Det. Bart Lasiter 04-30-2007 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Exactly. So the difficult situation is do we try and atone for our crimes by trying to defend the people of Iraq by sacrificing our sons and daughters in an effort to limit the killing or pull out and just let the Iraqis die, failing them in their time of need?

Because our attempts to do this so far have been oh so sucessful. The **** has already hit the fan in Iraq, there's no sense in continuing to stand in front of it.

Nancy Allen`` 04-30-2007 10:10 PM

I want to bring the troops home, I do. How many more Iraqis will die than there already are if we do however? If we are wrong in invading, and we are, shouldn't we try and fix it?

Det. Bart Lasiter 04-30-2007 10:25 PM

My point is that we can't fix it.

Datheus 04-30-2007 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
So . . . do we try and atone for our crimes by trying to defend the people of Iraq by sacrificing our sons and daughters in an effort to limit the killing . . .

Why are you a glutton for punishment? It wasn't my mistake or any GI's mistake. Why not punish those who committed the crimes instead of punishing some lower middle class family from Kansas or North Carolina whose son is about to be blown to pieces?

Nancy Allen`` 04-30-2007 11:19 PM

I was going to write a long piece on this but I think my thoughts can be broken down to simply this: If we do pull out from Iraq will the reaction be that we should sacrifice more to fix the problem we created?

Windu Chi 04-30-2007 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
I was going to write a long piece on this but I think my thoughts can be broken down to simply this: If we do pull out from Iraq will the reaction be that we should sacrifice more to fix the problem we created?

Nancy, Iraq don't have a airforce or sufficient army to protect their country, I don't see the troops leaving no time soon; about two decades or so, maybe.

Also Nancy, that fool Bush and his idiotic administration created this mess.
They lied to start this war, for what?
I'm not sure, Nancy.

The bio weapons, no dice; the chemical weapons, no dice.
Lies!


I see us staying there for 50 yrs or so, unless the U.N. step in.
But the U.N. is a useless f**kup organization, so 50yrs, my vote.

How long do you think we will remain there, Nancy? :)

Nancy Allen`` 05-01-2007 12:12 AM

Which is the point I'm making, Iraq cannot defend itself from Sunni and Shi'ite aggression. The forces we have there can barely contain it. Without aid Iraqis will die. The question remains whether or not we should? And there's all these factors to consider: should we stay and if the problem cannot be fixed then sacrifice the soldiers there, considering it's our fault? Is it pointless politically and economically to stay? What would the result be if we stayed? If we leave?

To answer your queston it seems the Democrats are organising an exit stratergy, last I heard March 31st next year is the date the soldiers will leave Iraq. Will it happen? Could it be sooner? March next year or before the elections next year would almost guarentee a victory for the Democrats, so from this point of view I think I can almost assure that it will happen and for those who are saying about the negatives of us staying I think as wrong as it is to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves I think it is less harmful than interfering any further and inciting further violence by being there. But I will say that we must make sure that whatever action is taken that Iraq will be able to stand.

Windu Chi 05-01-2007 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Which is the point I'm making, Iraq cannot defend itself from Sunni and Shi'ite aggression. The forces we have there can barely contain it. Without aid Iraqis will die. The question remains whether or not we should? And there's all these factors to consider: should we stay and if the problem cannot be fixed then sacrifice the soldiers there, considering it's our fault? Is it pointless politically and economically to stay? What would the result be if we stayed? If we leave?

A difficult question to answer, time will tell I guess, Nancy. ;)
There seem to be no way out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
To answer your queston it seems the Democrats are organising an exit stratergy, last I heard March 31st next year is the date the soldiers will leave Iraq. Will it happen?

I highly doubt it, hell is most likely to become a vacation destination then the
Democrats overriding that *******'s veto.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Could it be sooner? March next year or before the elections next year would almost guarentee a victory for the Democrats, so from this point of view I think I can almost assure that it will happen and for those who are saying about the negatives of us staying I think as wrong as it is to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves I think it is less harmful than interfering any further and inciting further violence by being there. But I will say that we must make sure that whatever action is taken that Iraq will be able to stand.

I guess whenever the hell the sectarian bloodletting cease, then maybe they can stand up and take possession of their country's future.
Unless they want to become a part of the U.S. if they can't get their sh*t together by themselves, Nancy. :)

ET Warrior 05-01-2007 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Without aid Iraqis will die

With aid Iraqis are already dying, and will continue to die. The only difference is that we would no longer be there CONTINUING to fuel anti-western sentiment that is adding to the violence. At least if we leave we are giving them a chance to fix their problems, instead of standing around telling everyone that we know what is best for them, and if they'd just listen to us everything would end with rainbows and unicorns.

