u.s. troops may begin leaving Iraq in 2005

[alonzomourning23]

This after allawi said some areas of Iraq are too unstable to participate in the election

"Certainly, there will be some pockets that will not be able to participate in the elections for these reasons, but we think that it will not widespread." Prime Minister Ayad Allawi

link

More than 40 percent of Iraqis will be unable to participate in electing an interim assembly, said Karim Kawar, Jordan's ambassador to the United States, adding, ''This raises questions about the authenticity of the elections.''

link

First we invade them and then are trying to leave while they become increasingly unstable. Granted he said it's possible, and not definate. Hopefully they focus on leaving when they stabilize, instead of focusing on leaving in 2005.

American troops will begin leaving Iraq this year as the Iraqi army, national guard and police force take on a larger security role, says Secretary of State Colin Powell.

link

Oh, and just so you can't say I forgot poland, they're pulling out too.
link

 

[zionoverfire]

Well your first two links are to CBS news. I'm curious so see if you will get any flak for that.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='zionoverfire']Well your first two links are to CBS news. I'm curious so see if you will get any flak for that.[/quote]

Only the first link is to cbs, but either way, here's the same story from the washington times link

 

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'd love nothing more tthan to leave yesterday. I wish we never had to go. I wish that dictators weren't the way of life in the Middle East and the people didn't follow tyrrany like sheep. I wish the Iraqi government, once democratically elected, to be strong, stable and able to protect their borders and have order restored throughout the land.

You think anyone is thrilled this mission had to be undertaken and want Americans there longer than they have to be?

What's so ironic about all these people claiming these upcoming electoins won't be "legitimate" if ONLY 40% of the people participate is that the previous "legitimate" government had 0% of the people participate.

Think about this, in 1864 with half the country gone from the previous election, we re-elected President Lincoln. After the Civil War and Lincoln assinated, the single term of Andrew Johnson excepted, a reconstructed United States elected U.S. Grant twice. Despite him being viewed as the devil by millions in the south.

Democracy works, even with the strangest bedfellows, the most unlikely of candidates and winners it works. It will work in Iraq too. Freedom isn't something that can be stopped by threats, harassment or violence. If Ghandi and the American Civil Rights Movement didn't teach the world that they just weren't paying close enough attention. Like the above, history will repeat itself in Iraq.

 

[zionoverfire]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='zionoverfire']Well your first two links are to CBS news. I'm curious so see if you will get any flak for that.[/quote]

Only the first link is to cbs, but either way, here's the same story from the washington times link[/quote]

I yes, I simply clicked the 1st link twice. ](*,)

Well nice to see that US troops could be leaving this year. I still say drop in a strong man and get our asses out. I for one perfered Saddam over the curent chaos.

 

[alonzomourning23]

PAD, looks like another one of those "we're better than saddam" posts. That's really something we should be proud of, being better than saddam. Though I think that would be the biggest crime of all zion. We go in on false claims of wmd, kills tens of thousands of innocent civilians, destabilize the whole country, destroy its infrastructure, create more terrorists, screw up the middle east even more, and then leave the country with a new brutal dictatorship. That sounds like a great idea.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It will work in Iraq too. Freedom isn't something that can be stopped by threats, harassment or violence.[/quote]
No, its not. Its also not something that can be given. When the Iraqi people (or any other group in any other country) are ready for it, they'll step up and take it. Meanwhile, all we've really done is destablize the region, create thousands of new terrorists who hate us, and set Iraq up for a civil war that'll kill ten times more people than Saddam could have ever dreamed of.

 

[gamefreak]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']PAD, looks like another one of those "we're better than saddam" posts. That's really something we should be proud of, being better than saddam. Though I think that would be the biggest crime of all zion. We go in on false claims of wmd, kills tens of thousands of innocent civilians, destabilize the whole country, destroy its infrastructure, create more terrorists, screw up the middle east even more, and then leave the country with a new brutal dictatorship. That sounds like a great idea.[/quote]

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians? What sources are you looking at? I'm having a bit of trouble finding anything that looks reliable (ie "Arab tells network it is '100% sure' over 30,000 civlians died" or an article by Amnesty) but I would highly doubt it is higher than 10 thousand at most. Destabilize? Well taking out a government will do that for a country. But now compare every democratic (by this I mean truley democratic) country that shares a region with a non-democratic country. Which is more stabile? East or West Germany? North or South Korea? 99% of the time the democratic country is more stable in the long run. Dictatorship? I'm thinking not so much. The interm president and prime minister don't hold absolute power and their constitution allows for freedom of speech, religion, the right to own private property, and so forth. Screw up the Middle East even more? As opposed to what? Inaction? Just like we did up untill 9/11? Can you guess what happened? Where is your love for mankind? People's rights are being suppressed in the Middle East; you simply can not go out into town in a place like Iran and yell "I love America". Heck, even you liberals should be able to see that the Patriot Act has NOTHING on some of the governments that are in power at this time. A democratic Middle East will not only benefit our fellow mankind but will help to stabilize the rest of the world; when you drain the swamps you no longer have malaria.

 

[gamefreak]

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It will work in Iraq too. Freedom isn't something that can be stopped by threats, harassment or violence.[/quote]
No, its not. Its also not something that can be given. When the Iraqi people (or any other group in any other country) are ready for it, they'll step up and take it. Meanwhile, all we've really done is destablize the region, create thousands of new terrorists who hate us, and set Iraq up for a civil war that'll kill ten times more people than Saddam could have ever dreamed of.[/quote]

Did the people of the Soviet Union take it? I'll give you this; some of them tried. And then were throwen in jail or killed. People didn't openly revolt there because they bought into the lies of the government, they didn't revolt because if they did it meant them and their families were going to have a not so bright future or lack thereof. When Good Olde Ronald stopped the policy of appeasement and started to put pressure on the Soviet Union, it started to crumble. And as people say that it was loosing power, they became "risker" and risker, eventually outright demanding their rights. I strongly suggest the book The Case for Democracy, its written by a Russia who spent many years in the gualag for voicing his opinions about the Soviet government. One part that grabbed me was something along the lines of this: "If you are living under a government such as the Soviet Russia and someone comes to ask you how your life is, what are you going to say? Are you going to say you hate the government? That you are cannot voice your opinion? Not unless you want to goto the gualag."

