lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Should the President Pull Out the Troops?
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 05-09-2004, 01:59 PM   #1
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Should the President Pull Out the Troops?

Okay... a little bird suggested this topic to me and I've been passive long enough, so I'm going to start some crap topics.

There's three sides to this issue as I see it: 1) Pull out all the troops and get out of Iraq as soon as possible. 2) stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to get the job down. 3) Pulling out of Iraq is ideal, but perhaps not possible due to the mess we've made.

Do you think the president (be it Bush or someone else) should pull US Troops out of Iraq? Explain.

I'll reserve my thoughts on this until later, but in looking at the issue as a whole, our continued involvement in Iraq means continued counte-involvement by those that would be our enemies. It seems clear that the Al-Qaeda/insurgent activities are targeting western forces and western institutions (such as Iraqi manned police forces, etc.). In addition, the recent allegations of abuse will certainly have an affect on the remaining time our troops spend on the ground there.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2004, 10:27 AM   #2
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
No.

Pulling them out would create a power vacuum and destabilise the area even more.

Everyone told Bush exactly what would happen if he went in, he went in anyway, it has all happened. - He has to live with the results, even if it means watching the body bags coming home over the months.

The only way i can see to start to sort out the mess is to slowly transfer control of peackeeping activities to the UN and get troops from other countries to take over from the US so they can phase out their troops.
Unfortunately, this means that troops from other countries are going to be getting the flak and deaths that should, by rights, go to the americans.
However it is never going to stabilise while there are US troops (and by association british troops) on the ground, they are too despised in that area.

A lot will rest on whether the new government (when set up) is seen as legitimate by the population, or as a puppet government under the control of (and kept in power by) the US troops.

After all, the main spark in the creation of Al Quaida was supposed to be the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia supporting an undemocratic and unpopular government.
And didn't the UK/US put in a government of iraq after the 2nd world war (which was seen as illegitimate and the pawn of the west). Wasn't it this government that Saddam overthrew as part of a popular uprising? Not a good precendent.

Al quaida wouldn't be in iraq if it wasn't for the US being in iraq, but just pulling them out now isn't going to get Al Quaida to leave.

One thing i do think is necessary is that they get some form of muslim and "non-western" troops in as soon as possible, so that there are troops in the area that are seen as more neutral or sympathetic and not as US cronies.

Harsh and unpaletable as it is to say, a small part of me thinks that (in the wider scheme of things) it is good that a number of US troops have started to be killed in iraq.
I think that their massive military and temporary uni-super-power status had lead them into a feeling of invunerability. A feeling that they could invade any country without repercussions or without approval from the UN. The ease they won in affganistan only re-enforecd this view (especially with Bush & Co.).
Having a load of soldiers die might be a necessary reality check that will make them consider the consequences in the future.

War is unpleasent, it isn't a good idea to forget that.
(Isn't that the basis of some star-trek episode???)



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)

Last edited by toms; 05-12-2004 at 11:35 AM.
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2004, 12:31 PM   #3
Crazy_dog no.3
Banned
 
Crazy_dog no.3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Location:Location:Location
Posts: 3,102
No. He started a mess, he should deal with it, even if it does mean the lives of soldiers.


Quentin Tarantino must direct the next James Bond film.
click here to sign the petition
Crazy_dog no.3 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2004, 07:46 PM   #4
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3
No. He started a mess, he should deal with it, even if it does mean the lives of soldiers.
... that's... kind of weird logic, he makes a mistake and others should suffer for it?

I'm not sure if I should ask... *walks off confused*


ďThis body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.Ē
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2004, 08:24 PM   #5
MasterN64
Junior Member
 
MasterN64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Town of the Greats
Posts: 264
No,

Now, I have been a Republican and I supported Bush at the election. And I still support him (however I am not old enough to vote). Bush went in there because he was informed by the U.S. Intelligence that there was a good chance that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. AND so were many other countries (there are at least 20 countries as far as i know that are in Iraq fighting alongside US troops) So, the President acted. Now we have captured Suddam Hussein, but however we did not find weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that tbey are not there? No. For all we know Saddam could have given the weapons to some other terrorists as soon as the war started. Or it could be deep underground and only a select few know. Anyway, we went there to do a job, put peace in Iraq. And we haven't accomplished that mission. However we are making progress. However, if we did pull back, the constant motar attacks on our artillery, the men firing at our infantry, etc. will all go to the newly formed Iraqi government. They don't need a war on their streets at this point. I bet that if the U.S. pulled out, the Iraqi government would beg us to stay.

Well, there is my $0.02.


