Solution for IRAQ?

What should the US do in IRAQ?

  • Stay the course, no matter the cost of human lives and world opinion.

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Pull ALL troops OUT NOW!

    Votes: 17 44.7%
  • Slow withdrawl.

    Votes: 18 47.4%

  • Total voters
    38

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
A better question to ask would be: If the US withdrew its troops from the Iraqi theater would Islamofascists still want to kill you? Work everything else back from there. Find another way to chip away at that issue and I'll listen, otherwise pay attention to the real problem.

They don't want to kill me now, so I don't see your point.
 

katsboy

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Posts
29
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Boston
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
They actually do want to kill you now. Or rather, if you are not muslim they do want to kill you now. My point is leave or stay in Iraq is not a relevant question. You can leave or stay and they will still want you to die. Take their word for it. Kidnap the PM and decapitate him for youtube? He's not from the United States. What about the riots in France last year? France has expressly stated oposition to the war. Spain gave up its participation in the fight for its survival with ONE bomb in a subway.
Leave Iraq, Stay in Iraq: it doesn't matter. Islamofascists want you to die and they don't care if they die doing it.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
ManlyBanisters, the "freedom fighters" as you call them aren't winning. Matter of fact they're giving clues that they're losing: suicide bombers. Can you read tea leaves?

I'm not talking about the suicide bombers - I'm talking about the snipers, the road side devices - I'm not going to go into a big explantion of their tactics and why I'm impressed - but they are chip, chip chipping away and the higher the US body count goes the more likely an expediated total pull out is. The USA is not good at taking casualities. With the Bristish troops it doesn't matter * - in a war / occupation situation the other side can kill as many Bristish forces as they like and the Brits won't withdraw unless they have another reason. That's just their way - look at the Somme - the Brits will take casualties til the cows come home and command won't give a fuck. Whereas US casualties can only get so high before public opinion turns and forces the politicians' hand (Vietnam?)


* again - no disrespect to the individuals - I don't mean their deaths don't matter , I mean casualty figures don't have the same effect
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
They actually do want to kill you now. Or rather, if you are not muslim they do want to kill you now. My point is leave or stay in Iraq is not a relevant question. You can leave or stay and they will still want you to die. Take their word for it. Kidnap the PM and decapitate him for youtube? He's not from the United States. What about the riots in France last year? France has expressly stated oposition to the war. Spain gave up its participation in the fight for its survival with ONE bomb in a subway.
Leave Iraq, Stay in Iraq: it doesn't matter. Islamofascists want you to die and they don't care if they die doing it.

Do you have any evidence for this?

I mean, you're saying that "Islamofascists" want to kill me, but I don't hear them saying it. I'm also not sure what an "Islamofascist" is, although it sounds like a word somebody in the business of scare tactics made up. I know quite a few Muslims, and none of them seem to want to kill me (although I must confess, I've never asked them. They were awfully chummy at the charity yard sale 2 weeks ago, though).

As I have said before, it's far more likely that individual Muslims are very pissed off at the west in general and the USA specifically for:
- sponsoring Israel
- propping up pro-West dictatorships in predominantly Muslim countries
- occupying their countries with troops
and other activities that affect them more or less directly.

But of course, the scaremongers don't want us to think that the USA and its allies are hated for concrete reasons that we could ameliorate. It would be much easier for the scaremongers to get their own way if we were to accept that Muslims hate us all for things we aren't about to change - i.e. observing women's rights, drinking, looking at porn and watching reality TV. Making Muslims out to be an unreasonable bunch of zealots has the effect of turning a conflict based on some legitimate grievances into an all-out "us against them" situation. And in an "us against them" situation, the scaremongers know they can get away with pretty much anything.
 

katsboy

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Posts
29
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Boston
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm still chuckling, I hope there were some good buys at the yard sale. Even I would agree with your list of perceived grievances as concrete reasons why individual muslims may be pissed at the west and the US. Perhaps you and I would agree that was in the past and its time to move on but there are radical mullahs in the US and in the UK and elsewhere all calling for the infidels to die. You could choose, if you like not to hear them but don't pretend the goal is not as I've suggested. The scaremongers may want everyone to ignor the larger issue but that doesn't mean they don't have a point.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
I'm still chuckling, I hope there were some good buys at the yard sale. Even I would agree with your list of perceived grievances as concrete reasons why individual muslims may be pissed at the west and the US. Perhaps you and I would agree that was in the past and its time to move on but there are radical mullahs in the US and in the UK and elsewhere all calling for the infidels to die. You could choose, if you like not to hear them but don't pretend the goal is not as I've suggested. The scaremongers may want everyone to ignor the larger issue but that doesn't mean they don't have a point.

There are far, far more Islamic leaders who are NOT calling for "the infidels to die", and even speaking out in opposition to the radicals.

There have always been tiny groups of radicals - of all stripes - that want to kill other people for abstract reasons. What's really offensive is how these tiny groups of radicals have been dressed up by the conservative press as speaking for an entire culture, in order to justify an oil war.
 

katsboy

Just Browsing
Joined
Jun 1, 2007
Posts
29
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Location
Boston
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Rob, you are an amusing guy and interesting to read. I've seen some of your other posts over the past few weeks and have enjoyed them and gotten a laugh or two. I know the names of a few moderate mullahs who are trying to stem the tide of hatred an violence coming from within their ranks but can you honestly tell me they get ANY press? Can you give me the names of two such reasonable people? Could the reason you and I may be the only people who can, be because there are actually not that many? And lastly: conservative press? NewYork Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS,CNN, Fox News, can you name more than one conservative outfit there?
 