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='gamefreak'][quote name='Drocket'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']It will work in Iraq too. Freedom isn't something that can be stopped by threats, harassment or violence.[/quote]
No, its not. Its also not something that can be given. When the Iraqi people (or any other group in any other country) are ready for it, they'll step up and take it. Meanwhile, all we've really done is destablize the region, create thousands of new terrorists who hate us, and set Iraq up for a civil war that'll kill ten times more people than Saddam could have ever dreamed of.[/quote]

Did the people of the Soviet Union take it? I'll give you this; some of them tried. And then were throwen in jail or killed. People didn't openly revolt there because they bought into the lies of the government, they didn't revolt because if they did it meant them and their families were going to have a not so bright future or lack thereof. When Good Olde Ronald stopped the policy of appeasement and started to put pressure on the Soviet Union, it started to crumble. And as people say that it was loosing power, they became "risker" and risker, eventually outright demanding their rights. I strongly suggest the book The Case for Democracy, its written by a Russia who spent many years in the gualag for voicing his opinions about the Soviet government. One part that grabbed me was something along the lines of this: "If you are living under a government such as the Soviet Russia and someone comes to ask you how your life is, what are you going to say? Are you going to say you hate the government? That you are cannot voice your opinion? Not unless you want to goto the gualag."[/quote]

How many American soldiers died in the 1980s so that Communism would finally fail in the USSR? How many USSR civilians did the US troops kill or make life a chaotic hell for? How many countries deplored the US tactics, how much bad will did the US engender, when communism finally fell in the USSR?

No, if you were to compare this present war to any other conflict, it would have to be Vietnam. And yes, it is going better then Vietnam (although that isn't saying much...)

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='gamefreak']As opposed to what? Inaction? Just like we did up untill 9/11?[/quote]
I don't think you can realistically describe the US's position in the Middle-east as 'inaction'. The US has a rather long history of involvment in middle-eastern affairs, including proping up Saddam, selling him weapons (both conventional and chemical), training Bin Laden and associates in the fine art of terrorism, illegally selling weapons to Iran, encouraging warfare between middle-eastern countries, etc, all in the pursuit of oil and the all-mighty dollar.

Considering how many people who were directly responsible for the above actions are the ones who pushed for the invasion of Iraq, I think its rather reasonable to regard their motives as questionable, and to worry about the quality of their plan, considering that every single action they've ever made in the middle-east has resulted in death and destruction.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='gamefreak']As opposed to what? Inaction? Just like we did up untill 9/11?[/quote]
I don't think you can realistically describe the US's position in the Middle-east as 'inaction'. The US has a rather long history of involvment in middle-eastern affairs, including proping up Saddam, selling him weapons (both conventional and chemical), training Bin Laden and associates in the fine art of terrorism, illegally selling weapons to Iran, encouraging warfare between middle-eastern countries, etc, all in the pursuit of oil and the all-mighty dollar.[/quote]

I love it when libs state that the US 'propped' Saddam into power in Iraq. Simply untrue, baseless, and either uninformed or purposely deceitful. We had our meathooks in a Shaw outside of Saddams borders, yes, but Saddam rose to power on his own aspirations and relations, and stayed there on the backs of his assassins. Once the Irabian Shaw was deposed it's another story, but world politics make strange bedfellows. Although we didn't give rise to Saddam, we did help him in his crusade agains Iran, however, that does not invalidate our actions now. Is the left so desperate that they always have to try to paint this as a contradiction?

Considering how many people who were directly responsible for the above actions are the ones who pushed for the invasion of Iraq, I think its rather reasonable to regard their motives as questionable, and to worry about the quality of their plan, considering that every single action they've ever made in the middle-east has resulted in death and destruction.

Neglecting the fact that Saddam was the one who sumarily executed people, deprived them of rightful food, medicine, water, supplies so that he could build presidential palaces and buy french, chineese, and russian weapons. Oh, yeah, and that little matter of invading Kuwait so he didn't have to pay back 8 billion dollars to the Kuwaiti Amir. Oh, yeah then there's the UN resolutions to comply with arms inspections for 12 years to which he refused to submit.

I love how it's allways our questionable motives and ignoring 'world opinion' instead of their questionable motives and disregard for world opinion.

Unfortunately for us, we are the only ones who had enough backbone to enforce the world opinion in the name of our own security. Thank god for the United States. If it wasn't for the few who weren't afraid to make the tough decisions, the rest of you surrender monkeys would be speaking russian and waiting in line for your daily oatmeal ration.

 

[Drocket]

[quote name='bmulligan']I love it when libs state that the US 'propped' Saddam into power in Iraq. Simply untrue, baseless, and either uninformed or purposely deceitful.[/quote]
He did manage to claw his way up to power on his own, but its questionable whether he could have managed to hold onto power without US support.

Neglecting the fact that Saddam was the one who sumarily executed people, deprived them of rightful food, medicine, water, supplies so that he could build presidential palaces and buy french, chineese, and russian weapons.

Using US money to do so, while the US repeatedly claimed he was a great and wonderful leader, a beacon of light and hope in the middle-east, yadda, yadda, yadda. The Bush crew will do and say anything they have to, as long as they money keeps flowing into their pockets. Its only after the money dries up that 'terrorist insurgents rebelling against the legitimate Iraqi government' suddenly become 'downtrodden civilians murdered by bloodthirsty Iraqi government'

The simple reality is that virtually every action the US has ever taken in the middle east has been for questionable motives and with ended with disasterous results. So far, this war seems to be more of the same.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']
Unfortunately for us, we are the only ones who had enough backbone to enforce the world opinion in the name of our own security. Thank god for the United States. If it wasn't for the few who weren't afraid to make the tough decisions, the rest of you surrender monkeys would be speaking russian and waiting in line for your daily oatmeal ration.[/quote]

Tell me, exactly how do we enforce the worlds opinion while simultaneously stampeding over it? Any real allies we had, with the exception of the u.k. and Israel, was the decision of its government in opposition to the will of its own people. The alliances of nations, such as Spain and Italy were decided by the heads of government, and flew in the face of democracy. Yet despite this, how often had we heard our own president commending them for their actions? Actions which are blatantly undemocratic. If we continue to treat the world as children who don't know any better, it will come back to haunt us in the end, as no great power is eternal. We use world opinion as a tool, on the one hand proudly stating that we are upholding the will of the u.n. by punishing a dictator who disregarded u.n. resolutions, and on the other disregarding the u.n. ourselves. Then again, whatever is most conveniant, whatever works best to accomplish our goals, right? The day that americans realize they are not the be all and end all of this planet is the day they will become the truly great nation they have always proclaimed to be. And besides, as for surrender monkeys, you seem to forgot Iraq did not attack us, therefore there was nothing to surrender to.