Courage is not the absence of fear, it is the presence of fear and yet the will to go on...
MasterN64 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-12-2004, 12:26 AM   #6
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Sentinel
No,

Now, I have been a Republican and I supported Bush at the election. And I still support him (however I am not old enough to vote). Bush went in there because he was informed by the U.S. Intelligence that there was a good chance that there was weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. AND so were many other countries (there are at least 20 countries as far as i know that are in Iraq fighting alongside US troops) So, the President acted.
If I remember, they didn't say good chances, they stated, "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" there is a major difference between good chance and a sure thing.


Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Sentinel
Now we have captured Suddam Hussein, but however we did not find weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that tbey are not there? No. For all we know Saddam could have given the weapons to some other terrorists as soon as the war started. Or it could be deep underground and only a select few know. Anyway, we went there to do a job, put peace in Iraq.
wrong, we went there because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction and were a threat to america, which they were not, IMHO. Capturing Saddam has nothing to do with why we went there. If Iraq has WMD's why not use them before we reached an attack position? If I had wmd's and was going to be attacked, you could bet I'd use em. I seriously doubt Saddam would pay good money for weapons only to get rid of them for free, it's just not in his character, especially the character america has made him out to be.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

And we haven't accomplished that mission.
Because that's not why we went in there, atleast when we declared war it wasn't.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

They don't need a war on their streets at this point.
But that's what they have right now. Lot's of gun fights are being held at the cities.

Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Sentinel

I bet that if the U.S. pulled out, the Iraqi government would beg us to stay.
I'm gonna let this float by, and see what Skinwalker has to say, because I'm not to up to date on Iraq's "government"

Glad you sported your opinion, and in a calm cool manner.


ďThis body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.Ē
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-13-2004, 09:27 PM   #7
XERXES
werd
 
XERXES's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NC
Posts: 3,732
No, and im not explaining because every anti-war pansy is going to claim everything I say is false with the same "facts" that they have all be stating for a year now. So I'll just simply stick with my opinion.


like woah
XERXES is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2004, 12:08 PM   #8
Crazy_dog no.3
Banned
 
Crazy_dog no.3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Location:Location:Location
Posts: 3,102
Quote:
Originally posted by InsaneSith
... that's... kind of weird logic, he makes a mistake and others should suffer for it?

I'm not sure if I should ask... *walks off confused*
Unfortunate but true. I mean, what else is there to do (besides leave Iraq, which may or may not improve the situation)


Quentin Tarantino must direct the next James Bond film.
click here to sign the petition
Crazy_dog no.3 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2004, 04:32 PM   #9
ronbrothers
 
ronbrothers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 416
Definately not. I truly support our troops being there. The anti-war fanatics simply cannot see the big picture. Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs. How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians. Because Bill Clinton told us he did. Because Al Gore told us he did. Because John Kerry told us he did (in 2003!). Because France, Germany and Russia told us he did. The nay sayers don't want to acknowledge those facts because many of those statements were made during the previous administration. Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.


I've got a bad feeling about this...
ronbrothers is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2004, 06:07 PM   #10
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
I'm against the war, but we have to stay in there or else we'll create a bigger mess than before.

Quote:
Definately not. I truly support our troops being there. The anti-war fanatics simply cannot see the big picture. Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs. How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians. Because Bill Clinton told us he did. Because Al Gore told us he did. Because John Kerry told us he did (in 2003!). Because France, Germany and Russia told us he did. The nay sayers don't want to acknowledge those facts because many of those statements were made during the previous administration. Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.
But they don't have WMD's now. Why would Saddam give away WMD's when he could use them against us?

And if we invade every country that breaks U.N. resolutions, then we'd have to invade ourselves just because of this war. Kinda ironic.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2004, 08:13 PM   #11
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by ronbrothers
Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs.
That's a common fallacy. Actually, Saddam offered very little in the way of "aid and comfort to terrorists" and there was little danger of him giving WMDs away.

Quote:
Originally posted by ronbrothers
How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians.
Another fallacy. The possibility did exist that he still had WMDs, but that data wasn't known with any empiricism. Certainly not enough to say it was "known." The best one can say is that he was suspected to have WMDs. In addition, there was no indication that Saddam would have transferred WMDs to other entities, certainly not terrorists, since his history indicated that he was selfish when it came to weapons technology. Moreover, science tells us that the WMDs that he was suspected of possessing were gone. The shelf life of anthrax in the best of conditions (refrigerated storage) is relatively short and as is the shelf life of the particular nerve agent that he was accused of possessing. These chemicals simply breakdown overtime. Those figures were posted elsewhere in this forum if you would like to search for "anthrax."

Quote:
Originally posted by ronbrothers
The nay sayers don't want to acknowledge those facts because many of those statements were made during the previous administration.
I've no qualms about speaking out against Clinton/Gore... I didn't particularly care for either in regards to foreign policy. If I'm a "nay sayer," its only because I look at things with a skeptical eye. From my perspective, the Bush & Co. rank and file ignore empirical data in favor of ideology.

