What's your opinion about: the withdrawl of american troops from Iraq?

  • News
  • Thread starter ardian007
  • Start date
  • #1
ardian007
1
0
What do you think about the Bush's foreign policy, is it right or wrong?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Stanley_Smith
16
0
It all depends on who you talk to and what side you're on; right?
 
  • #3
Smurf
396
3
Accually it depends on which 'truth' you believe, Right, Left or Radical
 
  • #4
Burnsys
64
0
isn't truth absolute?
 
  • #5
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,881
10
Burnsys said:
isn't truth absolute?

Facts are absolute, if they can be found. "Truth" is in the eye of the believer.
 
  • #6
Smurf
396
3
Facts arn't even absolute. Facts are just a peice of the puzzle known as 'truth'.
 
  • #7
scienceguy
12
0
America can never withdraw from Iraq, we're already in it too deep and once we leave, it'll provide for a safe haven for terrorists to terrorize the world.
 
  • #8
Smurf
396
3
I disagree, I think there's a strong possibility that Militant groups may ultimatly be ousted by a rising dictator (probably supported by the west).

But the fact is, this is something new for the US, bush is preping the world for his new world order and iraq is the testing ground. I think these next 4 years are going to be very interesting, good or bad, very interesting.
 
  • #9
Burnsys
64
0
scienceguy said:
America can never withdraw from Iraq, we're already in it too deep and once we leave, it'll provide for a safe haven for terrorists to terrorize the world.

I love when they repeat like parrots....
 
  • #10
russ_watters
Mentor
21,855
8,822
Smurf said:
But the fact is, this is something new for the US, bush is preping the world for his new world order and iraq is the testing ground....
Not really - this New World order started in 1946 with the Marshall Plan.
Burnsys said:
I love when they repeat like parrots....
I love it when people argue via ridicule and expose themselves.
 
  • #11
Smurf
396
3
No no russ thats not what I mean, a new world order did start in 1946. and now this new new world order is starting now. it's new you see.
 
  • #12
russ_watters
Mentor
21,855
8,822
Then could you elaborate on exactly what Bush's new world order is?
 
  • #13
Burnsys
64
0
russ_watters said:
Then could you elaborate on exactly what Bush's new world order is?


It's his father dream.....

'Toward a New World Order'
A transcript of former President
George Herbert Walker Bush's
address to a joint session
of Congress and the nation

From the National Archives
September 11, 1990

Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, fellow Americans, thank you very much for that warm welcome. We gather tonight, witness to events in the Persian Gulf as significant as they are tragic. In the early morning hours of August 2d, following negotiations and promises by Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein not to use force, a powerful Iraqi army invaded its trusting and much weaker neighbor, Kuwait. Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression. ....

...We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, East and West, North and South, can prosper and live in harmony. A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.

The test we face is great, and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world that we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose, if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination, it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world. America and the world must defend common vital interests -- and we will. America and the world must support the rule of law -- and we will. America and the world must stand up to aggression -- and we will. And one thing more: In the pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated.

Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the Earth. We do not exaggerate. Nor do we exaggerate when we say Saddam Hussein will fail. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors -- neighbors who control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won't. ...

...Once again, Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful goodbye with their families before leaving for a strange and distant shore. At this very moment, they serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle and the dream of a new world order. That's why they sweat and toil in the sand and the heat and the sun. If they can come together under such adversity, if old adversaries like the Soviet Union and the United States can work in common cause, then surely we who are so fortunate to be in this great Chamber -- Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives -- can come together to fulfill our responsibilities here. Thank you. Good night. And God bless the United States of America.
 
  • #14
Burnsys
64
0
1989 - President Bush gave the commencement address at Texas A & M University on May 12, he which he stated "Ultimately, our objective is to welcome the Soviet Union back into the world order....Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations." --Arizona Daily Star, May 12.

Bush Quotes:

"Time and again in this century, the political map of the world was transformed. And in each instance, a new world order came about through the advent of a new tyrant or the outbreak of a bloody global war, or its end." Feb 28, 1990---this quote is six months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in August.

"When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN's founders." -Jan 16 1991

A quote from an invitation sent to Republican contributors throughout the United Stated in May 1991: "Now, our President faces greater tasks. And he must have help from like-minded men and women in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate who can help him establish the "new world order" he seeks."