 

[MrBadExample]

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

 

[bmulligan]

And this proves what exactly? That we had a common enemy 20 years ago? Politicts make strange bedfellows and this current bush administration shouldn't be blamed for supporting Saddam's regime against the Iranian one over 2 decades ago.

Perhaps we should still be in a cold war with Russia and the former soviets since they were are enemies wince the 50's ? Maybe we should have been friendlier to the Soviet union becauase they were our ally in WW II? Perhaps we should still at war with Spain and England becuase we were their enemy centries ago? Times change, situations change, alliegences change. Your 'proof' in photo form or historical note that we supported Saddam has no bearing as to whether or not he was in constant violation of the 1991 peace accords, thwarted countless UN resolutions to comply with weapons inspections, and openy defied your relied upon 'world opinion' for his own purposes, other than the safeguarding and care of his people.

By your logic, we should not have gone to war with him in 1991 becase we 'put' him in power in the first place. Perhaps we should never disagree with anyone a government offical has shaken hands with ?

Tell me, exactly how do we enforce the worlds opinion while simultaneously stampeding over it?

You need to read the cease fire agreement with Iraq, AND the laundry list of resolutions admonishing Saddam for non-compliance over the last 12 years. Then you may have a leg to stand upon, or possibly have your legs taken out from under you.

The UN disregarded themselves by not having the will to carry out their enforcement of resolution 1441, or previous. They have invalifdated their own will by default. Since they continue to act as children, they wil and should be treated as such, until they have attained the maturity to follow through with their convictions. We are the truly great nation we purport to be, not perfect, but not filled with guilt for having the resolve to stand up for what's right in the face of unfavorable opinion by the other dictatorships and 'all costs' war appeasers around the globe.

No, Iraq did not attack us. They tested our resolve of consistancy to follow through on principle. They agreed to submit when defeated. They resisted, they deserved punnishment and forced compliance. Just like any arresting officer apprehending a suspect he has witnessed committing a crime. You don't have to strike a police officer to be subject to arrest and forced to submit when commiting a crime. You can either submit willingly, or be taken by force. Saddam chose the latter and now WE are paying the price for HIS actions. It's simply unfortunate that your guilt ridden concience blinds you to the possibility that we indeed hold the moral position in this conflict.

 

[MrBadExample]

Maybe I'm suggesting that we shouldn't prop up two-bit dictators just because we have a common enemy at one point in history.

Why does Dubya know Saddam has WMD's?
Because his dad still has the receipt.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='MrBadExample']Maybe I'm suggesting that we shouldn't prop up two-bit dictators just because we have a common enemy at one point in history.

Why does Dubya know Saddam has WMD's?
Because his dad still has the receipt.[/quote]

Let's mark this in the callendar as a time we're in agreement.

 

[alonzomourning23]

The UN disregarded themselves by not having the will to carry out their enforcement of resolution 1441, or previous. They have invalifdated their own will by default. Since they continue to act as children, they wil and should be treated as such, until they have attained the maturity to follow through with their convictions. We are the truly great nation we purport to be, not perfect, but not filled with guilt for having the resolve to stand up for what's right in the face of unfavorable opinion by the other dictatorships and 'all costs' war appeasers around the globe.

If there ever was an example of american arrogance, this is it. Maybe bush really is our perfect president, he seems to represent our true character so well. If we were really concerned about following every resolution maybe we should start with Israel. The palestinians would love if we gave the same support to un resolutions Israel violated and forced them back to their 1967 border. We just selectively decide which resolutions to support based on which one we can twist to suit our interests, Iraq has nothing to do with enforcing a resolution. It's essentially, "we want to invade Iraq and we can use this resolution to support it", when the very body that passed the resolution opposed our waging war. And if we were so concerned we should have at least allowed inspections to finish, we were just too afraid that the report would (correctly) show their were no wmd's.

 

[bmulligan]

Wait a minute, you're actually comparing a border dispute from 1967 to 12 years of resolutions condemning Iraq for non-compliance ?

As far as I am concerned, Israel should be as big as syria, lebanon, jordan, and egypt right now. Arabs planned a methodical attack to annihillate Israel from the face of the earth but somebody caught wind of it and the Jews had the fortitutde to set precedent and strike first. The Arabs lost. They forfeited their right to exist almost 40 years ago and it's only becuase of Israel's good graces that every arab in the entire region wasn't wiped out of existence. And please don't start pulling 'right of return' out of your bunghole either.

No, we shouldn't be so concerned about enforcing every resolution. We should be conserned about enforcing the ones that have a direct impact on security for our interests in the region. Allowing Iraq to disregard not only an agreed upon standard, but also negociated ceasefire accords shows the rest of the dictatorships and zealots in the region that we are soft, weak, and will turn a blind eye to misbehavior. Children test the limits of adults to see what they can get away with. This brings us full circle back to the original point that they are children and need to be treated as such, and not respected for breaking rules, nor allowed to behave in a manner that threatens us, our allies, or their neighbors. Saddam was not our equal, he was ordered to submit and refused. We therefore had the rightful claim to take him by force.

What if Saddam had been left alone and eventually developed a nuclear device ? A device that could be used as a hostage like N. Korea is doing now. A device that could be used against Israel, or smuggled into the US, or sold to a gruop like Al Queda? You libs would be the first ones to scream bloody murder that we didn't do anything about it while we had the chance. Meanwhile the smoking gun was being reloaded while we played catchup pasting a bandaid on a broken arm.