Quote:
Originally posted by ronbrothers
Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.
And the question goes on.... why haven't the other tyrannical leaders of the world been held to the same account? Iraq isn't the only country to recieve UN mandates, sanctions and resolutions and fail to follow through. The United States has its share that have been ignored. Who holds us accountable.

The bottom line is that Iraq was a threat to its nieghbors. The Iraqi government was a threat to its citizens. Many countries are and have been now and in the past. But the stated reason for entering Iraq wasn't even this threat, it was Iraq's WMD capability. Which, as it turns out, was a big, fat zero.

Now, our soldiers and marines (as well as U.S. civilian workers and entrepeneurs) are being killed and wounded on an almost daily basis. Terrorists, insurgents and anarchists have entered the country for the chance to kill Americans in their own part of the world. From their point of view, they are patriots. From ours, they're terrorists. The people caught in the middle are the very people we took the responsibility to liberate. Iraq has no government to speak of. No Army. No independent police or security force.

We can't leave. And yet, the longer we stay, the worse it will get. The only chance we have is to get as many other nations to send as many troops as possible now. But even that might not be possible. Our good will and position as a world leader is compromised.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-14-2004, 09:47 PM   #12
wassup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,695
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker
And yet, the longer we stay, the worse it will get.
Ironic, isn't it? And yet the Bush administration just keeps repeating the same old rhetoric of how the situation in Iraq is getting better, people are more free, etc., etc. Yet these stages of progress are only temporary and insecure, and can be completely wiped away with an upsurge in violence and conflict.
wassup is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-15-2004, 08:27 AM   #13
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker
We can't leave. And yet, the longer we stay, the worse it will get. The only chance we have is to get as many other nations to send as many troops as possible now. But even that might not be possible. Our good will and position as a world leader is compromised.
Seems about right. Shame it is the people in iraq who are suffering though, caught in the middle of a war between external forces.

I wouldn't count on that many countries wanting to help out the US. THey have been leaning on countries for years now to help out, anyone who hasn't helped already is likely to be so pissed off now that they won't help in the future. Unless it is turned over to UN control, so they can try and sort out the US's mess.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-18-2004, 03:55 PM   #14
ronbrothers
 
ronbrothers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker

The bottom line is that Iraq was a threat to its nieghbors. The Iraqi government was a threat to its citizens. Many countries are and have been now and in the past. But the stated reason for entering Iraq wasn't even this threat, it was Iraq's WMD capability. Which, as it turns out, was a big, fat zero.
And now we have both sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq ...

Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq


I've got a bad feeling about this...
ronbrothers is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2004, 01:26 AM   #15
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote from the link above:

However, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war

But assuming that the find(s) is(are) genuine, I sure hope the lives of so many servicemen and civilians weren't wasted on one 155 mm howitzer round of so-called WMD.

Morever, it's convenient that a WMD find is precisely the type of thing one would expect to bail Bush & co out (particularly Rumsfeld) at a point in time where the credibility of the adminstration is being severly questioned.

Face it. We blundered. We need to admit it, fix it as best we can, and carry on with our lives. Then endeavor to not repeat the mistakes in the future.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2004, 06:11 AM   #16
ronbrothers
 
ronbrothers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker
Quote from the link above:

Morever, it's convenient that a WMD find is precisely the type of thing one would expect to bail Bush & co out (particularly Rumsfeld) at a point in time where the credibility of the adminstration is being severly questioned.

Ha ha! I knew it... here come the black helicopter theories...


I've got a bad feeling about this...
ronbrothers is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2004, 10:42 AM   #17
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
No black helicopters from me, Buba.

But I will say that with the lies and disinformation that has been apparent from the Bush admin to date, there is little to trust from them now.

I'm skeptical of the existance of an actual binary sarin round for a couple of reasons:

1) The type that were in use by Saddam were of the kind that needed to be filled by jerry can just prior to use (by some poor sod), which made them dangerous to handle.

2) While the shelf life of sarin is increased by use of a binary agent rather than a unitary one, the shelf life is still limited severely. Mustard gas is stable for years, but the chemicals used in sarin are volatile and HCl is often a by product (that's HydroChloric acid, BTW).

So while you sit back and merely accept whatever the Bush admin tells you, I choose to engage the critical thinking of science and ask questions.

That's a far cry from making unfounded claims of conspiracy and shadow governments necessary for "black helicopters." Besides, I don't think the Bush admin has the intelligence to sustain such a complex conspiracy. They couldn't even keep the torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military a secret.


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-19-2004, 06:38 PM   #18
wassup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,695
How do we know that the sarin gas was not smuggled into Iraq after the US invasion? With Iraq in disarray and without proper security, i imagine it would not have been very hard to smuggle some of the chemical into Iraq, especially such a small amount like the one that was recovered.
wassup is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-20-2004, 07:54 AM   #19
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
it sounds like one, very old, shell.
It had been rigged by millitants, so who knows where they got it from. It may have been lying around unexploded frm the iran iraq war, it may have come from outside, or it may have come from a hidden stockpile. No one can know yet.

