Send our boys home?

  • News
  • Thread starter FZ+
  • Start date

What should we do?

  • Send them home ASAP. We don't belong in Iraq.

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Accelerate handover. Withdraw troops when Iraqis wish.

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Stay until Iraq secure - THEN handover and withdraw.

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Other - Post

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15
  • #1
FZ+
1,599
3
What are you opinions on this? Post to elaborate, if you wish...
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
The only thing worse than the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be to abandon them now.
 
  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
Originally posted by Zero
The only thing worse than the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be to abandon them now.
I must say I am surprised and impressed to hear that. But it doesn't seem to fit with your other statements indicating you think conditions will get worse and worse in Iraq.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by russ_watters
I must say I am surprised and impressed to hear that. But it doesn't seem to fit with your other statements indicating you think conditions will get worse and worse in Iraq.
Well, I think they will without a serious commitment from teh entire world...and that means Bush will have to stop divvying up Iraq amongst his campaign contributors, and allow the UN to participate fully in the rebuilding process.
 
  • #5
PsYcHo_FiSh
9
0
Well, it would be a big waste to leave. I also think we shouldn't let France and Russia get anywhere near Iraq but politics make strange bedfellows. I mean, we all know who was behind the 'oil for cold war weapons surplus; don't let the Iraqi's have any food' program.
 
  • #6
FZ+
1,599
3
And we all know who was responsible for the "let's give Saddam WMDs so he can declare war on Iran" situation. Or the Let's repeated lie to everyone situation.

But your point is wrong though - without the food for oil program, millions more Iraqis would have starved - that is why the US, after invading, acted immediately to renew the program. France, Russia et al had no power over how the program is used.
 
  • #7
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by FZ+
And we all know who was responsible for the "let's give Saddam WMDs so he can declare war on Iran" situation. Or the Let's repeated lie to everyone situation.
Yep, France. They even built Saddam his own nuclear reactor,
fortunately Israel took care of it in time.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #8
best i can recall, France never gave Saddam any WMDs; nore did they give him any support for his war on Iran at all. i think drag got himself so drunk that he is hallusnating.


oh and i voted to stay until it is secure, although i don't think that can be accomplished by the current administration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Originally posted by kyleb
best i can recall, France never gave Saddam any WMDs; nore did they give him any support for his war on Iran at all. i think drag got himself so drunk that he is hallusnating.
Ha ! Ha! Ha! I would be ashamed to hold my ignorance
up to the people like that ! Who do you think built
their nuclear reactor, sipplied them with medium range
missiles also easily midfied for carrying anything
including chemical weapons. Do you have any idea whatsoever
on what you're talking about and the amount of money
and support the French invested in Iraq ?
Apparently not. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #10
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
The first vote for "other" because I would have liked to see them follow the pathway that was sought, by some, from the "beginning of the end" of the War, which is to replace the troops with police, and police training forces.

That is the method, and direction, of seeking to establish "Civilian Order", getting acceptance from the civilian population to establish civilian order for there own people, as to assist them in creating their own government.
(Wonders?? if that was what was being sought for them by the controling interests?)

Clearly, I too would like to see all of the people, involved in this, removed from the/any path of potential harm, both sides!
 
  • #11
Originally posted by drag
Ha ! Ha! Ha! I would be ashamed to hold my ignorance
up to the people like that ! Who do you think built
their nuclear reactor, sipplied them with medium range
missiles also easily midfied for carrying anything
including chemical weapons. Do you have any idea whatsoever
on what you're talking about and the amount of money
and support the French invested in Iraq ?
Apparently not. :wink:

Live long and prosper.
You don't mind that the US provided Iraq with the chemical weapons they used against Iran and the Kurds?
 
  • #12
Originally posted by drag
Ha ! Ha! Ha! I would be ashamed to hold my ignorance
up to the people like that ! Who do you think built
their nuclear reactor, sipplied them with medium range
missiles also easily midfied for carrying anything
including chemical weapons. Do you have any idea whatsoever
on what you're talking about and the amount of money
and support the French invested in Iraq ?
Apparently not. :wink:

Live long and prosper.

you are waveing your ignorance like a flag. a nuclear reactor is not a wmd, and neither are medium range missies. furthermore, as stated above, neither of those were provded by France for the purpose of declareing war on Iran. on the other hand, America did provide WMDs for the express purpose of supporting the war on Iran.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
FZ+
1,599
3
Just point out briefly too that the trucks which were accused (and later cleared) of being mobile weapons labs were british, having been sold to the Iraqis in 2001.