You think WE'RE arrogant? What about the rest of the world pissing and moaning about how shitty we are, yet they still demand our aid? THAT'S arrogance. What about Osama saying killing any and all americans as justified? THAT'S arrogance. What about thwarting weapons inspections? THAT'S arrogance. It's about time somebody stood up for US. If that's arrogance, then so be it. Measured against the rest of the world, it playing the other half of their own game.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']Wait a minute, you're actually comparing a border dispute from 1967 to 12 years of resolutions condemning Iraq for non-compliance ?

As far as I am concerned, Israel should be as big as syria, lebanon, jordan, and egypt right now. Arabs planned a methodical attack to annihillate Israel from the face of the earth but somebody caught wind of it and the Jews had the fortitutde to set precedent and strike first. The Arabs lost. They forfeited their right to exist almost 40 years ago and it's only becuase of Israel's good graces that every arab in the entire region wasn't wiped out of existence. And please don't start pulling 'right of return' out of your bunghole either.

No, we shouldn't be so concerned about enforcing every resolution. We should be conserned about enforcing the ones that have a direct impact on security for our interests in the region. Allowing Iraq to disregard not only an agreed upon standard, but also negociated ceasefire accords shows the rest of the dictatorships and zealots in the region that we are soft, weak, and will turn a blind eye to misbehavior. Children test the limits of adults to see what they can get away with. This brings us full circle back to the original point that they are children and need to be treated as such, and not respected for breaking rules, nor allowed to behave in a manner that threatens us, our allies, or their neighbors. Saddam was not our equal, he was ordered to submit and refused. We therefore had the rightful claim to take him by force.

What if Saddam had been left alone and eventually developed a nuclear device ? A device that could be used as a hostage like N. Korea is doing now. A device that could be used against Israel, or smuggled into the US, or sold to a gruop like Al Queda? You libs would be the first ones to scream bloody murder that we didn't do anything about it while we had the chance. Meanwhile the smoking gun was being reloaded while we played catchup pasting a bandaid on a broken arm.

You think WE'RE arrogant? What about the rest of the world pissing and moaning about how shitty we are, yet they still demand our aid? THAT'S arrogance. What about Osama saying killing any and all americans as justified? THAT'S arrogance. What about thwarting weapons inspections? THAT'S arrogance. It's about time somebody stood up for US. If that's arrogance, then so be it. Measured against the rest of the world, it playing the other half of their own game.[/quote]

If you don't think Israel refusing to comply with multiple un resolutions is affecting the regions security you're delusional. You're also saying, essentially, "they can break un resolutions if I agree they should be broken". When you use that logic you really can't argue that we should invade a nation (such as Iraq) because they broke u.n. resolutions.

Saddam wasn't being left alone, he was in a box, his wmd destroyed and the inspections worked. And if you honestly think Iraq would give al qaeda wmd you're insane, they hated each other. Saddam feared groups such as al qaeda, he knew they were entirely willing to attack him if given the chance. Foreign aid is expected of all rich nations, whether it's the u.s. or not. You also fail to see that if we left all these nations alone, without providing aid, that unstable nations and poor nations are more likely to create security issues.

region that we are soft, weak, and will turn a blind eye to misbehavior. Children test the limits of adults to see what they can get away with. This brings us full circle back to the original point that they are children and need to be treated as such, and not respected for breaking rules, nor allowed to behave in a manner that threatens us, our allies, or their neighbors.

I wish someone would punish the u.s. when they break international rules. And these nations know more about war than we do, the last war we saw on our own soil was the civil war, something which is nothing more than a distant historical event to most americans. This is evident in our willingness to engage in wars, we seem to believe that we can just force nations to do whatever we want and it will all work out the way we want, without any unlpleasant side effects. Our view of war and conflict is much too simplistic. Oh so a few people die, they're just numbers to us. We're not used to seeing them in our own backyard. We though Iraq would be a cakewalk, that they'd be throwing flowers at our feet. We thought less troops would be able to take over and control Iraq, and we though we could do everything alone. That is arrogance. Now we have members of the president's cabinet saying we're losing, his response? "la, la, la, la, I can't hear you", that's arrogance. Thinking that we can screw over the world, lose much of their support, and still have a succesful worldwide effort to minimize terrorism? That's arrogance. Our arrogance is not only our biggest weakness, but the greatest strength of groups such as al qaeda. Without it they wouldn't be where they are today. When our nations ceases to be the world power that it is, our arrogance will likely be what lead to that downfall.

 

[Mistik]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

For those too lazy to read the article, it says that research indicates approximately 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, NOT counting any in Fallujah. Interesting that the Pentagon's response was "We do not keep tallies of civilian casualities." But it's pretty much ignored by everyone when the US breaks any type of UN resolution, We've even violated our own constitution multiple times.

And also you can't really blame just the Arabs for the conflicts in Palestine. There seems to be many times throughout history where it could have been avoided. First of all, you can blame the French for the whole Dreyfus affair that fieled anti-Semitism in Europe causing the Jews to search for an alternate home. Second, you could blame Britain back in the day for promising a Jewish homeland. Then of course you could blame the Nazis for the whole Holocaust and causing Jews to fear Western Europe. Then the Israelis are are fault for violating the border that was given to them after WWII. Many would say that they shouldn't have been greedy and just accepted the land that had been given to them instead of capturing Arab held lands. The Arabs are merely trying to get back the land that was once theirs. Seriously, what would US citizens feel like if Canada decided they didnt have enough land and took over the northern states forcing people to carry IDs and go through checkpoints just to walk around it what used to be their country?

Just something to think about.

 

[Duo_Maxwell]

[quote name='Mistik']http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

For those too lazy to read the article, it says that research indicates approximately 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, NOT counting any in Fallujah. Interesting that the Pentagon's response was "We do not keep tallies of civilian casualities." But it's pretty much ignored by everyone when the US breaks any type of UN resolution, We've even violated our own constitution multiple times.