However, if it came from a hidden stockpile, it can't have been well hidden if the insurgents found it. Which tends to imply they just found it lying around. Which probably means there isn't some "big secret".

Anyway, it is a very short range battlefield weapon which is (A) not what most people think of when they hear WMD (B) not what we were lead to believe bush meant by WMD (C) of no danger to us, or anyone else that isn't in or very near iraq.

That cult in tokyo had more sarin, and any fool can make mustard gas.

I'd hardly say it was a big deal either way.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2004, 12:42 AM   #20
ronbrothers
 
ronbrothers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker

That's a far cry from making unfounded claims of conspiracy and shadow governments necessary for "black helicopters." Besides, I don't think the Bush admin has the intelligence to sustain such a complex conspiracy. They couldn't even keep the torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. military a secret.

Just what exactly are your sources indicating that the Bush administration tried to keep torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. a military secret?

I would ask instead why 14 members of Congress including 11 Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee waited until now to express "outrage" and "shock" when they were informed months ago .

Take a look:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040517/D82K20980.html


I've got a bad feeling about this...
ronbrothers is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2004, 12:51 AM   #21
ronbrothers
 
ronbrothers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally posted by wassup
How do we know that the sarin gas was not smuggled into Iraq after the US invasion? With Iraq in disarray and without proper security, i imagine it would not have been very hard to smuggle some of the chemical into Iraq, especially such a small amount like the one that was recovered.
I'd concede that this is a possibility. I will not accept that it did not originate from Saddam, though. I believe that it is very possible that what wmd's he might have had could have been sent out of the county to friendly neighbors such as Syria. Now these terrorists and insurgents could have smuggled some back into the country. If that is the case, our troops still have the threat of these weapons --however sporadic they may be-- as in this case. One cannister is just as deadly as two. In this case, the chemicals did not have the opportunity to mix properly.


I've got a bad feeling about this...
ronbrothers is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-21-2004, 07:54 AM   #22
SkinWalker
Anthropologist
 
SkinWalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Give critical thought a chance
Posts: 2,709
LFN Staff Member 
Quote:
Originally posted by ronbrothers
I will not accept that it did not originate from Saddam, though. I believe that it is very possible that what wmd's he might have had could have been sent out of the county to friendly neighbors such as Syria.
That's the problem. Too much foreign policy and political decision-making occurring in this nation based on belief systems rather than empirical evidence.

And I never said the Bush admin tried to keep it a secret. That's just it. There was no OpSec involved.

Those that blindly support Bush because he talks tough want to believe Saddam & co were trying to hide WMDs or store them or use them or whatever. Anything and everything but mostly have gotten rid of them. That fits the belief system. That justifies the war.

Personally, I hope they find a huge stockpile. I'd like nothing better for the world to say, "oops."


A Hot Cup of Joe - My Blog

Not finding an intellectual challenge in the Swamp? Try the Senate Chambers!

Evolution and How We Know It's Right - Post your thoughts!
Debate Strategies & Tactics - Polish your online debate skills and offer your own advice
SkinWalker is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2004, 08:11 AM   #23
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
any word yet on whether that wedding party they bombed was actually a wedding party, or a load of terrorists as the US claims?

It's got to the stage where you have no idea who to believe anymore...

I think the worst thing possible now would be for them to fnd huge piles of weapons (not that i don't BELIEVE they might exist). Can you imagine the "i told you so" power trip that would put bush & blair on for the next few years?



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-22-2004, 05:30 PM   #24
ronbrothers
 
ronbrothers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 416
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by SkinWalker
That's the problem. Too much foreign policy and political decision-making occurring in this nation based on belief systems rather than empirical evidence.

And I never said the Bush admin tried to keep it a secret. That's just it. There was no OpSec involved.

Those that blindly support Bush because he talks tough want to believe Saddam & co were trying to hide WMDs or store them or use them or whatever. Anything and everything but mostly have gotten rid of them. That fits the belief system. That justifies the war.

Personally, I hope they find a huge stockpile. I'd like nothing better for the world to say, "oops."
Me too. But you are parsing my statement past what I meant. Believing is perfectly okay in even the most critical circumstances. For example, if you told me that you thought my mother was a stinking pig, you'd probably believe that I'd take offense at that. Even though you do not know me personally or have no empirical evidence that I personally have been upset over that before, you would probably believe that I would based on your past experiences with other like individuals.


You know, I am really beginning to enjoy debating you, because you can actually spell.