1992 - August 26: The New York Times publishes "The World Needs an Army on Call" by U.S. Senator David Boren (Rhodes Scholar 1963, CFR member, and member of "Skull and Bones") in which he states: "In the aftermath of World War II, President Truman wanted to empower the United Nations to create a new world order....Richard Gardner proposes that forty to fifty member nations contribute to a rapid-deployment force of one hundred thousand volunteers that could train under common leadership....It is time for us to create such a force....The existence of such a force would go a long way toward making the "new world order" more than just a slogan."

1993 - Jan 13: Confirmation hearings are held for CFR member Warren Christopher's nomination to be Secretary of State. He and Senator Joseph Biden discuss the possibility of NATO becoming a peacekeeping surrogate for the U.N. "to foster the creation of a new world order." That is just what happened in Bosnia.

1993 - April 21: General Colin Powell receives the United Nations Association-USA's Global Leadership Award, and he remarks: "The United Nations will spearhead our efforts to manage the new conflicts (that afflict our world)....Yes the principles of the United Nations Charter are worth our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." !!!!!?????

1993 - May 4: New CFR president Leslie Gelb (formerly and editor at The New York Times ) says on "The Charlie Rose Show" that "...you(Charlie Rose) had me on (before) to talk about the new world order....I talk about it all the time....It's one world now...."

1993 - July 18: CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in The Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: "What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system....a first step toward a new world order."

1995 - July/August: In the CFR's Foreign Affairs, prominent CFR member Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. exclaims: "We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."

2001 - "There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this (9-11) disaster to carry out ... a new world order." (Gary Hart, at a televised meting organized by the CFR in Washington, D.C. Sept 14.)


etc. etc. etc...
------------------------------------
Hey! i found the WMD!!!! Over there...
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Dubya/images/bush_goggles_caps_on_300.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
russ_watters
Mentor
21,855
8,822
Burnsys said:
It's his father dream.....
Thanks for the source, but I don't see how that is much different from WWII/the Marshall Plan: beat back tyrants, create stable/prosperous democracies. Smurf...?
 
  • #16
Burnsys
64
0
russ_watters said:
Thanks for the source, but I don't see how that is much different from WWII/the Marshall Plan: beat back tyrants, create stable/prosperous democracies. Smurf...?

sorry, you mean, beat back democracies, tyrant, and any type of goverment who don't share US economic and military interest and puting, other tyrants, dictatorships and puppet democracys, wich aren't stable neither prosperous.

Just take Argentina for example......my country. since the marshal plan, 2 democracies overtrown by the cia, 2 military dictatorships backed by the us placed. 30.000 death, since 80' four "Democraticaly" elected goverments (Puppets of USA and the IMF), Result:
Water services, Controled by foreing corporations
Comunications Services, Controled by foreing corporations
Oil explotation and distribution, Controled by foreing corporations
Bank and credit system, Controled by foreing corporations
Food industry. Controled by foreing corporations
Transport services, Controled by foreing corporations
60% poverty, 30% Starving... 150.000M of debt.

Exactly the same happened in almos every country of latin and central merica.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
American murdered since the occupation around 100000 Iraqi civilians. Their old puppet regime (Saddam) murdered 300000 Iraqi (even not all civilians). I think Saddam still worse than American … lets wait another to years , when the Iraqi victims became more than 300000 … may be they will accept tow withdraw partially leaving several large military bases, puppet dictator regime (another modified Saddam) and large security group willing to murder any Iraqi who oppose the new government .
 
  • #18
Smurf
396
3
Burnsys said:
sorry, you mean, beat back democracies, tyrant, and any type of goverment who don't share US economic and military interest and puting, other tyrants, dictatorships and puppet democracys, wich aren't stable neither prosperous.
Exactly the same happened in almos every country of latin and central merica.
That's the difference though, that's how it was before iraq. CIA orchestrated coups and rigged elections, small invasions. Thats how it was before, this is the first time that the USA is accually building a government in a foreign country with their own troops with half-decent news coverage.
 
  • #19
polyb
65
0
Interesting date for Sr.'s announcement:

September 11, 1990

11 years to the day and Jr. becomes the new hero. Doesn't that open the door to some wild conspiracy theory nonsense!

russ_watters said:
Thanks for the source, but I don't see how that is much different from WWII/the Marshall Plan: beat back tyrants, create stable/prosperous democracies.