And also you can't really blame just the Arabs for the conflicts in Palestine. There seems to be many times throughout history where it could have been avoided. First of all, you can blame the French for the whole Dreyfus affair that fieled anti-Semitism in Europe causing the Jews to search for an alternate home. Second, you could blame Britain back in the day for promising a Jewish homeland. Then of course you could blame the Nazis for the whole Holocaust and causing Jews to fear Western Europe. Then the Israelis are are fault for violating the border that was given to them after WWII. Many would say that they shouldn't have been greedy and just accepted the land that had been given to them instead of capturing Arab held lands. The Arabs are merely trying to get back the land that was once theirs. Seriously, what would US citizens feel like if Canada decided they didnt have enough land and took over the northern states forcing people to carry IDs and go through checkpoints just to walk around it what used to be their country?

Just something to think about.[/quote]

For those you did read the artcile should note the fact that the sample seems far from scientific and the estimation could be highly over inflated, a detail you convienetly left out. Not to mention the article is about 4 months old, but thanks for the news update.

Also, you're Canada scenario is way off...Didn't you see John Candy's work in Canadian Bacon, clearly a fact based film from Michael Moore before he lost his sense of humor entirely? If john Candy can beat'em no way we'd lose.

 

[MrFriday18]

Now that we have not found WMD'S I guess we can look upon this war as a humanitarian mission in a way. Millions of Iraqis were liberated, torture chambers were destroyed, public humiliation gone, and the worst of all children are no longer being tortured, while their parents watch. Although this war has not gone 100% perfect by any means, we have liberated millions of people who were basically isolated and brain-washed for decades by Saddam. I never like to here on the news that another US soldier has died in combat, its sort of a hard to say if this was worth it. But when you see the faces of Iraqis who are not blowing up cars and attacking our troops then you may think this was worth it and Democracy is much better then having Saddam in power. A good video to watch is Buried in the Sand - The Deception of America which can be purchased at ,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...d_sim_dv_3/104-3912100-5059953?v=glance&s=dvd

 

[MrFriday18]

.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='MrFriday18']Now that we have not found WMD'S I guess we can look upon this war as a humanitarian mission in a way. Millions of Iraqis were liberated, torture chambers were destroyed, public humiliation gone, and the worst of all children are no longer being tortured, while their parents watch. Although this war has not gone 100% perfect by any means, we have liberated millions of people who were basically isolated and brain-washed for decades by Saddam. I never like to here on the news that another US soldier has died in combat, its sort of a hard to say if this was worth it. But when you see the faces of Iraqis who are not blowing up cars and attacking our troops then you may think this was worth it and Democracy is much better then having Saddam in power. A good video to watch is Buried in the Sand - The Deception of America which can be purchased at ,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...d_sim_dv_3/104-3912100-5059953?v=glance&s=dvd[/quote]

That's all fine and dandy, were it not for the fact that there are places in the world like Darfur where wide-scale genocide is happening, making the former situation in Iraq appear tame in comparison.

If Vietnam taught us anything, it's that if America is going to war, then we need to have a concise reason why and a clear mission objective. For this war our reason turned out to be fully untrue and there is no longer any clear mission objective (are we occupiers, or do we just want one election and we're out, or a are we a foreign security service...)

Patting yourself on the back for voting for a man who has proven himself completely incompetent in foreign affairs, just because he managed to oust one comparitively moderate dictator (look at some of those African or South Asian dictators if you don't believe me) is completely ridiculous. Then again, so were most of the events in this past election.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']If you don't think Israel refusing to comply with multiple un resolutions is affecting the regions security you're delusional. You're also saying, essentially, "they can break un resolutions if I agree they should be broken". When you use that logic you really can't argue that we should invade a nation (such as Iraq) because they broke u.n. resolutions.[/quote]

Obviously you know nothing of the history of Isreal and the Seven Day War. Here's a refresher which may be contrary to your high school history:

In May 1967, Egyptian President Gamal 'Abd al-Nasser expelled the United Nations forces which had been stationed in the Gaza Strip since 1957, stationed large concentrations of the Egyptian Army in Sinai along the border with Israel, and once again blockaded the Israeli port of Eilat. Egypt's moves were coordinated with and supported by Jordan and Syria. By the beginning of June, it became apparent to Israel that the international community would not act to lift the blockade or restore the UN forces. Accordingly, Israel resolved to defend itself with a pre-emptive strike against the Arab armies.

When the Israel Air Force estimated that it could destroy the large Egyptian Air Force within six hours, the claim was considered exaggerated. However, the air strike which opened the direct hostilities of the Six Day War had been simulated repeatedly, and was aided by excellent intelligence. The entire IAF was engaged in the operation, except for twelve Mirage fighters assigned to defend Israel's air space. The strike was timed for 7:45, when the Egyptian pilots who flew the early morning patrols would be back at their bases for breakfast. At 7:14 the first wave of Israeli planes took off; 183 in all. Thirty-one minutes later they were over their targets. Eleven airports were attacked and 197 planes destroyed (eight in aerial combat), together with radar stations and other supporting facilities. The second wave took off at 9:34, and attacked sixteen airports and radar installations. At 12:45, the third wave began, targeting the Jordanian Air Force, which was totally destroyed, and the Syrian Air Force, half of which was destroyed, with the rest making for distant air bases. One airfield in Iraq was also attacked. In the evening the southern Egyptian air base at Ras Banas was hit.

At the conclusion of the first day of fighting, the IAF had destroyed 70 percent of the enemy's air power. About 10 percent of the attacking planes had been hit by ground fire. On the second day of the war, the IAF again struck at Iraq, destroying eleven planes, while another eleven Egyptian planes were downed in aerial combat. The following day an Iraqi air base was again attacked, with each side losing three planes in the ensuing air battle. On the fourth day of the war, nine more Egyptian planes were downed.

