Political Crossfire Forums

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: We have achieved taking out the threat,

No we havent..we made the threat worse, according to our own governmental agencies.

Quote: we have achieved the show of force.

No...we are the military laughing stock of the ME.

Quote: Now if we set up a friendly democracy there successfully, then we achieve the last two objectives.

Wont happen with-in 50 years no matter what we did.

Quote: We have an ally in the ME to counter Iran besides Israel,

A balless quasi ally, that has many more ties to Iran, than Israel.

Quote: and we have protected oil interests.

That we did sort of achieve.

Quote: we should up our troop levels to higher levels and flat out finish the democracy building.

1.) You cannot "build" democracy...Its like "building" a love of Vanilla ice cream.

2.) We do not have any more troops. The study recently release by the pentagon, essentially says that we would be able to greatly increase troop level on a very short term basis.

Quote: Put enough troops in there to keep the country together while the government finally becomes strong enough to stay together on its own and win its own civil war.

We are NO where near that point. The Iraqi government is 100% beholdnt to the militias, not the other way around.

Quote: I don't see why a combination of those four reasons for going into Iraq are considered bad,

Because they are imperilistic, and they almost always result in complete failure..As Iraq is..In the few cases that have succeeded through out history, it came at extreme cost to the invading nation...As it has the US.

Quote: and so I'm in favor of either pulling out and letting the place go nuts in warfare or taking complete control and securing the country, just so long as we don't just do what we're doing now. What we're doing now will probably work, eventually, but upping troop levels will finish it much sooner.

The time frame in which to achieve the success you are talking about is at least 50 years..We cannot sustain a presence such as we have for a time frame of that length..hell 10 years will cripple this nation militarily, politically, fiscally, and strip us of our will..THAT is what you need to understand. Analogy for you.

Its like the "pro-Bush"/"pro-war" people think that if you hit the tennis ball hard enough you can beat the wall. It seems to me, that all the screaming against the "anti-war" people is akin to..you Kitty Cats just dont want to hit the ball hard enoug, and the "anti-war" people are like...Dude...your trying to beat a f***ing wall...you cant win.

Quote: Bah sorry I just kinda went on there for a while, it's a little disorganized, I'm kinda multitasking here.

NP..I got the jist of it.

Yes, the threat of terrorism may have increased, but there is no Saddam Hussein in power to supply them with WMDs.

We are not the military laughing stock of the ME, and if we are, it is because of those who have advocated pulling out since the beginning. You really think Iran is gonna be laughing if/when we turn our attention to them?

You don't believe that we can't set up a stable democracy in Iraq in the next 50 years? Yes, there are many different and warring factions, but there must be a way to pull them together into the control of one government.

In the terms of an ally, I meant not so much as Iraq itself would do anything, but that we have a large US influence right next to Iran.

Well, I believe that you can build it to a point. I believe that the majority of Iraqis want democracy...problem is that the majority that wants that is the majority group, so that they can have the power :lol:

I disagree, certain parts of the military are ridden with militias, which is why we need to increase troops levels and secure the country, then start again with the military and weed out the militias to create a loyal fighting force than can actually enforce what the government is saying.

But only one (maybe two) of them are imperialistic, and I believe that the threat to our nation takes precedence over any imperialist aims.

Sorry I didn't match all the quotes up, I'm sure you can figure it out.


And thanks for this enlightening back-and-forth. See, I've been stuck on the issue for a while now. I find reasons for both sides of the argument, and I actually find myself in agreement in terms of our foreign policy with you. When I started this thread, I was looking for someone to take the side that you took, because that allowed me to take the other side. I've found that the best way to figure out how I really feel on issues is to try to argue for BOTH sides of it to different people at different times. You can really see both sides of the argument that way, if that makes any sense. Kinda like playing devil's advocate.

So of course I'm still deciding my thoughts on this, but going at it with you has been fun, and I DO support pulling out of Iraq now, because frankly, I don't give a **** what happens to the Iraqis. Most of them don't like us, and if they wanna kill each other, then that's their problem. I agree with you on *most* points, except for apologizing to the world and the ME, and also for our sole reasons for going. Yes, oil was part of it. But I really do believe that Saddam was a threat to this nation, and that we did need to take him out. But besides those, I see us in agreement of what to do from the present onward.

Too bad a politician will never support the "either be cool with us and we won't mess with you, or pose a threat to us and we'll bomb you to hell" policy.