Nancy Allen`` 05-01-2007 07:00 PM

If we leave, which we should, how would you react if the country erupts into total anarchy and Iraq's military and police force are completely overrun, killing millions of men women and children? I know I would have wished that we stayed and not opened the floodgates that could well happen if there is no one to stop the violence.

swphreak 05-01-2007 08:00 PM

I have no idea what the topic is about, but I'm guessing from the discussion.


The violence will continue whether US soldiers are there or not. If we don't have soldiers deployed there, we won't suffer any more casualties. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and I hope our next President will withdraw troops if Bush hasn't.

Nancy Allen`` 05-01-2007 08:04 PM

March 31st next year, I guarentee. It'll be the Democrats' trump card.

Windu Chi 05-02-2007 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
March 31st next year, I guarentee. It'll be the Democrats' trump card.

Don't be too sure of that Nancy, they are not guarenteed to win the election.
Look what happen in 2004, with that ass being relected.
That led to this mess, now.

We would have to wait and see, if you are right. ;)

Nancy Allen`` 05-02-2007 08:15 AM

This shouldn't come as any surprise, Bush has vetoed any plan to pull troops from Iraq. Still look for the Democrats to use ending the occupation as their big campaign vehicle, to them this is what the Death Star is to the Empire: a can't miss trump card.

Windu Chi 05-02-2007 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
This shouldn't come as any surprise, Bush has vetoed any plan to pull troops from Iraq.

Now, the Democrats need to grow some balls and veto his corrupt ass and Cheney lying ass out of office.
But they lack the spine to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Still look for the Democrats to use ending the occupation as their big campaign vehicle, to them this is what the Death Star is to the Empire: a can't miss trump card.

Yeah, Nancy I understand what you mean but they will have to win this upcoming presidential election, this isn't a guaranteed certainly no matter how much a useless and corrupt Republican president will seem to make the next election for the Democrats to win it, effortlessly.

The Republicans just probably cheat their way back into the presidency, like they did way back in 2000.
So, I won't count on the Democrats becoming victorious until I see it happen.
Nancy! :)

Prime 05-02-2007 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
The violence will continue whether US soldiers are there or not.

Yes, but at what scale? If the US pulls out, with the extent of the killing grow even larger to the point of genocide?

Nancy Allen`` 05-02-2007 05:53 PM

That's the big fear I have with any planned withdrawal.

With the Democrats, they should fight Bush on this, and on their election chances I'd bet money, or if not money something else, that they'll win. Back in 2000 sure, you can say Florida was a cheat, and I can understand that seeing as the result was real close. But this is 2007, the world hates Bush and his Republican allies. The Democrats want to bring the troops home and they have an edge in two of their canidates being the first woman and first African\American. The Republicans as far as I can tell have nothing. When it does become time to vote I honestly believe the Democrats will win and because of the amount of votes they should win by there cannot be any Supreme Court ruling against it.

Rogue15 05-02-2007 05:53 PM

I believe we should stay there and help until they have a large enough army to combat the insurgents themselves.

swphreak 05-02-2007 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prime
Yes, but at what scale? If the US pulls out, with the extent of the killing grow even larger to the point of genocide?

The Iraqis have guns don't they? Let them defend themselves. We went to war on BS claims, and we're wasting a crapload of money maintaining a presence there. Just pull out and fix our deficit, among other local problems.

The Middle East is never going to be a peaceful or stable place to live. Look at the Iran/Palestine situation. We weren't involved at all and they were shooting at each other. If we had the technology, I'd just say put up a quarantine force field around the area and let them have at it.

Son of Skywalker15 05-02-2007 08:12 PM

I believe we should stay there and help until they have a large enough army to combat the insurgents themselves

I generally agree. They have, despite what you hear in the main stream media, grown a pretty big Police Force and Army. Once we finish training them against terrorist war-fare, which they probably know better then us, we can let them defend themselves. We should really starts to focus on getting a way of getting of reorganizing the Middle East, and stopping the destructive conflict of the Sunnis and Shiites.

Windu Chi 05-02-2007 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue15
I believe we should stay there and help until they have a large enough army to combat the insurgents themselves.

They just don't need a army a air force too.
The timeline for all that would mean a U.S. military stay of at least 50 yrs.
But that is just a guess, it's probably longer then that.
I don't see a solution no time soon, maybe a couple of generations.

Son of Skywalker15 05-02-2007 09:06 PM

This is the effect of something almost 2,000 years old, windu6. This isn't something new, the terror in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East. I just wanted you to realize that this isn't just since we've been here, it's since the Sunnis and the Shiites split after Muhammad's death, and the Crusades were also a catalyst.