Half an hour after the first IAF wave attacked Egypt on June 5, ground forces crossed the border into Sinai. Within twenty-eight hours, they had destroyed the Egyptian Army's 7th Division and the northern half of its 2nd Division. The second phase of the land war began the following day, when the remaining Egyptian forces in Sinai were defeated or surrounded within a further twenty-four hour period. The Gaza Strip was occupied, and the Straits of Tiran, whose closure had been one of the causes of the war, were opened in an operation commanded directly by the General Staff. On the night of June 8-9, the IDF had taken up positions along the eastern bank of the Suez Canal when a cease-fire came into effect. Some 15,000 Egyptians died in the fighting, and almost 4,500 were taken prisoner. More than 625 Egyptian tanks were left in Sinai, 200 of them usable, as well as 750 artillery pieces and more than 2,500 trucks and personnel carriers. The IDF Southern Command lost 338 soldiers, sixty-three tanks were destroyed, and a further sixty-nine were damaged.

Jordanian Front

Fighting on the eastern front began when Jordanian forces opened sporadic artillery fire at various points, and seized UN headquarters in southeast Jerusalem. On the morning of June 6, the IDF Northern Command occupied areas around Jenin, the Dotan Valley and the eastern slopes of Mt. Gilboa. East Jerusalem and Nablus were taken within twenty-five hours. The third stage of fighting on this front, the descent to the Jordan Valley and the conquest of the Hebron Hills, began in the afternoon of June 7 and took another twenty-four hours. In the course of the fighting, the Jordanian Army lost most of its heavy equipment. Eight hundred Jordanian soldiers fell in action, and 636 were taken prisoner. Thousands of Jordanian soldiers deserted to their home villages in Judea and Samaria.

War Against Syria

On the morning of June 9, two brigades of the IDF Northern Command broke through Syrian defenses on the Golan Heights. After seven hours of fighting, they had established two strongholds in the northern and central sectors. These were expanded during the night. The main fighting resumed on the morning of June 10, when two Israeli motorized brigades joined the battle. Within a few hours, Syrian defenses collapsed and the bulk of the Syrian forces withdrew eastward without engaging the IDF. The collapse of the Golan defenses was aided when Radio Damascus announced the fall of Kuneitra, the largest town on the Heights, six hours before the IDF arrived there. The Syrians put up a better defense in the southern sector of the Golan, but finally withdrew in the course of June 10. Syrian units took up defensive positions along the southern approaches to Damascus, but the Israeli government ordered the IDF to stop its advance. At 18:00 on June 10, a cease-fire came into effect.

That's the timeline of event, but notes little of the impending build-up to war to exterminate the Jews. The fact that Israel doesn't encompass the entire region was a logistic control issue. They simply didn't have the resources nor the desire to rule the entire arab world, but they could have. The fact that Isreal 's borders exist as they do today is a gift to the UN, and the entire arab region, and they should be thankful that the Jews aren't 1/100th as vindictive as the arab rulers who propagate jew hatred as a base for popular power.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='camoor']
Patting yourself on the back for voting for a man who has proven himself completely incompetent in foreign affairs, just because he managed to oust one comparitively moderate dictator (look at some of those African or South Asian dictators if you don't believe me) is completely ridiculous. Then again, so were most of the events in this past election.[/quote]

So, what exactly makes competance in foreign policy, camoor? Capitulation? Bribery? Appeasement? Because that's what it boils down to. Other countries make threats and use threatening tactics to gain leverage in the 'diplomatic' arena. Countries, just like people, cannot be trusted to play nice-nice just because it's the right thing to do.

And the argument that we don't intervene in other failing or oppressive dictatorships is also baseless. It is not inconsistant to neglect some implosions over others. We have a duty to assist in the ones that have a strategic value to our interests first. Where is the help from the rest of the world? Where is the outcry that England and France send more troops to africa to fix the disasters they created ? Or the muslim nations who are so obviously racist agaisnt non-arab believers of Islam? And why should we be the ones to intervene in afica's peoples' own quest for self-rule and redistribution. They have been the ones to arm themselves, organize and fight for their own piece of the continent. If you think we're not involved in Africa, then you're mistaken. Granted, our tactics and support may be for on wrong sides or the wrong reasons, but I know you'll tell me which one's are the right causes, won't you? (rhetorical)

The notion that because we say we're fighting for freedom means we have to send all our resources to fight for it in all corners at all costs follows in the footsteps of the rest of your philosophy, that we need to take away from the rich to make things equal for the poor antywhere they may exist. This theory neglects to account for that 'rich' nation (in money or freedom) will become bankrupt in the process, leaving nothing to support freedom and make sure the job gets done.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='camoor']
Patting yourself on the back for voting for a man who has proven himself completely incompetent in foreign affairs, just because he managed to oust one comparitively moderate dictator (look at some of those African or South Asian dictators if you don't believe me) is completely ridiculous. Then again, so were most of the events in this past election.[/quote]

So, what exactly makes competance in foreign policy, camoor? Capitulation? Bribery? Appeasement? Because that's what it boils down to. Other countries make threats and use threatening tactics to gain leverage in the 'diplomatic' arena. Countries, just like people, cannot be trusted to play nice-nice just because it's the right thing to do.

And the argument that we don't intervene in other failing or oppressive dictatorships is also baseless. It is not inconsistant to neglect some implosions over others. We have a duty to assist in the ones that have a strategic value to our interests first. Where is the help from the rest of the world? Where is the outcry that England and France send more troops to africa to fix the disasters they created ? Or the muslim nations who are so obviously racist agaisnt non-arab believers of Islam? And why should we be the ones to intervene in afica's peoples' own quest for self-rule and redistribution. They have been the ones to arm themselves, organize and fight for their own piece of the continent. If you think we're not involved in Africa, then you're mistaken. Granted, our tactics and support may be for on wrong sides or the wrong reasons, but I know you'll tell me which one's are the right causes, won't you? (rhetorical)

The notion that because we say we're fighting for freedom means we have to send all our resources to fight for it in all corners at all costs follows in the footsteps of the rest of your philosophy, that we need to take away from the rich to make things equal for the poor antywhere they may exist. This theory neglects to account for that 'rich' nation (in money or freedom) will become bankrupt in the process, leaving nothing to support freedom and make sure the job gets done.[/quote]

If the chickenhawks at the top want to admit that this war is being fought for a steady supply of cheap oil, I have no problems with that. However I'm really getting sick and tired of the "Sadaam was a bad man" arguement. If Sadaam had been the best dictator in the world, but had violated those UN Resolutions, the US would still have gone in.