I've got a bad feeling about this...
ronbrothers is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2004, 12:15 PM   #25
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Master_Sentinel
However, if we did pull back, the constant motar attacks on our artillery, the men firing at our infantry, etc. will all go to the newly formed Iraqi government. They don't need a war on their streets at this point. I bet that if the U.S. pulled out, the Iraqi government would beg us to stay.
I think that the first sentence is right and the 2nd wrong.

Quote:
No, and im not explaining because every anti-war pansy is going to claim everything I say is false with the same "facts" that they have all be stating for a year now.
I smell smoke...

Quote:
The anti-war fanatics simply cannot see the big picture.
I still smell smoke...

Quote:
Saddam gave aid and comfort to terrorists and had a potential for supplying them with WMDs.
Bull****. Hussein was not exactly on speaking terms with the al Qaeda. Besides, it runs contrary to his best interests. Such weapons could potentially be traced back to him, after which Iraq would be a glow-in-the-dark-country after exactly 30 minutes.

Quote:
How do I know that he had them? Because he's used them before on his own people and on the Iranians. Because Bill Clinton told us he did. Because Al Gore told us he did. Because John Kerry told us he did (in 2003!). Because France, Germany and Russia told us he did.
Sheesh. If he has WMD, then the inspectors would have found them. It might have taken a few more months, it might have taken a few years, but do you really, honestly believe that it's possible to hide a significant quantity of WMD forever with a bunch of snoops in the country?

Oh, and you forgot one thing: Pentagon has the reciepts, because the WMD you talk about were sold to him by dubya's dad.

One thing that many people (both Democrats and Republicans) tend to forget is that WMD have a 'best before' date stamped on them just like any other consumer good. 11 years old WMD aren't likely to be useful anymore.

Quote:
Saddam dug his own grave by not complying with the 14 United States resolutions and was given 11 years to do so.
But, fortunately for them, Israel has the support of a permanent memeber of the UNSC, which generously covers their grave every time they dig it...

Quote:
And now we have both sarin and mustard gas found in Iraq ...
For the record, that was a detector spike, not an actual contamination.

Quote:
Just what exactly are your sources indicating that the Bush administration tried to keep torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. a military secret?
The scale of the abuse indicates that the Pentagon knew something. Since it wasn't exactly the Pentagon that published the pictures, one can infer that they would have tried to cover it up.

Quote:
I would ask instead why 14 members of Congress including 11 Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee waited until now to express "outrage" and "shock" when they were informed months ago
Duh, they did. As did the Read Cross, and Amnisty International.

Quote:
Just what exactly are your sources indicating that the Bush administration tried to keep torture of Iraqi prisoners by the U.S. a military secret?
Simple inferrence: The scale of the atrocities means that the Pentagon most likely knew about it. Since they didn't publish it, it means that they held it back.

Quote:
I believe that it is very possible that what wmd's he might have had could have been sent out of the county to friendly neighbors such as Syria.
I don't. It seems unlikely to me that a person as paranoid and autocratic as Hussein would hand over his WMD to a foreign power, knowing full well that said foreign power might steal them and/or use them against him in the future.

Quote:
Personally, I hope they find a huge stockpile. I'd like nothing better for the world to say, "oops."
I see where you're coming from, but such a find wouldn't change the fact that the war was illegal and illegitimate. Besides, you'd have every terrorist, insurgent, criminal, and low-life in Iraq swarming all over such a stash like bees on a doughnut in no time flat.

EDIT: I suddenly realized that I haven't answered the original question: No, I don't think that the US should pull out. But I think that the US will pull out. Because staying long enough for a stable, nonfundamentalistic power structure to form is gonna cost a truckload of dead American soldiers. And I don't believe that the American voters are prepared to sacrifice a couple of thousand American lives to save a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi lives.


Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 06-05-2004 at 02:05 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-26-2004, 01:06 PM   #26
C'jais
Spicy Viking Boy
 
C'jais's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Soviet Scandinavistan
Posts: 4,345
Definately not.

But even now, Bush is begging the UN to come in and save his roasted butt from this mess. If it does, I can see him trying to weasel his way out of the back door and blaming the UN for any and all subsequent mess-ups down there.


Better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you're not.

Member of The Scandinavian Clique

My LiveJournal
C'jais is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2004, 02:06 PM   #27
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
The dubya admin announced the other day that the american troops will stay for another 18 months or so... Commendable. Stupid, but commendable.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-05-2004, 08:22 PM   #28
Kurgan
Headhunter
 
Kurgan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1997
Location: The Dawn of Time
Posts: 18,322
LFN Staff Member 10 year veteran! 
There are pros and cons (as I see it) for pulling the troops out of Iraq.

Granted I'm going from the position of a private citizen without the intelligence data or military background but still, I do have an opinion.


If we pull out the troops, I predict that there will either be a civil war over control of Iraq, or at least the "puppets" we've appointed in positions of authority in Iraq will quickly either be assasinated, flee the country or be forced to resign in the face of angry mobs who don't want them in charge anymore.