Oh yeah... which French missiles? You said you would provide a link on this once, but I never remembered seeing it.... Ho-hum...
 
  • #14
Jeebus
255
0
The first vote for "other" because I would have liked to see them follow the pathway that was sought, by some, from the "beginning of the end" of the War, which is to replace the troops with police, and police training forces.

I can only say one thing to this and Jon Stewart put it the best when he was arbitrary saying, "Does everything Bush touch turn to crap?" And indirectly stating, "I'd like to see troops being replaced by police" in itself is rather ambiguous because the only police that would come would be American police, even though you say own police; it likely wouldn't happen because the population of (Moral / Unjust) = is a rather large percentage. Even though many don't follow Saddam's radical Machiavellian methods -- doesn't mean that their police would take over the rebellious Saddam followers.
 
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
Originally posted by kyleb
a nuclear reactor is not a wmd, and neither are medium range missies.
A nuclear reactor is a manufacturing plant for nuclear weapons. Back in the early 80's when the Iraqi program was doing better, their French reactor was at the center of their effors. Which is why of course, the Israelis decided Iraq shouldn't have a French reactor...
Oh yeah... which French missiles?
The Exocet is a French cruise missile. You know, the one the Iraqis used to punch a couple of holes in the USS Stark.
 
  • #16
FZ+
1,599
3
But it is crucially not a medium ranged missile that can be "easily modified" to deliver chemical weapons.

A nuclear reactor is a manufacturing plant for nuclear weapons.
A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor, russ. I thought you knew better than that. It CAN be used to make nuclears weapons, and the Israelis only acted when they became aware it was being used for such a purpose. For that suggestion to make any sense, there needs to be evidence that the French intended the Iraqis develop nukes. Which is woefully lacking.

One might as well blame the Holocaust on the US. After all, the US came up with and published the ideas for the machine guns they used.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
Originally posted by FZ+
A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor, russ.... For that suggestion to make any sense, there needs to be evidence that the French intended the Iraqis develop nukes. Which is woefully lacking.
Not intended, just looked the other way when they did it and sold them the tools when they should have known how they would be used. So you can either argue they were too stupid to know or they just didn't care what the Iraqis did with their reactor. The French were willfully ignorant of Iraq's intent. They sold/are trying to sell reactors to North Korea as well. They just don't care.
 
  • #18
When the U.S. gave weapons to Iraq and Iran, they must have been doing it for humanitarian reasons.
 
  • #19
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
An F-14 is not a nuclear weapon.
 
  • #20
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by Jeebus
I can only say one thing to this and Jon Stewart put it the best when he was arbitrary saying, "Does everything Bush touch turn to crap?" And indirectly stating, "I'd like to see troops being replaced by police" in itself is rather ambiguous because the only police that would come would be American police, even though you say own police; it likely wouldn't happen because the population of (Moral / Unjust) = is a rather large percentage. Even though many don't follow Saddam's radical Machiavellian methods -- doesn't mean that their police would take over the rebellious Saddam followers.
Humm, Canada, through the Office of Canadian Prime Minster, offered to send over some of the very well trained Candians, who do exactly that, assist in training THEIR police forces, and assist in POLICING till their police can run things.
That you have arbitrarily decided that they are Moral/UnJust, well some of them see you in exactly the same light. The drive now would be to restore some sense of Justice and Morality.
 
  • #21
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by russ_watters
An F-14 is not a nuclear weapon.
Nope it ain't, but it can be used to deliver a very dirty little Bomb!
 
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nope it ain't, but it can be used to deliver a very dirty little Bomb!
As can any other plane including the French Mirage F-1 that they used to fly. There is only one delivery system that is at all "special" and thats the ballistic missile. Besides that, the weapon itself is the key - and the factory that makes the fuel is pretty important there.
 
  • #23
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by russ_watters
As can any other plane including the French Mirage F-1 that they used to fly. There is only one delivery system that is at all "special" and thats the ballistic missile. Besides that, the weapon itself is the key - and the factory that makes the fuel is pretty important there.
Agreed, but then again, so can a remote control model airplane, fly in something, lightweight, that is damaging. That and, apparently, (I've no experiance, or real knowledge) spent nuclear fuel(s) is/are available on the black market, for a price. It's a global responcibility, on the parts of, basically all of, the developed nations.
But I still think that they should be trying to turn it around to reversion to civilian rule, from the current military rule, by manner of employment of the available International communities resources that are directed to that purpose.
........And get your fellow Americans out of the possibility of further dangers!
 