 

[alonzomourning23]

The notion that because we say we're fighting for freedom means we have to send all our resources to fight for it in all corners at all costs follows in the footsteps of the rest of your philosophy, that we need to take away from the rich to make things equal for the poor antywhere they may exist. This theory neglects to account for that 'rich' nation (in money or freedom) will become bankrupt in the process, leaving nothing to support freedom and make sure the job gets done.

Here's an idea, let's intervene to help people achieve freedom when they want us to. This would have prevented the Iraq invasion and resulted in us intervening in darfur.

[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='alonzomourning23']If you don't think Israel refusing to comply with multiple un resolutions is affecting the regions security you're delusional. You're also saying, essentially, "they can break un resolutions if I agree they should be broken". When you use that logic you really can't argue that we should invade a nation (such as Iraq) because they broke u.n. resolutions.[/quote]

Obviously you know nothing of the history of Isreal and the Seven Day War. Here's a refresher which may be contrary to your high school history: [/quote]

I may be generalizing, but I have to wonder why the three main conservatives on this board (you, pad and scrub) always want to start every disccussion with an insult when none is called for, it serves no point other than to make you look childish and hostile.

One, I know the history of the six day war (not seven as you suggested). You probably should have found a source besides the Israeli defense force, but I don't have any real problems with the article. Though I would dispute your claim that there was a goal of exterminating the jews, and not just destroying Israel. Also, once again your assumptions have no basis, that I didn't know about the six day war, or that I would think that a simply high school course (which this was never even discussed in) would ever give a complete picture of an event. Though you fail to notice a few things, one is that the palestinians were not involved in the pre-emptive strike, and even if you think a nation should lose it's territory, it should not have been the palestinians. Two, this has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that you're delusional if you think this isn't affecting regional security. A good exampe of another time where such actions affected regional security is the period between WW1 and WW2, where the Germans felt humiliated, one of the reasons being part of what they viewed (and hitler used this) as part of historical Germany being taken. Though, considering that the palestinians fought Jordan before Israel, taking their land is less like what happened to the germans, and closer to what happened to nations such as poland, who were occupied by Germany and then by the Soviets, while they were wiling, and did, fight both.

Your views often seem to be based on what you think is right, consequences be damned. Essentially you're an idealist, more concerned with what you think is right and less with what works best. While I don't even agree with what your opinion, you have to realize there are two sides to every argument, and by occupying a group of people against their will, even if you think they were wrong, will only lead to more hatred and even more war. There is likely no better example of this today than the israel/palestine conflict. Those who refuse to bend to what is practical, who cannot see beyond their Ideals, are doomed to fail.

 

[bmulligan]

...If Sadaam had been the best dictator in the world, but had violated those UN Resolutions, ...

You do realize the contradiction here, right? If Saddam were a benevolent dictator, then he would have no reason to thwart the weapons inspections in the first place. You constantly put the blame on Bush and the admisistration neglecting the fact the the man who held all the cards was named Saddam who decided to bluff his way into a pot with a losing hand. This war in Iraq is not our fault, If you want to blame someone, blame Saddam, then blame the UN for giving him the green light to keep testing their resolve, year after year, resolution after resolution. Threats with no teeth was the example they set, allowing him to do as he pleased with no repurcussions. We drew the line, and he had the option , even after the invasion began, to surrender, but he did not. He is the reason 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, not us.

 

[bmulligan]

[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='bmulligan']The notion that because we say we're fighting for freedom means we have to send all our resources to fight for it in all corners at all costs follows in the footsteps of the rest of your philosophy, that we need to take away from the rich to make things equal for the poor antywhere they may exist. This theory neglects to account for that 'rich' nation (in money or freedom) will become bankrupt in the process, leaving nothing to support freedom and make sure the job gets done.[/quote]

Here's an idea, let's intervene to help people achieve freedom when they want us to. This would have prevented the Iraq invasion and resulted in us intervening in darfur. [/quote]

Here's another idea, read you statement again and relate it to this one "to each accodring to his need." What you describe is the EXACT philosophy I described in the paragraph you quoted- there is no difference, so obviously, you misunderstood the point. Help people in the most need. Eventually, everyone decides they are needy and chooses to be the mouse that roared.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']

I may be generalizing, but I have to wonder why the three main conservatives on this board (you, pad and scrub) always want to start every disccussion with an insult when none is called for, it serves no point other than to make you look childish and hostile. [/quote]

as opposed to this insult directed at the conservatives here:

[quote name='camoor']Patting yourself on the back for voting for a man who has proven himself completely incompetent in foreign affairs, just because he managed to oust one comparitively moderate dictator (look at some of those African or South Asian dictators if you don't believe me) is completely ridiculous. Then again, so were most of the events in this past election.[/quote]

Somebody else posted to this effect and they're right - you libs love to accuse people of the very tactics you employ yourselves. As if the accusation absolves you of blame for the same behavior. You claim we are insulting first, which may or may not be true. But even if it is, sinking to that level is supposed to be beneath your kind, obviously it's not.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']One, I know the history of the six day war (not seven as you suggested). You probably should have found a source besides the Israeli defense force, but I don't have any real problems with the article.[/quote]
Yes, you do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it, eh?

...one is that the palestinians were not involved in the pre-emptive strike, and even if you think a nation should lose it's territory, it should not have been the palestinians. Two, this has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that you're delusional if you think this isn't affecting regional security.

Who's insulting? mmmmmmmm....take a look in the mirror again before you paint that halo above your head. I never said the Palestinians as a group were involved, some were, some weren't. And I never said they didn't have a right to a teritory or the right to have a free state. My pooint was that those who sought to destroy israel and lost gave up their right to exist, as far as I'm concerned, and wouldn't save the good graces of the Jews who saw fit NOT to exterminate them.

Your views often seem to be based on what you think is right, consequences be damned.

