US Troops in Iraq

Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:38 pm

This is for a little debate, and I just want to gather arguments from both sides.

Are you in favor of a continued occupation or not?

Why/why not? Very Happy

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

Not in favor, I do not want to be sent there.

Whenever a politician talks about pullout, our fearless leader safely in the rear declares that such talk destroys the morale of the troops. I find that talk is very good for my morale, and our fearless leader safely in the rear is the one destroying morale.

Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 4:24 pm

It seems reasonable to suggest that the US will have a continued presence in Iraq for as long as there is economically viable oil in the Middle Eastern region. There will come a point when the presence isn’t so obvious, but it will be there nonetheless. I think anyone who is for protecting the continued supply of oil out of this very volatile region should be for the continued presence.

FYI, I'm not necassily for a "military" presence anywhere, but only that it is a reality of the current human condition.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 666

I have to disagree. Our actions have protected the supply of oil - from being used by consumers. I don't think that is the type of protection you were talking about though. The best way to guarantee oil flows from the Middle East is to stop destabilizing the region because whomever finally emerges as local petty dictator will want the money the oil in his area will provide if he sells it reliably.

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:

I have to disagree. Our actions have protected the supply of oil - from being used by consumers. I don't think that is the type of protection you were talking about though. The best way to guarantee oil flows from the Middle East is to stop destabilizing the region because whomever finally emerges as local petty dictator will want the money the oil in his area will provide if he sells it reliably.

This theory (mercantilism) was disproven over 200 years ago.

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 8:24 pm

I am against the occupation.

The reasons I am against are as follows.

A total waste of money, man, materiel on a cause that cannot succeed.
It is impossible to impose democracy on people who do not want it, because it is an antithesis to their religion, and culture, which is dictated by Islam.
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan "democratic vote" was used to vote in sharia and theocracy. So they are "democratically" back where they were, and always will be. That is Islam.

The division, enmity between Sunnis and shiia is to be nurtured, rather than prevented so their warring instincts are spent on each other, rather that global jihad.

Any aid, "nation building" is weakening our economy, and strengthening the jihadist.
Stop the flow of billions of unearned moneys (jizyah) of which most of fuels the jihad and lines the pockets of corrupt rulers and mullahs. The poor will never see a red cent of the money. Not that they are deserving, while clinging on to an ideology that causes their poverty and ignorance.

Finally, the coalition is not there now to win a war. They have won it a few weeks after the invasion, when they should have left.
They are there as a glorified police force, "peacekeepers" to stop the warring factions from killing each other.
They will never stop doing infighting, it has been going on for over a millennia, and the coalition forces cannot stay there indefinitely.
Meanwhile it cost hundreds of billions of taxpayers money on a futile exercise. The economy cannot squander much more resources without dire consequences.
Time to reconsider.

It is the ideology, stupid. Fighting an ideology with bullets is madness.
There is a much cheaper and more effective option, which the administration is too feeble minded to consider: fight ideology and propaganda with the same. Expose Islam world wide for what it is, a lie, an imperialistic political fascist dogma created to conquer, plunder and enslave, just as communism or nazism, but in a religious disguise.

But that would need us first to recognise Islam for what it is, and have the balls to say it out loud.
Instead, our leaders say Islam is peace. A noble religion.

Yeah. Right.

.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:25 am

Yes, it is an article of faith to believe that electoral democracy can be imposed by force. The British seemed to have a similar experience in the 1920's and 1930's. Reports of "progress" followed by insurgent counterattacks. Churchill, a colonial secretary at the time, even urged the RAF to utilize poison gas against the Iraqi's.

Overwhelming military power toward what end?

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 1:28 pm

Bring all the troops home as fast as possible--from everywhere on the globe. All they do is provide excuses and legitimate reasons for anti-US sentiments and actions. Further, they are a drain on the country.

Just Arrived Joined: Feb 09, 2008 Posts: 1

its time to get the hell out of iraq....who next iran?