Also, some US corporations will lose money. This MIGHT lead to higher gas prices in America, which would piss off a lot of people. Nobody likes to pay anymore for gas than they have to.


Then again, trading dead bodies for cheap gas isn't that great of a trade off, and lots of other countries face higher prices than we do, so perhaps we'd be forced to ban SUVs and exploit alternate fuel sources, more efficient cars, etc and the end result would be less pollution. Plus it would ultimately benefit farmers (ethanol production) and car manufacturers (including some US companies) in the long run.


Pulling out the troops means fewer sons and daughters of America have to come home in flag drapped coffins or with limbs missing. I "support our troops" but not in the way that I want them to die and die and be crippled for some far off country that doesn't want us there and doesn't show any signs of being a threat to our soil or being a cause worth dying for.

This means less money having to be spent on the troops over there, and it means more people in the work force at home. This could mean more job competition at home though (which could be bad for some people).

Less money spent on the "war" means more money to spend on other things, even if it's just recycled back into the military. But this "war on terror" was the reason (stated) for us going to war in the first place, so that money could be better spent on protecting our nation, rather than attacking countries that we now know were no threat to us (no WMD, and Osama Bin Laden isn't hiding there).

So for now, unless I see some credible evidence to shift me the other way, I am leaning towards pulling the US troops out of Iraq.

Mostly because I am so saddened by the numbers of people dying there every day, Americans AND Iraqis. I don't see us being stationed there is improving things.

My suggestion would be to let the UN handle it.

That might help stop the "civil war" scenario I mentioned above. Sure, we might end up with people in Iraq who don't want to be our best buddies, but at least it would cut down on some of the bloodshed from a civil war if we just let them fend for themselves. And if the situation remains the same, at least it would let countries pool their resources and perhaps come up with a better solution for Iraq, since we and our few allies have failed to come up with one, except just have our troops sit there forever getting shot, and every so often randomly beat up some Iraqis or blow up some stuff.

PS: Not that it matters one bit to the current situation, but I was against the war in Iraq from the start. I would have rather they let the weapons inspections continue and done some intelligence work to determine if the WMD thing was true or not. Since it ended up not being true, surely we would have found that out sooner or later. Thus we could have saved 900+ American lives, plus however many thousand Iraqi lives. Plus all the money we had spent on it.

Afgahnistan I think we had far more cause to go to war with than Iraq. But there again, what have we really accomplished? It's still a war zone, they still don't have democratic self rule do they? But at least we had a cause. Still, even in that cause I would have been in favor of surgical strikes and special forces, not an all out invasion like we did. Though the Taliban were much closer to "Osama's people" than Saddam.


So bring 'em (US Troops in Iraq) home...


Download JK2 maps for JA Server|BOOT CAMP!|Strategic Academy|
(JA Server: 108.178.55.189:29070)


"The Concussion Rifle is the weapon of a Jedi Knight Player, an elegant weapon, from a more civilized community." - Kyle Katarn
Kurgan is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-06-2004, 05:01 PM   #29
Noxrepere
 
Noxrepere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally posted by Kurgan
Pulling out the troops means fewer sons and daughters of America have to come home in flag drapped coffins or with limbs missing. I "support our troops" but not in the way that I want them to die and die and be crippled for some far off country that doesn't want us there and doesn't show any signs of being a threat to our soil or being a cause worth dying for.
From what I've heard the majority of Iraqis are pleased with the American presence and their help. I know someone serving over there and they have mentioned that more and more Iraqis are supporting America and very thankful for their intervention. Iíve also heard stories of soldiers who have returned from Iraq and have expressed their frustration with the negative image the American media has portrayed of the Iraq situation.

If anybody has a right to complain about the war, I think these people do, because they are the ones who have had to make all the sacrifices to defend America, not only in Iraq but all other countries abroad as well.

Basically, the negative Iraqi response shown on the media can be likened to the images the media showed of people in the middle-east celebrating over the destruction caused on 9/11. The media showed people dancing in the streets and celebrating but that didnít represent the opinion of the majority of people over there. I remember seeing representatives making specific comments regarding those images and the fact that they did not reflect how everyone felt about the attacks.

Anyone on the civilian side of the war really only gets a limited perspective of the whole picture because there is a lot of information that just canít be shared with the public for security reasons and other information can be withheld from public release by people who donít want their networks, for example, to become avenues for their release. That doesnít mean that that information isnít out there, it just means that people might need to look farther than TV news for the whole story.

I think pulling out of Iraq at this point would be a bad idea. The Iraqi people were left relatively exposed by the US leaving in the early 90ís when the job wasnít done. It wouldnít be right to leave those people left open like that again.