We are both idealists, both have views that we think are right. I believe they are right because they are consistant with my philosophy, you believe your views are right because coincide with a 'world opinion' or other 'official' point of view. There is a huge difference there. Mine are based on principles, yours are based on other people's opinions. Therefore your last statement was an exact contraciction of your own views:

Essentially you're an idealist, more concerned with what you think is right and less with what works best.

I AM concerned with what is right regardless of consequences. You would rather avoid consequences and only deal with what works best. Unfortunately, what works best isn't always the right thing to do.

... occupying a group of people against their will, even if you think they were wrong, will only lead to more hatred and even more war. There is likely no better example of this today than the israel/palestine conflict. Those who refuse to bend to what is practical, who cannot see beyond their Ideals, are doomed to fail.

So, what exactly is practical here? I'll wait for your expert pragmatic solution.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='bmulligan']

...If Sadaam had been the best dictator in the world, but had violated those UN Resolutions, ...

You do realize the contradiction here, right? If Saddam were a benevolent dictator, then he would have no reason to thwart the weapons inspections in the first place.[/quote]

He sure might. He might have wanted to keep nuclear weapons inspectors out because Iran would then be less likely to attack. I think you're right in one respect though - I should have said benevolent rather then best.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='bmulligan']
Here's an idea, let's intervene to help people achieve freedom when they want us to. This would have prevented the Iraq invasion and resulted in us intervening in darfur. [/quote]

Here's another idea, read you statement again and relate it to this one "to each accodring to his need." What you describe is the EXACT philosophy I described in the paragraph you quoted- there is no difference, so obviously, you misunderstood the point. Help people in the most need. Eventually, everyone decides they are needy and chooses to be the mouse that roared.

My philosophy is when there is a situation, such as darfur or even possibly Iraq, that we should only go in if the people are desperate for help and want help. We should not go in if we think that we know better and that they are too childish to know they really want the kind of freedom we provide, such as we did in Iraq.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']

I may be generalizing, but I have to wonder why the three main conservatives on this board (you, pad and scrub) always want to start every disccussion with an insult when none is called for, it serves no point other than to make you look childish and hostile. [/quote]

as opposed to this insult directed at the conservatives here:

Not an insult, commenting on what you and others do is not an insult. The "may be generalizing" part doesn't fit, I forgot to delete it when I changed what I said. I pointed out what 3 people do, things you three (you not as often as the other two) always complain about liberals doing that very thing.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']One, I know the history of the six day war (not seven as you suggested). You probably should have found a source besides the Israeli defense force, but I don't have any real problems with the article.[/quote]

Yes, you do, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it, eh?

I have a problem with using a military website as an objective source, but I don't have much problem with this particular article.

...one is that the palestinians were not involved in the pre-emptive strike, and even if you think a nation should lose it's territory, it should not have been the palestinians. Two, this has absolutely nothing to do with my statement that you're delusional if you think this isn't affecting regional security.

Who's insulting? mmmmmmmm....take a look in the mirror again before you paint that halo above your head. I never said the Palestinians as a group were involved, some were, some weren't. And I never said they didn't have a right to a teritory or the right to have a free state. My pooint was that those who sought to destroy israel and lost gave up their right to exist, as far as I'm concerned, and wouldn't save the good graces of the Jews who saw fit NOT to exterminate them.

This is an interesting scenerio, you're saying Palestine should be a completely sovereign state alongside Israel, while Israel should control jordan, syria and egypt. Somehow I think the current day situation would be a lot worse if that happened, but at least it would show consistency in your view.

Your views often seem to be based on what you think is right, consequences be damned.

We are both idealists, both have views that we think are right. I believe they are right because they are consistant with my philosophy, you believe your views are right because coincide with a 'world opinion' or other 'official' point of view. There is a huge difference there. Mine are based on principles, yours are based on other people's opinions. Therefore your last statement was an exact contraciction of your own views:

Essentially you're an idealist, more concerned with what you think is right and less with what works best.

I AM concerned with what is right regardless of consequences. You would rather avoid consequences and only deal with what works best. Unfortunately, what works best isn't always the right thing to do.

I never said my views are right because of world opinion. Some of my views are backed up by world opinion, but that does not validate them. One of my beliefs is that nations should have some basic laws they follow. And when it comes to international action, international opinion should play a role. If, as in Iraq, we are trying to solve a problem then we should make sure we don't create another one that's possibly worse (a contained secular tyranny to a recruitment tool for terrorists, both resulting in horrible body counts). The problem essentially is that while we think we should be able to act how we please, but at the same time try to hold other nations to certain conditions that we ourselves to don't follow. You can't always get what you want, the u.s. needs to learn this. We try to work with international bodies while at the some time completely ignoring them and doing as we please.

On the one hand you call me an idealist, then you tell me I would rather do what works best. Which one is it?

... occupying a group of people against their will, even if you think they were wrong, will only lead to more hatred and even more war. There is likely no better example of this today than the israel/palestine conflict. Those who refuse to bend to what is practical, who cannot see beyond their Ideals, are doomed to fail.

So, what exactly is practical here? I'll wait for your expert pragmatic solution.

Ideally, I would like to see one secular democratic state, officially being neither jewish or palestinian, but it is not practical at this time. Removing settlements from gaza and strengthening them in the west bank isn't where I'd start. If this goal is achieved it won't get anywhere, the palestinians will have no control over their border and air, Israel will have the authority to still make any incursions it deems necessary and lose much of the best land to settlements that will be absorbed into Israel, there would be little hope of stopping an armed conflict that has popular backing without giving the palestinians something. The right of return, while Ideal in my mind, is not practical and needs to be forgotten, Israel would be destroyed as a jewish state. I think eventually the muslim population will become dominant in Israel anyway, but Israel would never willingly stop being a jewish state. Israel needs to open negotions to end the conflict (which is what normally happens), instead of waiting for violence to end to begin negotiations. Essentially I feel the only real way of ending large scale violence and to achieve peace is to create a palestinian state consisting of the entire gaza and west bank, with east jerusalem as it's capital. Obviously there is much more that needs to be worked out, and that should be the focus of the negotiations. I feel any negotiations that fail to grant the palestinians what I mentioned above are doomed to fail.