Why, oh why, are we still in Iraq?

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]


Geez, this is not high school where if we're not popular then we won't be elected class president.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's the real world, in 2005 ... where if people don't like us, they can fly planes into buildings. As someone who was in one of those buildings, I can tell you that it's much worse than not being "elected class president".

To take such a dismissive attitude about the world's view of America is a bit cavalier don't you think?

[DarthIgnurnt]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that we have to do whatever is necessary to make sure that Iraq is stable and respects basic human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you apply this same standard to how we treat other countries in this world? Or does it only apply when there is oil involved and our president's friends and family profits from it.

How many other countries, that we ignore on a daily basis, are places where basic human rights are ignored?

[ QUOTE ]
We should have to sacrifice for Iraq. This means money and blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are a tax payer, although since this is a poker forum, perhaps I shouldn't make this assumption. So that covers the money part.

The blood part? I'll assume for now that you are a veteran, which implies that you've seen the blood first hand. If you're not ... then sorry, but shut the f*** up. If you are ... then how could you possibly view this war as being justified?

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that we have to do whatever is necessary to make sure that Iraq is stable and respects basic human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you apply this same standard to how we treat other countries in this world? Or does it only apply when there is oil involved and our president's friends and family profits from it.

How many other countries, that we ignore on a daily basis, are places where basic human rights are ignored?

[ QUOTE ]
We should have to sacrifice for Iraq. This means money and blood.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are a tax payer, although since this is a poker forum, perhaps I shouldn't make this assumption. So that covers the money part.

The blood part? I'll assume for now that you are a veteran, which implies that you've seen the blood first hand. If you're not ... then sorry, but shut the f*** up. If you are ... then how could you possibly view this war as being justified?

[/ QUOTE ]


....read his posts. Another "Sunshine Patriot".....Christ, how I wish some of these people had spent some time in a combat zone.

[Greg J]

You guys have obviously not read my posts that closely. I opposed the war in Iraq.


And I do think we should be drafting people to serve is the right thing to do. If that includes me so be it.

It is really sickening that so many of you want to have your cake and eat it too. Rights and no responsibilities.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys have obviously not read my posts that closely. I opposed the war in Iraq.


And I do think we should be drafting people to serve is the right thing to do. If that includes me so be it.

It is really sickening that so many of you want to have your cake and eat it too. Rights and no responsibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg,

When I read the original post that I quoted and responded to, I thought that I was directing my comments at Felix N., not you.

A clear mis-read on my part.....Please accept my apologies.

FWIW, my senitiment remains exactly the same, just need to clarify that I made an error, and directed it at the wrong person.

[Greg J]

It's cool. We're cool. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But just to elaborate:
This is just an issue that -- even as a leftist that was 1000% against the war, I cannot fathom anything worse on a moral level than abandoning Iraq. Their fate is in our hands.

He is my reasoning:
1) We invade Iraq for fear of our security (WMDs).
2) We invade improperly, with not enough troops to secure the country and prevent chaos and looting.
3) We establish a skeletal regime that can function while we occupy them.
4) We reason that "Iraqis need to take care of themselves now."
5) We fail to provide them with proper economic aid to stimulate their economy.
6a) We leave prematurely claiming that "we have done all we can" and "it's their country not ours."
6b) Many of us have to gall to claim disengenously that Iraq is in "great shape" and "stable." "Things are great in Iraq!"
7) Iraq implodes into civil war, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die.
8) We say we did all we could. I mean, we did remove that Saddam guy, and he was really bad, so we did the country a favor really. We are American -- we only do what is right. God is on our side, remember?
9) Iraq's continuing violence is third on the major national news broadcast behind some stupid politician's Hitler reference and another missing rich white woman.

At this point, this ranks alongside the worst moral failure of this country since smallpox blankets.

That is why, even though I opposed the war, we have to do this right.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
There was no terrorism emanating out of Iraq before America invaded. At the very least, there was no terrorism directed against America.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) You misread what I wrote. By area, I meant the Middle East, not strictly Iraq.
2) Saddam did directly and indirectly support terrorism. That means he gets the axe.

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying essentially that, when "the war in Iraq is over", we will have returned to the pre-invasion status! Because the fact is that secular, anti-fundamentalist Saddam Hussein was not funding anti-American terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]
Untrue on several counts.
1) We will not return to pre-war status, because the nation we'd be dealing with would be a friendly nation as oppossed to a very hostile nation.
2) Saddam supported terrorism. He may not have been paying OBL, but to limit the war on terrorism to strictly Al Qaeda is to not see the forest for the trees.