Last edited by Noxrepere; 06-08-2004 at 08:33 PM.
Noxrepere is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-08-2004, 08:54 AM   #30
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally posted by Noxrepere
Anyone on the civilian side of the war really only gets a limited perspective of the whole picture because there is a lot of information that just canít be shared with the public for security reasons and other information can be withheld from public release by people who donít want their networks, for example, to become avenues for their release. That doesnít mean that that information isnít out there, it just means that people might need to look farther than TV news for the whole story.
Maybe. But i would argue that anyone directly involved in a war is also unlikely to be getting the whole picture, as they will have a very limited point of view and limited interaction and impartiality. THe US media coverage of the war was a joke due tothe fact that the only media they had in the country were Imbedded reporters (genius move by the us army) who gave a great view of life amongst the troops, but hardly gave an impartial view of events. Every other country had impartial reporters in iraq and bagdad to give different views to the reporters they had with the troops. But checking various sources is always a good idea, as most media outlets bias their reporting one way or the other.
--
I'm sure a lot of iraqis are pleased to be rid of saddam. But i doubt many are keen on the americans who got rid of him (maybe unfair, but that is life). Additionally, although there was some fear and torture under saddam, the vast majority of the population didn't experience it directly and so could probably ignore it. Since the war they have come into much greater contact with violence, suffering and the colapse of their ecomony and basic services. So you have replaced a small number of very unhappy people with a larger number of fairly unhappy people.
--
You can't bring the troops home as it will create an even bigger power vacuum and lead to anarchy. You can't stay as it is causing more pain and trouble for both iraqis and americans. Your only option is to get someone else to take over the mess... but that still hardly seems fair on them...



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-08-2004, 10:51 AM   #31
AzureAngel
Rookie
 
AzureAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 53
Actually from what Ive recently read alot(maybe not the majority) of Iraqis do not want us there. .EDIT: Most are greatful for taking down saddam Also being friends with a soldier he particularly didnt want to go to Iraq. Bush screwed up, ok! We all make mistakes but we dont all pay for it with other peoples blood. Your logic may seem good to you but not to those dead soldiers comming home. If we pull out from Iraq there will be a power vacum and a very high chance of a civil war. Now let me ask you this. Its not the same but similar enough. Did anybody stop us from civil war? I dont want to sound cynical but if they want to fight each other who are we to stop them.

If we leave yeah sure higher gas prices, so go build a solar powered car


there are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who dont.
AzureAngel is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-08-2004, 09:35 PM   #32
Noxrepere
 
Noxrepere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 147
Quote:
Originally posted by toms
Maybe. But i would argue that anyone directly involved in a war is also unlikely to be getting the whole picture, as they will have a very limited point of view and limited interaction and impartiality. .
I was talking more about the good things that are being accomplished over there and the direct benefits that the people of Iraq are receiving now. They can see the happiness and the hope these people have now. If that isnít shown to anyone outside of those who see it for themselves, then they are not getting the whole picture.

Quote:
Originally posted by toms
Every other country had impartial reporters in iraq and bagdad to give different views to the reporters they had with the troops. But checking various sources is always a good idea, as most media outlets bias their reporting one way or the other.
I'm not sure I understand. What would make them impartial if they're not imbedded with the troops? They would still have an opinion on the war.


Quote:
Originally posted by toms
I'm sure a lot of iraqis are pleased to be rid of saddam. But i doubt many are keen on the americans who got rid of him (maybe unfair, but that is life). Additionally, although there was some fear and torture under saddam, the vast majority of the population didn't experience it directly and so could probably ignore it. Since the war they have come into much greater contact with violence, suffering and the colapse of their ecomony and basic services. So you have replaced a small number of very unhappy people with a larger number of fairly unhappy people..
I'm not sure about that. For example, I heard about a bridge that was in between Saddam's palace and his son's palace. When crossing this bridge, the Iraqi's weren't allowed to even look left or right, because to the left was one palace and to the right was the other. If they were caught looking either way they could be pulled aside and shot once they got to the end of the bridge. That would affect anyone and everyone who had to use that bridge.

Quote:
Originally posted by AzureAngel
Actually from what Ive recently read alot(maybe not the majority) of Iraqis do not want us there.
That still depends on the source and who they talked to. If they go to an area that is specifically loyal to Saddam, they could make it look like people are dissatisfied even if there are more areas that support the liberation. I donít doubt that there are some people upset over there, but who they are and what they have to gain if the troops were to pull out becomes an important factor. If a civil war is likely if the troops pull out, why would the Iraqiís who disliked Saddam, and are seeking freedom, want the troops to leave? I think the Saddam loyalists would have the most to gain from that situation because they would have a greater likelihood of regaining power.

I know it was just an example, but the American Civil War was a war that Americans started. In this situation it would be a civil war that America helped start in another country and then abandon them to fight for themselves.