I disagree russ, I think there are some big differences. First off, Hussein was a client of Bush Sr. and you do not have to look very hard to find the collaboration between that administration and Saddam. HERE is a link to provide you with some info. There is also a nice picture of Rummy shaking hands with Hussein as he was gassing the Kurds.

Now Jr.s grandfather Prescott also had Hitler as a client way back when there was an economic depression and
alcohol prohibition. For this I will refer you to
http://www.americandynasty.net/schweizer_rebuttal.htm [Broken] sponsored by the LaRouche campaign back in '92, unfortunately it is loaded with political bias though it is well researched and chuck full of facts.

And as for the business dealing between Jr. and the bin Laden family, well I would hope you know some of that by now.

So your equivalence falls flat and truthfully you need to be more skeptical of the politicians because, guess what, just about all of them are liars and thieves. :surprised

OH YEAH, presently I think we need international collaboration on Iraq in order to bring about some "legitimacy" to an already illegal war. Even then I have serious doubts. We'll probably leave like we did in 'nam. :mad:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak. This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and other leaders from Europe, the Gulf, and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.
Problem is, W didn't put together a significant number of allied powers to come anywhere close to the New World Order that his father envisioned. He doesn't respect the rights of the weak, or share a vision with Gorbechev, or understand how his father managed the crisis. There's no new world order in W; nothing new, and very little order.
 
  • #22
Smurf
396
3
schwarzchildradius said:
Problem is, W didn't put together a significant number of allied powers to come anywhere close to the New World Order that his father envisioned. He doesn't respect the rights of the weak, or share a vision with Gorbechev, or understand how his father managed the crisis. There's no new world order in W; nothing new, and very little order.
The problem, if you wanna call it that, is that that's not really their goal. The problem isn't really a problem because it's just the front they're using to stop the people from realising what they're really doing, which is really attempting to control the world as the 'American Empire' and ensure it's permanence as the world's leading power.
 
  • #23
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
Wow, that new world order sounds terrible. I'd hate to live on a harmonious planet of cooperating nations free from tyrrany.
 
  • #24
Smurf
396
3
loseyourname said:
Wow, that new world order sounds terrible. I'd hate to live on a harmonious planet of cooperating nations free from tyrrany.
so would I, too bad no one in power is trying to do that.
 
  • #25
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
I highly doubt anyone in power is trying to establish a world-wide American empire, either. The resources required to maintain a world-wide empire are well beyond any nation that has ever existed. The only colony I can ever think of the US having is the Philipines, something it didn't hold onto all that long. I think we learned our lesson there.
 
  • #27
russ_watters
Mentor
21,855
8,822
Smurf said:
Overview of the American Empire
and Project for the new American Century
Did you even read that first link of yours? If the US gov't is trying to build a global empire, they're doing a pretty lousy job - they've been going backwards for 50 years.

Smurf, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, hoping you weren't referring to the standard old absurd conspiracy theory re: the-slowest-global-domination-scheme-in-history. I guess I was wrong.

The legacy of the Marshall Plan is this: A stable and prosperous Western Europe that hasn't had an internal war in 50 years - for the first time ever. I am very much in favor of extending that.

This idea didn't originate with the Marshall Plan either - its roots began with Woodrow Wilson in 1917, when he asked for a declaration of war to enter WWI to "make the world safe for democracy." His plan following WWI was absolutely absurd - forgive and rebuild your enemy, then grant him membership in a new global diplomatic organization. The world wasn't ready for his idea yet and the result was WWII. After WWII, the idea was implimented and the result is the absolutely unprecidented 60 years of peace and prosperity in the western world. Its gone so far that many western countries, including some of the most powerful, are dismantling their militaries. Again, this is unprecidented in the history of the world.

