Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.
However, in the United States, it is our common belief that the military be used exclusively for defending our homeland. That means we don't hit...we only hit back.
As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?"
Then, when you decide it isn't, you have to ask, "But are we not responsible for building Iraq back to stability, since we were, in fact, responsible for destabilizing it?"
See, you lose either way. It's not so black and white. I don't think anyone's clearly right in this debate, we only think we are if we pick sides. It's kind of like the abortion debate, except perhaps even moreso subjective.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Haystacks,
I think you are misinterpreting what I meant. I don't think we should be out of Afghanistan right now as in leaving it a vacuum a la Vietnam. What I meant was that we should have focused our efforts there in the first place, and if we had truly focused our efforts there, then they'd be at a point now where we could be out. I'm not saying we pull out now...that would be a huge mistake. But we should have done the job there that we went in to do, and then we could be out. Our biggest mistake was averting our attention from there and trying to divide it between Afghanistan and another conflict (in this case Iraq). You can't win a war like this on several fronts....history has proven this on numerous occassions. Focus your fighting and skills on one front, win that one, and then move on to the next. Or you stretch yourself too thin, and then you don't win anything.
I think you are misinterpreting what I meant. I don't think we should be out of Afghanistan right now as in leaving it a vacuum a la Vietnam. What I meant was that we should have focused our efforts there in the first place, and if we had truly focused our efforts there, then they'd be at a point now where we could be out. I'm not saying we pull out now...that would be a huge mistake. But we should have done the job there that we went in to do, and then we could be out. Our biggest mistake was averting our attention from there and trying to divide it between Afghanistan and another conflict (in this case Iraq). You can't win a war like this on several fronts....history has proven this on numerous occassions. Focus your fighting and skills on one front, win that one, and then move on to the next. Or you stretch yourself too thin, and then you don't win anything.
"However, in the United States, it is our common belief that the military be used exclusively for defending our homeland. That means we don't hit...we only hit back."
How does that apply to the war in Iraq? Iraq was about the only Middle east country where terrorist did not dare to operate. No Iraqi was in the planes on 9/11 and no Iraqi attacked your homeland
"As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?"
So, what exactly is the true purpose of your military in Iraq? They did not come as invited guests or in a legitimate UN mission.
How does that apply to the war in Iraq? Iraq was about the only Middle east country where terrorist did not dare to operate. No Iraqi was in the planes on 9/11 and no Iraqi attacked your homeland
"As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?"
So, what exactly is the true purpose of your military in Iraq? They did not come as invited guests or in a legitimate UN mission.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]"However, in the United States, it is our common belief that the military be used exclusively for defending our homeland. That means we don't hit...we only hit back."
How does that apply to the war in Iraq? Iraq was about the only Middle east country where terrorist did not dare to operate. No Iraqi was in the planes on 9/11 and no Iraqi attacked your homeland
"As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?"
So, what exactly is the true purpose of your military in Iraq? They did not come as invited guests or in a legitimate UN mission.
[/QUOTE]
The argument was that the military should never have been in Iraq in the first place. I'm not seeing where you're going. I think you completely misinterpreted the post and should read it again. Perhaps my writing was not very clear, and I apologize for that.
The point is this:
The military should never have been in Iraq in the first place. However, since the instability in Iraq is our country's fault, we also have a responsibility to stabilize it. Therefore, while both arguments are true, they contradict each other.
How does that apply to the war in Iraq? Iraq was about the only Middle east country where terrorist did not dare to operate. No Iraqi was in the planes on 9/11 and no Iraqi attacked your homeland
"As for Iraq, yeah, it'll be all shitted up if we leave. And for Iraq, it would be several times better if we stay the whole way through. But you have to ask yourself, "Is this the true purpose of our military?"
So, what exactly is the true purpose of your military in Iraq? They did not come as invited guests or in a legitimate UN mission.
[/QUOTE]
The argument was that the military should never have been in Iraq in the first place. I'm not seeing where you're going. I think you completely misinterpreted the post and should read it again. Perhaps my writing was not very clear, and I apologize for that.
The point is this:
The military should never have been in Iraq in the first place. However, since the instability in Iraq is our country's fault, we also have a responsibility to stabilize it. Therefore, while both arguments are true, they contradict each other.
I agree with your last statement completely. I did re-read your post and in all honesty you seemed to say the exact opposite :-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Like it or not, we had our chance in 2003 to get a foothold right smack dab in the center of the Middle East, and we took it. That I agree with, and would do it again in a heartbeat.
Decisions made since are questionable, but to cut and run would spell disaster on an epic proportion, not only for us, but the Middle East and the world in general. [/QUOTE]
Get a foothold in the center of the Middle East? So is that the NEWest new reason why we went to Iraq? Not because they had weapons of mass destruction? Not because there was a direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Not because Saddam was a cruel dictator and we had to liberate the Iraqi people? Not because, as our dear divisive george said, jesus told him we should? And not because Saddam's the man who tried to kill bush-baby's daddy? Instead it was to get a foothold in the center of the Middle East? Now if only he'd said that from the beginning. I'm sure the world would have supported us then. Yes?
And btw... setting an exit goal and thereby forcing higher-ups to plan a strategy for said goal is not what most would call 'cut and run'.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond. [/QUOTE]
And you don't think we're seeing this result NOW? With US troops still there? Look again, my friend, look again.