  • #24
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Agreed, but then again, so can a remote control model airplane, fly in something, lightweight, that is damaging. That and, apparently, (I've no experiance, or real knowledge) spent nuclear fuel(s) is/are available on the black market, for a price. It's a global responcibility, on the parts of, basically all of, the developed nations.
You are completely right, but this is completely irrelevant to the WMD implications of selling an F-14 vs a nuclear reactor, which was what we were discussing.
 
  • #25
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by russ_watters
You are completely right, but this is completely irrelevant to the WMD implications of selling an F-14 vs a nuclear reactor, which was what we were discussing.
True, but as you would be aware, it can travel well, this discourse, as in the sale of precursors to Iraq, as WMD's, and then the, well, whatever, parts of this are not, to me, a good "Net Discussion", the "how's to" parts.
Thanks though.........
And here I was thinking it was a discussion on getting the American troops, back home, silly moi, as I had been trying to get back to that track.......
 
  • #26
Let's get this back on track...
 
  • #27
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by Zero
Let's get this back on track...
O.K. so what is the best, or preffered, or fastest way.manner of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, while still ensuring peace, and eventual civil order?
 
  • #28
FZ+
1,599
3
Can't resist putting this in...

France built the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the late 1970s. That was BEFORE the Iran-Iraq war.

At the same time:

UK scientists were being commissioned by Saddam for work on the "Iraqi Supergun". Co-incidentally, the man in charge of the project was later assassinated by Mossad.

US was sending tons of nerve gas and biological weapons to Iraq to complement the conventional arsenal they already sent them.

Rumsfeld was busy smiling and shaking hands with Hussein. The US was granting garuantees on Saddam's friendliness.

Notice additionally that the Iran-Iraq war began by the shelling of Iraqi border towns by the Iranians, in breach of a 1975 treaty Saddam signed with them. Look for this snippet if we should ever start threatening Iran...

The France unfortunately did not have precognition.
 
  • #29
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by FZ+
(SNIP) UK scientists were being commissioned by Saddam for work on the "Iraqi Supergun". Co-incidentally, the man in charge of the project was later assassinated by Mossad. (SNoP)
Gerald Bull, he was a Canadian. (not really a proud moment for Canadians....? Might I suggest??)
 
  • #30
FZ+
1,599
3
I guess they speak French, so it's close enough, eh?
 
  • #31
Mr. Robin Parsons
1,256
0
Originally posted by FZ+
I guess they speak French, so it's close enough, eh?
By they, do you mean Canadians?? cause No, not all Canadians can speak French.
But you had better know how, if you live in Quebec, and you would like to work.
 
  • #32
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And here I was thinking it was a discussion on getting the American troops, back home, silly moi, as I had been trying to get back to that track.......
The topic has been rambling, its just that you were arguing against something that wasn't my point. There was no disagreement on that point - nothing to argue.
France built the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the late 1970s. That was BEFORE the Iran-Iraq war....The France unfortunately did not have precognition.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty went into force in 1970 and non-proliferation has been a big issue ever since. The reactor the French built was PART of the weapons research program - I think it was even still under construction when it was bombed. There was no precognition needed - just blinders and an open wallet.

Also, that supergun guy AFAIK, was not a government agent, he was doing that one freelance. Not the same thing.
 
  • #33
russ_watters
Mentor
21,866
8,842
Anyway...
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. so what is the best, or preffered, or fastest way.manner of getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, while still ensuring peace, and eventual civil order?
Marshall Plan style, heavy-handed, iron fist rule during the transition and a clear, controlled transfer of power when they are ready.

The problem right now is people are afraid of applying the necessary force because Americans have become queasy about such things since WWII as a result (largely) of the debacle in Vietnam.
 
  • #34
kat
39
0
Russ, do you think that perhaps one of reasons that the Marshall plan was, in the end (as it went through some tough times at the beginning as well), was that they had been so devastated in their defeat that they were far more willing to capitulate to Western control?
 
  • #35
Originally posted by russ_watters
Anyway... Marshall Plan style, heavy-handed, iron fist rule during the transition and a clear, controlled transfer of power when they are ready.

The problem right now is people are afraid of applying the necessary force because Americans have become queasy about such things since WWII as a result (largely) of the debacle in Vietnam.
Could it be that this is exactly why Saddam Hussien ran the place with an iron fist?!?:wink: Maybe he wasn't so crazy after all!(No one with any sense ever thought he was mad, really)
 

Suggested for: Send our boys home?

  • Last Post
Replies
19
Views
423
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
505
Replies
11
Views
586
Replies
1
Views
384
  • Last Post
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
588
Replies
11
Views
739
Top