Yes, its ludicrous, I know - but I sure hope this insanity continues.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Smurf
396
3
When I refer to the 'American Empire' I refer not only to the 50 states of America its self but also it's territories and commonwealths such as Puerto Rico and the Mariana Islands, along with it's various political and economic influences throughout the world especially in South America and, now, throughout the Middle East.
I do not mean to imply that America is slowly trying to take over the world throughout several millenia. There were many stages in America's coming to it's stage of world power, such as, you've seen in the link, the attempt to create an Empire on par with those of Europe of the time resulting in the Louisiana and Alaska purchase. I do not think that there is any relation between this and the current events of Wolfowitz and Bushes, and I am in no way implying they are all linked by a single world domination scheme.
 
  • #29
Zlex
40
1
Russ,

Whether it's the complete and total mischaracterization of Bush's SOTU speech "Some say we must wait until the threat is imminent..." followed by here is why we can't as 'Bush told us the threat was imminent,' or the current 'Let's cut and run --yet again -- at the first sign of adversity before this effort actually succeeds, leaving Iraq in chaos with no alternative plan of action because such an insane act would serve only the political ends of the radical fringe in this country, the depths to which the radical left will stoop to trash the interests of the US and support the interests of tyrranny and chaos and mayhem abroad knows no limits. It's all for a really, really good cause; theirs.

Here's a shocking revelation; the radical left in this country wants to see the US torn apart, torn down, and rebuilt in their pet Soc. grad student thesis image of perfection. If they have to forcefully voice an irrational point of view that says torture in Iraq and Saddam left holding that nation in thrall was preferable to the pain and effort of policing up the radical fringe still scurrying and murdering in the cracks of that country, well, so be it, as long as the absolute only upside anyone can find in all of that is political.

Their current argument goes something like this: the cost of enforcing the law and peace in whatever quadrant of D.C., Detroit, Philadelphia, or NY that is appropriate often results in the deaths of policemen who have sons and daughters and wives. Count the bodies. How long can we let that go on? Look at their funerals; we'll zoom the cameras in for you to get a real good look. Look at the tears of the widows and the orphans on those CNN specials. What human being can justify all that sorrow? Get them out of there NOW. Surrender all civil efforts at forcefully defending the peace to the thugs and criminals and tyrants of the world. Why, just give peace a chance.

They would have, and did, and still do make the same argument about WWII.

The alternatives they suggest are: nonexistent. The helpful advice they offer to make the world a better place is: not this way. The better solutions they outline to allow the fence sitters to make an informed decisions is: Bush is an idiot.

The opposition is totally and completely bankrupt, bereft of ideas, in love only with their hatred of Bush. They are America's Palestinians. Next step has got to be them strapping C4 to their chest; it's only a matter of time.
 
  • #30
Zlex
40
1
Bilal said:
American murdered since the occupation around 100000 Iraqi civilians. Their old puppet regime (Saddam) murdered 300000 Iraqi (even not all civilians). I think Saddam still worse than American … lets wait another to years , when the Iraqi victims became more than 300000 … may be they will accept tow withdraw partially leaving several large military bases, puppet dictator regime (another modified Saddam) and large security group willing to murder any Iraqi who oppose the new government .

Bilal,

Those arrayed against 'us' in Iraq are not just attacking 'us.' They are attacking Iraqi citizens. They are killing innocents and telling the world, 'if you don't give us what we want, we will continue to kill innocents, so ***** up.'

Given the leverage that tactic provides, it is an excceedingly small fringe of **** fighters that are generating the headlines.

Now, you, I, each of us, have to examine as best we can the motivations and tactics of those involved in this struggle and choose.


The politicos will bring their petty politics to the top of the pile and let that trump all other considerations, to the point of making up fantastic claims about 'Iraqi Freedom Fighters' and US troopers bayoneting babies for Mobil Oil and Haliburton profits. But the fact is, it is not US troops purposely and by design targeting Iraqi civilians, the UN, the Red Cross, the Iraqi Interim Council, and other civil authorities trying to make life better for the Iraqi people; it is tiny fringe of miscreants who have pulled out all the stops and who are using any means necessary in the Holy pursuit of that which they want, which is, once again control over a nation in thrall by a few via torture and murder and mayhem, in other words, the continuation of the same tactics they used before we arrived to realize political control of that country.