Rogue15 05-02-2007 09:12 PM

I don't think we'll be there for 50+ years. 5 years at the most seems sufficient. maybe you should check these websites out:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/
http://www.army.mil/

Nancy Allen`` 05-02-2007 09:13 PM

What if there arose another Mohammed, or Saladin? Someone who was able to unite the whole fabric of Middle Eastern culture, especially against a common enemy such as America? Doesn't Osama Bin Laden fancy himself as trying to do just that? What would happen if the Muslim world was united whether or not it was against a common enemy?

Tinny 05-02-2007 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLONECOMMANDER501
I think that we can't win, Vietnam and Korea failed so why try a broken plan?


We maintained Korea and now South Korea is one of our strongest allies, Vietnam we lost because we backed out in the Paris peace accords.

Son of Skywalker15 05-03-2007 06:55 PM

What if there arose another Mohammed, or Saladin? Someone who was able to unite the whole fabric of Middle Eastern culture, especially against a common enemy such as America? Doesn't Osama Bin Laden fancy himself as trying to do just that? What would happen if the Muslim world was united whether or not it was against a common enemy?

Saladin, during the 2nd Crusade, unified Muslims against the Christians against a common enemy,yes. However, America may be a "common enemy", but we certainly are made of just Christians. That's why I don't like the comparison. Also, the Muslims aren't unifying, rather, radical muslims are unifying. We can forestall this unification of the terrorist, and we should try.

CLONECOMMANDER501 05-04-2007 03:31 PM

Islam should just be replaced. Maybe we could "bio-engineer" A new popular form of Islam to distract the mulsims in Iraq long enough for us to escape.

Prime 05-04-2007 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
The Iraqis have guns don't they?

Sure, but do they have the effective manpower?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
Let them defend themselves. We went to war on BS claims, and we're wasting a crapload of money maintaining a presence there. Just pull out and fix our deficit, among other local problems.

I get the sense that you don't care what happens there. :)

Dagobahn Eagle 05-04-2007 05:08 PM

Quote:

I get the sense that you don't care what happens there.
It's not a lack of empathy that's the problem, it's that the situation seems to be impossible to resolve, and is thus a waste of tax dollars and the lives of Coalition servicemen.

Nancy Allen`` 05-04-2007 06:30 PM

Could you live with the Insurgents crucifying innocent men, raping, tortuing and killing innocent women and killing innocent children were America to leave?

swphreak 05-04-2007 11:06 PM

No I don't (Prime), and yes I could (Nancy).

Perhaps our next President will have a new Plan for Iraq that will actually work, I don't know. But right now, I don't see much of a point in staying there. I guess the oil could be a reason, but I wouldn't fuss if we lost it.

As I mentioned before, our staying or leaving will make no difference to the region. People are still going to be killed, kidnapped, raped, bombed, ect. It's the frickin' Middle East. By pulling out we'll save money, and no more of our soldiers will be killed.

Nancy Allen`` 05-04-2007 11:10 PM

Well I do care what happens there, and maybe you're right in saying that it will be the same whether or not we leave. I'd like to think, best case scenario, that the situation improves with no Americans to kill in Iraq. I'm not sure that's possible though.

Windu Chi 05-04-2007 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Could you live with the Insurgents crucifying innocent men, raping, tortuing and killing innocent women and killing innocent children were America to leave?

They are already partially doing some of that, Nancy. :)

I'm not sure about the killing of innocent women and killing of innocent children, I'm assuming some of them are raping women and the tortuing men, that has already been confirm with the actions of the roaming death squads.
They torture some and murder others.

This war is a stalemate for both sides, the troops will keep dying until we don't have any more willing volunteers to send to that meatgrinder and the counter on that is decreasing fast.
The insurgents will keep sending people to die in skirmishes until there aren't no more volenteers or victims in Iraq to die in the skirmishes with the U.S. army and the marines, al-Qaida have millions of willing participants to die for nothing across this planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CLONECOMMANDER501
Islam should just be replaced. Maybe we could "bio-engineer" A new popular form of Islam to distract the mulsims in Iraq long enough for us to escape.

What the hell are you talking about? :lol:

Prime 05-07-2007 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
As I mentioned before, our staying or leaving will make no difference to the region.

I think this is the part I disagree with. I think the US leaving will make a difference. For the worse, in the case of the people who live there. But if you don't care, then there isn't much more to debate on that. :)

Nancy Allen`` 05-08-2007 06:57 PM

Apparently much of the reason for the turmoil is because of people such as Al Qaeda who have come to Iraq to fight the Americans. Now if we leave there's every chance they will leave as well, but they might not and try and take out what democracy is being attempted in Iraq.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.