[ QUOTE ]
The anti-American sentiments in Iraq, even now, before the "war is won", are running so high that
(a) every time there's a blast that kills civilians, the people blame the Americans and the terrorists at least equally,
(b) Ministers in the current government blame the presence of American troops for the troubles!

[/ QUOTE ]
So, 1) you agree that the people do blame (partially or otherwise) the terrorists for their misery. In your scenario, the Coalition forces have left/are in the process of leaving. Any terrorism from then on couldn't be rationally blamed on the U.S., but soley on those perpetuating it. Which would hurt the terrorist cause, and (hopefully) reduce their numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
But which nation is currently supporting anti-American religious terrorism? Materially, ideologically or otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
By nations, I was referring more to the people within the nations than the governments that run them. It wouldn't be a very smart move for a government to be openly supporting terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
The governments of Algeria and Morocco...etc

[/ QUOTE ]
If your point is that the spread of democracy is something less than perfect, than I agree with you. These things take some time.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Saudi Arabia should be persuaded to crack down on religious schools - but this has nothing to do with Iraq and everyhting to do with oil. Wouldn't you agree

[/ QUOTE ]
"Perhaps SA should crack down on religious schools that promote terrorism" would be a better way to put that. But I don't agree that this has much, if anything to do with oil.

[WillMagic]

I'm glad you posted this, because I can safely disregard everything you say from now on without worrying if I've missed something.

Don't like someone? Compare him to a Nazi!

Will

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
By area, I meant the Middle East, not strictly Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

The central problem in the greater Middle East area is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict more than anything else. Until this is resolved, in a fair and robust manner, the underlying extreme antipathy towards America shall continue, whether the leader of Egypt (for example) is elected democratically or not.

Why is it so hard to understand that in a dictatorship you need to win over only a handful of people's "hearts & minds" (and bank accounts), while in a democracy you need to win over a whole lotta more people's ?

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam did directly and indirectly support terrorism. He may not have been paying OBL, but to limit the war on terrorism to strictly Al Qaeda is to not see the forest for the trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true - and you know it. Indeed, if it were true, we would know it by now, through its constant trumpeting from all the media available to Man! The fact is that there has been only speculation and insinuation on the part of the American administration - but when these folks are pressed for hard facts, they backtrack and avoid any in-depth discussion.

In so many words, if terrorism was what America was after, it went after the wrong target when it went after Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

[ QUOTE ]
We will not return to pre-war status, because the nation we'd be dealing with would be a friendly nation as oppossed to a very hostile nation.

[/ QUOTE ]
By "pre-war status", I was referring to the almost total absence of anti-American terrorism emanating out of Iraq during Saddam's days. (Something which you dispute, but as I said, you have nothing and the Bush admin has nothing to show for claims to the opposite.) If your side went to Iraq, invaded it, killed people, caused Americans lives to be lost, etc etc, in order to "stop terrorism out of Iraq", well then, I'm saying that having in the future a democratic gov't in Iraq, which would presumably oppose anti-American terror, then we would be returning to the pre-war status, as far as anti-American terror is concerned.


[ QUOTE ]
You agree that the [Iraqi] people do blame (partially or otherwise) the terrorists for their misery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, of course, they do blame the terrorists too.

Emphasis though, on "partially". You should be reading more carefully the reports from Iraq, even from pro-war reporters. The anti-American sentiment is there, strong and deep, but not always directly expressed.

[ QUOTE ]
I was referring more to the people within the nations, [rather] than the governments that run them. It wouldn't be a very smart move for a government to be openly supporting terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then. If it's da pee-ple your side is after, I'm telling you : The United States's gotta to do a lot more than what it now does! Abject promises by Condi Rice et al to "support democracy everywhere" do little to alieviate more immediate and vital concerns of people everywhere - such as poverty, hunger, health and environmental destruction. (It is an established fact that humans concern themselves with the higher notions of politics after the previously mentioned basic issues have been taken care of.)

[ QUOTE ]
"The governments of Algeria and Morocco...etc" If your point is that the spread of democracy is something less than perfect, than I agree with you. These things take some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was not "time".

My point was that the Arab regimes, long before Bush woke up abruptly to the threat of Islamic anti-American (but American-bred) terrorism, long before that, almost all Arab regimes, from Morocco to Iraq, were cracking down and opposing religious fundamentalism, the breeding pond of Islamic terrorism. Your man Dubya wants us to believe that his Iraq crusade "turned things around" (which is why he cites Libya etc as "examples") but that's a complete fabrication; the Arab regimes were way ahead of the Texas idiot.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
...As someone who was in one of those buildings...

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you would like to share with the forum your experience of this?

I, for one, would be greatly interested to hear anything you'd care to say.