This IS about the use of raw power, in both instances. This IS a once political struggle that has waned megapolitical. In that waning has been exposed the truth about the nature of the two combatants via the tactics and victims they are eager and willing to create. So, observe as best you can, and choose. There is no middle ground, not even the mythical once fairyland of staying safely across the sea and pretending that because we didn't see it, it wasn't occurring. The evidence is too plentiful, but deny it if you ultimately must. We can't fix every ****fight; true. We can't right every wrong; true. There are worse murdering savage sadists in the world; true. And, none of that negates the fact that we are in a position to do something about this ****fight other then pretend it wasn't going on before we arrived. The argument for surrendering the great majority of the Iraqi people, once again, to a tiny handful of megapolitical thugs is exactly what? That this is a hard task? That it is better to live in a world where nobody safely gives a ****?


What, precisely, is the argument in favor of '***** up' when confronted by megapolitical thugs?
 
  • #31
Smurf
396
3
Zlex said:
Bilal,

Those arrayed against 'us' in Iraq are not just attacking 'us.' They are attacking Iraqi citizens. They are killing innocents and telling the world, 'if you don't give us what we want, we will continue to kill innocents, so ***** up.'

Given the leverage that tactic provides, it is an excceedingly small fringe of **** fighters that are generating the headlines.

Now, you, I, each of us, have to examine as best we can the motivations and tactics of those involved in this struggle and choose.
This would be the infalliable "They're worse so we're OK" argument.

Too bad it's not true.
 
  • #32
Smurf
396
3
The whole fuss about killing civilians is so ignorant. You're looking at this in a Western Army vs Army context but applying it to people who arn't part of any militarized group.

ci·vil·ian (s-vlyn)
n.
1. A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police.
2. A specialist in Roman or civil law.

They are civilians, these are civilians killing other civilians. They're not another Foreign enemy to deplore, this is in fact a civil war, stop looking at it like Us vs. Them. That's not it, technically you could even call them criminals.
 
  • #33
Zlex
40
1
Smurf said:
They are civilians, these are civilians killing other civilians. They're not another Foreign enemy to deplore, this is in fact a civil war, stop looking at it like Us vs. Them. That's not it, technically you could even call them criminals.

So, in essence, the lesson we're supposed to learn from all this barely hidden glee is, say some miscreant and a group of his toady thugs wants to take over NYC, Baltimore, Phila, or DC.

All he has to do is, use "guerilla" tactics, and there would be folks shrilly screaming at the top of their lungs(when it is safe to do so)that we should pull out the police, run, hide, cower in the dark, etc.

I get it, the point is clear; when faced with thuggery, run.

That's some better plan. Got anything else?
 
  • #34
Smurf
396
3
It's funny how you talk about Iraq and compare it as if it's already the 51st state. :smile:
 
  • #35
Zlex
40
1
Smurf said:
It's funny how you talk about Iraq and compare it as if it's already the 51st state. :smile:

Hey, you're the one who compared them to criminals.

NORWICH, Vt. -- A driver accused of running down and killing a Vermont state trooper is now facing murder charges.

Eric Daley, 23, of New Hampshire, was charged with second degree murder at a hearing Monday.

Drug charges were also filed against him.

Daley pleaded not guilty to lesser charges in June.

Police say Daley was running from police when he hit and killed Sgt. Michael Johnson in Norwich, Vt., in June.

Johnson was laying down spike strips on Interstate 91 to stop Daley. Police say Daley then took off and was captured a couple of days later in Pennsylvania.


OK, all you chickenhawk heartless bastards out there still advocating that we send cops out to enforce laws and protect the peace, I want you to look into the eyes of those kids and tell them, "We send folks like your daddy out to die because..."

Well, ****it Smurf you're right; let's bring all the cops safely 'home,' no more flag draped coffins, no more teary holidays. Far be it from me to dip my lame little politico hands into their blood and agony and sorrow to make my cheap little in-ter-net points.

Hey, I'm just getting into the spirit of things here. If cheap, gutless and spineless is the lingua fracta of political debate, I figured I'd better bone up.

Oh, but cops are different, and this was for a really good cause; the guy was speeding. It's not at all like going after patriots in Iraq, who only want to continue their unique Olympic training unimpeded.
 

Suggested for: What's your opinion about: the withdrawl of american troops from Iraq?

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
374
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
322
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
977
Replies
59
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
860
Replies
2
Views
623
  • Last Post
2
Replies
62
Views
2K
Replies
74
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
580
Replies
28
Views
912
Top