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:24 pm

Quite frankly, yea, I agree with everyone else; let's get the hell out of Iraq, we have no purpose there. "We The People" have no purpose there, but our "leaders" have many purposes there it may seem. If you just read Project For New American Century that is basically a blueprint for everything the administration plans to accomplish in next couple of years, and yes, the Middle East is within the list on goals. Well first off if we are to wonder if we are to stay in Iraq or not, first we must question the justification of the war itself,....justifications which were all publically proven to be outright lies, misconceptions and so on....lets not mention Dick Cheney taking a trip directly to the C.I.A. headquarters to order to have more " forward leaning intelligence " for a basis for war in Iraq; if I can quote it as it was said, its called " cherry picking " or "stove piping".

Cherry Picking - cherry picking is used metaphorically to indicate the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position(justification for war in Iraq), while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position(no basis for war in Iraq). Basically......."I dont give a damn if we dont have enough evidence to goto war in Iraq, YOU BETTER FIND SOME".

Like some posters here have already said, the Iraq war is costing us billions a day to keep continual, more soldiers are dying Rolling Eyes

. ,more innocent people on boths sides of the war are dying(civilians), and last we have no purpose there unless it's just to secure the oil resources; oh and they also want to do what the U.S. has already done with other nations, create "permenant military bases". Yeah, so much for heading home. And now, it's very obvious Bush, Hilary, and all the people backing them want another simultanious war with, guess who,.....Iran. Wtf. Based upon how horrible things are going in Iraq now and back home economy wise I say the U.S can't afford another war, especially with Iran of all people. It would be foolish to goto war with them. It's not that I dont think we would'nt bomb the hell out of them, it's just that Iran...like us, has allies, namely Russia. So if we f**k with Iran Russia has already said they're gonna *ucK with us. And before you know it you got another damn world war.

End game....let's get the f**k out of Iraq. I'd love for us to get out Iraq but Bush would LOVE for us to stay there, for if we didnt we wouldnt be able to accomplish anything outlined in PNAC, "spreading American democracy through the barrel of a gun". Twisted Evil

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:10 pm

I am in favor of an immenent withdraw according to a definite time table. I am against the war and thought it was ill-advised and ill-concieved from the beginning.

But I also am a believer in the Pottery Barn philosophy of war: if you break it, you own it.

That means that before we withdraw, we need to make sure that we have recreated somethiing out of what we destroyed. That means that pretty soon, we should be withrawing.

the thing is, though, that this time table should be relatively soon - within the next year. Why? Because we have done just about all we can, or are morally obligated, to do. If the Iraqi army and infrastructure is not ready to defnend themselves at this pont, then staying for another few years will do little good.

So, I am in favor of a gradual withdraw according to a time table, the end date of which should be within a calendar year from now.

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:46 am

apparently turkey has joined into the Iraq war now..

the uk and such are sort of demanding that they withdrawal.

the EU and most others are saying... "well we understand.... but we disapprove."

the US is thumbs up.

I wanna know what syria thinks about this. There's fighting factors surrounding them basically.

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:53 am

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Bring all the troops home as fast as possible--from everywhere on the globe. All they do is provide excuses and legitimate reasons for anti-US sentiments and actions. Further, they are a drain on the country.

Well that's not the greatest idea... peace keeping can be good. the US troops call it something else that's wierd... but it's still a good thing in that it helps foster peace.

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:30 am

munky99999 wrote:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Bring all the troops home as fast as possible--from everywhere on the globe. All they do is provide excuses and legitimate reasons for anti-US sentiments and actions. Further, they are a drain on the country.

Well that's not the greatest idea... peace keeping can be good. the US troops call it something else that's wierd... but it's still a good thing in that it helps foster peace.

Bomb them until they peacefully submit Razz

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 2:10 pm

MockingGods wrote:

munky99999 wrote:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Bring all the troops home as fast as possible--from everywhere on the globe. All they do is provide excuses and legitimate reasons for anti-US sentiments and actions. Further, they are a drain on the country.

Well that's not the greatest idea... peace keeping can be good. the US troops call it something else that's wierd... but it's still a good thing in that it helps foster peace.

Bomb them until they peacefully submit Razz

Ya that's what really blows my mind... often when the taliban is going to actually attack troops... they get the people out of their little town or whatever they are considered to be.

Why dont they just bring in bombers and level the towns... honestly... its not like we care about rebuilding all the damage that we have already done there... there are no civvies there...

it would be no problem to build camps and such which are guarenteed to be safe from taliban. Than move outwards. It's what happens in most other places... kind of like modern day trench warfare in a sense.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore