- #1
pattylou
- 306
- 0
Take the poll.
ranger said:Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?
Could you provide a source for that claim?Pengwuino said:300,000 innocent civilians murdered.
ranger said:Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We can't just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we don't leave, that means more casualties. I heard the toll is like over 2000 right now for US troops. Its like everyday I watch the news, and I see things like "2 Marines dead".
Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?
I would qualify that to read:edward said:As long as Bush is in office there is no way we are going to pull out without assuring that the bulk of the Iraqi oil will go to the USA.
Pengwuino said:300,000 innocent civilians murdered.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?
By William E. Odom
If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.
Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:
1) We would leave behind a civil war.
2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.
3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.
4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.
5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.
6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.
7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.
8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.
9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.
But consider this: [continued]
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer.
From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1954, and received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970. [continued]
Indeed. I remember him talking about the Iraqi people. You don't? Reread his speech from Oct 7, 2002:ComputerGeek said:the selective memory of Republicans is amazing.
Could you elaborate on that? Who would the combatants be and why would they start fighting?Ivan Seeking said:I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided...
russ_watters said:Indeed. I remember him talking about the Iraqi people. You don't? Reread his speech from Oct 7, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.
Ivan Seeking said:I have argued that once we were committed to the war, we had to stay, but now I'm not so sure. I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided, and there are no good options, but maybe this is the best option?
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86
He mentioned them in passing as an example of how brutal Saddam was but apart from that the link you supplied is excellent as it encompasses just about every lie and misdirection the admin used to convince the american people of the supposed need for the attack on Iraq.russ_watters said:Indeed. I remember him talking about the Iraqi people. You don't? Reread his speech from Oct 7, 2002:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.
To reiterate another poster's request will you supply a source for this statement please?Pengwuino said:300,000 innocent civilians murdered.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.htmlCambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI) provides information about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and its context. It aims to raise awareness of the effecs on Iraq of the sanctions which were in place until May 2003, and previously campaigned on humanitarian grounds for the lifting of non-military sanctions. CASI does not support or have ties to the government of Iraq.
Perhaps the number of non-military (non-combats) killed by Saddam's regime will never be known. And likely the number of non-military (non-combats) killed by US and coalition forces will also never be known."Denial of Water to Iraqi Cities" discusses the apparent tactic of US troops to cut off the water supply of cities under attack.
"The Lancet Iraq Mortality Survey: The UK Government's Response Is Inaccurate and Misleading"
Very pessimistic statement. It is difficult to say how a full scale conflict would develop - the major powers have a vested interest in maintaining world trade and economics. Perhaps there will simply be an on-going 'asymmetric' conflict between those angry at the US and the US (and US allies).I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided...
russ_watters said:Could you elaborate on that? Who would the combatants be and why would they start fighting?
Ivan Seeking said:In the middle east, the only certainty is chaos. I can probably imagine a hundred different scenarios in which the war evolves into full scale civil war, and as it has already done to some extent, spreads beyond the Iraqi borders. I had hoped that the bombing in Jordan would help to change hearts and minds in that so many innocent Muslims were killed, but in the end there are just too many people who hate the US and are willing to die in order to take us down. Now that Bush has lit the fuse - kicked the beehive - we can only wait and see where it leads.
As you mentioned in response to Ivan, it is a world problem.dgoodpasture2005 said:I say we stay there until everything is under control.. or until the terrorist actions have died down or been defeated... reason being; I view the world as a whole, i don't recognize nations and politics, it just blurs true perception. We need to work together as a people of Earth to take care of problems. Yes the administration made a blunder by going in on false claims (possibly... or did Saddam have a master plan? He is a bright guy you know) buttttt... now that we are there... we cannot cut and run. Iraqi's are humans, Americans are humans, we are Earthlings, we need to help each other... mistakes aside.
Exactly, and it is amazing how Bush and his supporters defend the mess they’ve made.ComputerGeek said:oh, is that the excuse now? Show me in all the reporting back in 2002, where did Bush say "We have a moral necessity to get rid of Sadam because he killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens"
the selective memory of Republicans is amazing.
here are the reasons we went to war:
1:The administration told us Sadam was creating a nuclear weapon
2: The administration told us that Sadam was creating tons of nerve gas
3:The administration told us he was actively consorting with terrorists
Then we went in and found nothing... so it became about stopping injustice, the attack on the kurds in 88 (using US made nerve agent I might add), and now it is "we must stay the course". Tell me, what course is that? We are smacking our heads on a wall and Bush is telling us to keep doing so and eventually the wall will give way.
The moment that we went in there, a civil war was unavoidable. We cannot change how the Iraqi people feel about each other, and just like when Tito died, leaving the fate of Yugoslavia to what we see today, the toppling of Sadam will inevitable leave Iraq in a similar state of affairs.
Anttech said:I sort of aggree with what you are saying, but what's wrong with the Balkans right now?
ranger said:Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We can't just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we don't leave, that means more casualties. I heard the toll is like over 2000 right now for US troops. Its like everyday I watch the news, and I see things like "2 Marines dead".
Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?
I couldn't agree more. The country will fall into complete chaos, and yes, it's our fault. We made this mess and we need to figure out how to fix it. Sure we could just walk away and turn our backs and say "not our problem anymore", now it's your problem, good luck!Mercator said:I voted to stay. I am a pragmatist. It would be difficult to find someone more opposed to the invasion than me, but now that the damage is done, it would be even more irresponsible to leave the mess that is made for a powerless Iarqi government. The Iranians are already saliving. The world, and Europe in particular should get over it's outrage over Bush's mistake and think about the long term.
Anttech said:I sort of aggree with what you are saying, but what's wrong with the Balkans right now?