I agree that it is sad when soldiers are killed, and I never thought it wasnít. However, youíre implying that all the soldiers who have died would consider the entire war a waste of effort. If they are fighting for something they believe in, then their sacrifices are not a waste.
Noxrepere is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-09-2004, 09:36 AM   #33
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Soldiers do die in wars, and if they didn't then we would be having wars all the time. Also, soldiers don't get much choice in who or why they fight, it is part of the job. That is why it is up to the politicians and the people to ensure that they are used correctly. I would say that whether the soldiers felt it was worth it or not was irrelevant.

I also think that, assuming all the plans work out, the iraqi people will eventualy end up better off. But at the moment they are almost all worse off.
They have things blowing up around them, no money, no power, no water, no food, and large ammounts of civil unrest. Whether they eventually end up better off will probably depend on what happens with their government... but if it is seen as a puppet government sustained by US troops then it is destined to fail, and the likelyhood either way is that a fairly hardline religious government will end up in power. So the majority may well end up better off, but i'm not sure that will be an improvement as far as minorities and the US is concerned.

As for reporters, well no-one is totally imartial. But, for example, the BBC had reporteres in bagdad, reporters in the field with rebels, reporters with british and US troops, so you got a whole range of views which as a whole at least added up to something mostly impartial.
By getting reporters to eat, sleep, bond and live with it's troops the US army cunningly created a media climate where the reporters had both a limited view, and an understandable attachment to their comrades.... an interesting viewpoint, but hardly an impartial one.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-20-2004, 05:08 AM   #34
Noxrepere
 
Noxrepere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 147
I would think that the Iraqi people would still be better off now. Under Saddam's rule they had little hope, if any at all.

With America, and their allies, fighting in Iraq, the people aren't living under Saddam's rule anymore and that, by itself, seems like a much better situation.


About the reporters:

I think it would still depend on the reporter. Someone who is adamantly against the war could provide negative news no matter where they are. Considering that it is harder to hear about the good news versus the bad it seems that there is a large bias against the war. (And I donít think that is because the good news isnít there. Like I said, Iíve read/heard about soldiers returning home who are upset about the media coverage and its negative appearance.)


I think the possibility of anybody providing a totally impartial view is slim to none anyways. No matter where they are they still have an opinion.
Noxrepere is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-20-2004, 06:47 PM   #35
ET Warrior
PhD in horribleness
 
ET Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Evil League of Evil
Posts: 9,405
LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally posted by Noxrepere
With America, and their allies, fighting in Iraq, the people aren't living under Saddam's rule anymore and that, by itself, seems like a much better situation.


With the constant worry about fighting in the streets and stray bullets? Not to mention a much more pronounced lack of clean water or even food? Doesn't sound like a very good situation to me.




Last edited by ET Warrior; 06-21-2004 at 02:19 AM.
ET Warrior is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-24-2004, 07:23 PM   #36
ShadowTemplar
Heathen
 
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally posted by Kurgan
Afgahnistan I think we had far more cause to go to war with than Iraq. But there again, what have we really accomplished? It's still a war zone
Seing that Afghanistan has been a warzone throughout recorded history, bringing peace and prosperity seems like a pretty lofty goal to me anyway. It's a 300-BC society with 1975 AD weapons technology. That has to go wrong.

ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-25-2004, 12:41 PM   #37
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
Seing that Afghanistan has been a warzone throughout recorded history, bringing peace and prosperity seems like a pretty lofty goal to me anyway. It's a 300-BC society with 1975 AD weapons technology. That has to go wrong.
true. (you just have to play Civ to see that... )



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2004, 12:07 PM   #38
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Anyways, this is somewhat related on the topic:

Today, 6/28/04, the US transferred sovereignity to the Iraqi Interim Government two days ahead of time. Here's the AT&T news article for it:

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/new...3g2gug1&src=ap

Quote:
Also, soldiers don't get much choice in who or why they fight, it is part of the job.
Yet the soldiers acknowledge at the time of signing up to join the Armed Forces that they have to fulfill their job even if they don't believe in it.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2004, 07:52 PM   #39
El Sitherino
The Original.
 
El Sitherino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Funkālnite.
Posts: 14,509
Hot Topic Starter LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit
Yet the soldiers acknowledge at the time of signing up to join the Armed Forces that they have to fulfill their job even if they don't believe in it.
true, but does that justify their deaths for a lie?


ďThis body is not me. I am not caught in this body.
I am life without limit.Ē
El Sitherino is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-29-2004, 08:19 PM   #40
MennoniteHobbit
Veteran
 
MennoniteHobbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally posted by InsaneSith
true, but does that justify their deaths for a lie?
That is an obviously debatable opinion in itself. They volunteer, automatically accepting whatever happens for whatever reason. It's there choice to volunteer and enlist. And some of the very vocal soldiers who've gone AWOL haven't died yet, due to the fact they neglected their duty.

MennoniteHobbit is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Should the President Pull Out the Troops?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:40 PM.

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