Decisions made since are questionable, but to cut and run would spell disaster on an epic proportion, not only for us, but the Middle East and the world in general. [/QUOTE]
Get a foothold in the center of the Middle East? So is that the NEWest new reason why we went to Iraq? Not because they had weapons of mass destruction? Not because there was a direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Not because Saddam was a cruel dictator and we had to liberate the Iraqi people? Not because, as our dear divisive george said, jesus told him we should? And not because Saddam's the man who tried to kill bush-baby's daddy? Instead it was to get a foothold in the center of the Middle East? Now if only he'd said that from the beginning. I'm sure the world would have supported us then. Yes?
And btw... setting an exit goal and thereby forcing higher-ups to plan a strategy for said goal is not what most would call 'cut and run'.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond. [/QUOTE]
And you don't think we're seeing this result NOW? With US troops still there? Look again, my friend, look again.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. [/QUOTE]
Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability. [/QUOTE]
Stability? Ok, the US helped us to build up everything after the WWII... but they troops went home immediately after Germany surrendered. This is utter bullshit.
About bringing stability in the Middle East... the US should do the same now. Helping Iraq to rebuild their country by giving advice, information en resources... but the troops over there won't do any good. They should be slowly replaced by Iraqi's.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.[/QUOTE]
I hope this is a sarcastic note.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond. [/QUOTE]
And you don't think we're seeing this result NOW? With US troops still there? Look again, my friend, look again. [/QUOTE]
Beside that, I don't see why is should be like that. Why should a group kill millions of people Iran on other neighbour countries? This doesn't make sense to me at all.
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. [/QUOTE]
Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability. [/QUOTE]
Stability? Ok, the US helped us to build up everything after the WWII... but they troops went home immediately after Germany surrendered. This is utter bullshit.
About bringing stability in the Middle East... the US should do the same now. Helping Iraq to rebuild their country by giving advice, information en resources... but the troops over there won't do any good. They should be slowly replaced by Iraqi's.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.[/QUOTE]
I hope this is a sarcastic note.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond. [/QUOTE]
And you don't think we're seeing this result NOW? With US troops still there? Look again, my friend, look again. [/QUOTE]
Beside that, I don't see why is should be like that. Why should a group kill millions of people Iran on other neighbour countries? This doesn't make sense to me at all.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.[/QUOTE]
I hope this is a sarcastic note.[/QUOTE]
And why is that?
I hope this is a sarcastic note.[/QUOTE]
And why is that?
Coincidentally I've been watching "The West Wing" the past few days. It seems rather odd that a fictional character would've made a better president than the current one.
It reallys is a strange world we live in.
V.
It reallys is a strange world we live in.
V.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sure, the world could be a whole lot better if we just put American troops everywhere in the world to keep the peace. There would be no more genocides, no more tyrant regimes, and more capitalism and free trade.[/QUOTE]
I hope this is a sarcastic note.[/QUOTE]
And why is that?[/QUOTE]
BECAUSE WE KICK ASS!!
I hope this is a sarcastic note.[/QUOTE]
And why is that?[/QUOTE]
BECAUSE WE KICK ASS!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Though the Americans re-voted him. [/QUOTE]
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
42.45% of the population voted. Therefore, just over 20% voted for Bush.
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
42.45% of the population voted. Therefore, just over 20% voted for Bush.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]bigV wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Coincidentally I've been watching "The West Wing" the past few days. It seems rather odd that a fictional character would've made a better president than the current one.
It reallys is a strange world we live in.
V.
[/QUOTE]
I think it would make more sense that a fictional character would essentially make a better president than any possible nonfictional president...
It reallys is a strange world we live in.
V.
[/QUOTE]
I think it would make more sense that a fictional character would essentially make a better president than any possible nonfictional president...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Though the Americans re-voted him. [/QUOTE]
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
42.45% of the population voted. Therefore, just over 20% voted for Bush.[/QUOTE]
It's always depressing when that figure comes up.
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
42.45% of the population voted. Therefore, just over 20% voted for Bush.[/QUOTE]
It's always depressing when that figure comes up.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge. [/QUOTE]
And there's silly me thinking the Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia, which the US *bombed* all too gladly, but wasn't at war with.
So your stupid phrasing is closer to "Revisionist history at it's best."
And there's silly me thinking the Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia, which the US *bombed* all too gladly, but wasn't at war with.
So your stupid phrasing is closer to "Revisionist history at it's best."
The Bush-administration and its secret rule of lies.
A) The Bush-administration had a firm chance to get Bin Laden in the spring and early summer of 2001. They didn't. You know why? The plan came from a Clinton-administration employee. Read Al Kooper for details about it. Sure, he's a comedian, but he does present CORRECT footnotes (compare: Ann Coulter for the exact opposite).
B) The Bush-administration was fully aware of the threat of sectarian violence the minute they set foot in Iraq; they were amply advised about it by many non-partisan organisations, as well as their own advisors
C) The Bush-administration KNEW that Saddam wasn't supporting terrorists, all sources with any knowledge of the situation stated so. Why didn't he? Same reason as Mussolini: terrorists (or the maffia respectively) were competition. And Saddam was anti-religious.
A) The Bush-administration had a firm chance to get Bin Laden in the spring and early summer of 2001. They didn't. You know why? The plan came from a Clinton-administration employee. Read Al Kooper for details about it. Sure, he's a comedian, but he does present CORRECT footnotes (compare: Ann Coulter for the exact opposite).
B) The Bush-administration was fully aware of the threat of sectarian violence the minute they set foot in Iraq; they were amply advised about it by many non-partisan organisations, as well as their own advisors
C) The Bush-administration KNEW that Saddam wasn't supporting terrorists, all sources with any knowledge of the situation stated so. Why didn't he? Same reason as Mussolini: terrorists (or the maffia respectively) were competition. And Saddam was anti-religious.