Arghh I need some advil...I think I'm having a 2 day hangover here :lol:

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: I wouldn't mind this course as a foreign policy except for the apologizing part. We don't owe anyone anything, especially the entire world or even the ME. Although this would have to include preemptive strikes against anyone who is trying to acquire nukes and if there is ANY chance that nuke will be launched at us, which is why of course we must finish our ballistic missile defense system. But I don't see why this should interfere with what we are going in Iraq, we can simply put up a stable democracy there and then put that foreign policy into place. Whether we pull out of Iraq now or after it is a democracy, we should still pursue this as our foreign policy. At least it seems we are in agreement there.

The threat of unfetted retaliation will force other countries to police their own..Combine that with a streamlined, and effective intelligence agency, and we have very little to worry about IMO. The leaders of these countries may hate the US, but they love themselves more..A king without a palace is not a King..

I think that does apply to most countries, but with some of the fanatics out there, I'm just worried that one of them would actually be willing to sacrifice his country to nuke New York. I'm not willing to take that chance.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: I see what you are trying to say, but it's not that simple. You can't just flat out take the money that's going to Iraq and divert it to a kind of Manhattan Project. A much better way to do it would be to take out a lot of our government programs and put that money towards it, while staying in Iraq. :wink:

Nope..your not getting it..

Look into the concept of what you and I wrote..not the words..You have said it, and understand it apparently, but Im not sure if your willing to apply the same concept elsewhere.

Well that's why I put a wink at the end, because I get what you're saying and believe me, I wish it were possible and that we could do it, but it won't happen like that. You think that I'm being contradictory about taking money from cut government programs and taking money from the Iraq War to put towards an effort such as that...the difference is that I believe our invasion of Iraq was worthwhile, while these government programs aren't.

[Quell]

Bah..gotta actually do work..Ill get back either tonight or tomorrow.

[Gaia]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Ok, taking out the factor of the Iraq War of giving freedom to all those millions of people, why are we there now? Why not just do what we did and destroy the regime, and then let them fight it out in a civil war, and not really care who wins? I mean, even if another dictator comes into power, just say look, we don't care what you do, as long as you aren't a threat to us. And if he is a threat to us in any way, do to him what we did to Saddam.

Yes, democracies do not breed terrorism. But we can simply say to any dictator, "Look, you threaten us in any way or support terrorists against us in any way, and we'll destroy everything you have." I mean, that sounds like a good plan to me. Or is that just a short term solution that would end up with us striking Iraq constantly to get rid of governments which supported terrorism, and the long term solution would be to set up a democracy? The way I see it though, if the people of Iraq support terrorism against us and keep putting those people in power, then they are all our enemies.

So, my question is what are our interests there besides freeing people out of the kindness of our hearts?

*Note* I will disregard all posts from you leftists and conspiracy nuts who give answers like "for the oil" or "because the Zionists want to take over blah blah blah." That is unless of course you actually have something logical to back it up.

Democrasies don't breed Terrorism? Well that's news to me, and I'll give you a ripe example. Let's talk about Iran in 1956.

Let's talk about Italy in the 1980's

Let's talk about Northern Ireland

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Gaia wrote: IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: Ok, taking out the factor of the Iraq War of giving freedom to all those millions of people, why are we there now? Why not just do what we did and destroy the regime, and then let them fight it out in a civil war, and not really care who wins? I mean, even if another dictator comes into power, just say look, we don't care what you do, as long as you aren't a threat to us. And if he is a threat to us in any way, do to him what we did to Saddam.

Yes, democracies do not breed terrorism. But we can simply say to any dictator, "Look, you threaten us in any way or support terrorists against us in any way, and we'll destroy everything you have." I mean, that sounds like a good plan to me. Or is that just a short term solution that would end up with us striking Iraq constantly to get rid of governments which supported terrorism, and the long term solution would be to set up a democracy? The way I see it though, if the people of Iraq support terrorism against us and keep putting those people in power, then they are all our enemies.

So, my question is what are our interests there besides freeing people out of the kindness of our hearts?

*Note* I will disregard all posts from you leftists and conspiracy nuts who give answers like "for the oil" or "because the Zionists want to take over blah blah blah." That is unless of course you actually have something logical to back it up.

Democrasies don't breed Terrorism? Well that's news to me, and I'll give you a ripe example. Let's talk about Iran in 1956.

Let's talk about Italy in the 1980's

Let's talk about Northern Ireland

It may come from there, but typically free and accepting democracies will not breed terrorism, as compared to closed regimes which enforce certain religious or political beliefs.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Quell wrote: Bah..gotta actually do work..Ill get back either tonight or tomorrow.

:lol: Don't ya hate when that happens.