D_Humper E Bogart

Experimental Member
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
2,172
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
258
Or maybe because they would most likely be locked up and sent to Cuba? I do love the concept of Cuban Cigars though, the ultimate status symbol.

Anyway, this mess will be sorted when Iraqis are the ones rebuilding their country and taking responsibility for their lives. Right now there are probably more whites in Iraq than there is in some parts of London! C'mon, they managed to build a country under Saddam's rule!
 

Matthew

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Posts
7,291
Media
0
Likes
1,503
Points
583
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Leave Iraq, Stay in Iraq: it doesn't matter. Islamofascists want you to die and they don't care if they die doing it.

Given your scenario, I'd say leave immediately. Why put our troops at risk if they're not changing anything? And I do agree: our presence there is not extinguishing the radical elements -- it's invigorating them.
 

D_Bob_Crotchitch

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Posts
8,252
Media
0
Likes
106
Points
193
It isn't that simple. What we've done is destabilize the country. There are several different factions fighting for control. No single faction is in charge.

You can believe all you want that it had to do with 911 but I still believe it had to do with protecting Saudi Arabia. The United States imports over 30% of it's oil from Saudi Arabia. Sadaam was threatening it. The main terminal was in striking distance for Sadaam. If you bitch about gas prices now, what would you be doing with the Saudi oil cut off?

If we would find alternative sources and learn to conserve, not only would we not be dependent on their oil but we'd have a cleaner air to breathe. I read a survey a few years back. If every vehicle driven in the United States would have conserved one gallon of gasoline a month, we wouldn't have needed one drop of oil from Kuwait. Just think of the difference we could make if we conserved three gallons a month.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Rob, you are an amusing guy and interesting to read. I've seen some of your other posts over the past few weeks and have enjoyed them and gotten a laugh or two. I know the names of a few moderate mullahs who are trying to stem the tide of hatred an violence coming from within their ranks but can you honestly tell me they get ANY press? Can you give me the names of two such reasonable people? Could the reason you and I may be the only people who can, be because there are actually not that many? And lastly: conservative press? NewYork Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS,CNN, Fox News, can you name more than one conservative outfit there?

I wish I could say I have enjoyed/been amused by your posts, but at this point you have only 5, and only in two political threads. :hmmm:

As for the moderates in the Islamic church, I imagine a lot of them are torn between a rock and a hard place at this point. If they denounce the radicals, they run the risk of appearing to condone the tangible wrongs being done to Muslims by the West. Beyond that, who wants to publicize the existence of moderate Muslims? Knowledge of the existence of moderate Muslims - the vast majority of Muslims, in other words - would make lots of people doubt what the scaremongerers have been telling them for the last 6 years. So the Bush government and its allies have no interest in publicizing the existence of moderates. And the press isn't interested in them - they don't sell papers. And the radical Muslims sure aren't interested in giving them any air time.

Finally: "conservative press"? Where's the "liberal press"? As I have also said before, these terms are relative. Looked at with non-American eyes, the publications you mentioned run from moderate to right-wing to far-right-wing. There doesn't appear to be any left-wing mainstream press in America anymore, but many Americans seem to have become conditioned to the idea that anyone who isn't totally committed to the war in Iraq and/or harbours any idea that the USA isn't always right, is a commie leftist liberal scumbag. :rolleyes:
 

chico8

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
727
Media
0
Likes
21
Points
163
Location
Chico
Sexuality
No Response
The only solution is to get out within a year or so. There's no hope of the US ever winning over any Muslims (outside of Albania that is) so why continue to waste money and lives? The Iranians, Turks and Sauds are the ones who should be dealing with it, not the west.
 

Lucky_Luke

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2006
Posts
136
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
163
Location
Toronto
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
My view on foreign policy is always dictated by the principles of real politique.

Considering the issue of Iraq (and the US military presence there and the ongoing insurrection against same) I've come to the conclusion that an American withdrawl is necessary. My reasons are as follows.

1. The situation in Iraq is dangerously unstable. This instability appears to be primarily caused by an ongoing insurrection against the American military occupation of Iraq. That is to say, the US occupation (or the US removal of Sadam) is the 'cause' of the problem (same difference).

2. The continued instability of Iraq poses a great danger of spilling over its borders, or drawing in neighboring countries, to a larger regional war with religious overtones. This is the worst possible (realistic) scenario.

3. The continued instability of Iraq poses a great danger of recruiting, training and equipping a whole new generation of anti-American fanatics. The lastest NIE confirms this is already happening.

4. The US military has, categorically and repeatedly, failed to control the situation in Iraq. The amount, sophistication and severity of attacks in Iraq have consistently and constantly increased over time. One can only describe the US military-political control situation in Iraq as 'deteriorating' - consistently and constantly now for at least 2.5 years at the minimum.

5. The American-sponsored Iraqi government has proven itself incapable of even a minimum level of competance or function.

On this basis, the only possible near-term resolution to this problem must be a US military withdrawl from Iraq. At the very least, this would remove the single largest reason that symbolically allows Sunni, Shi'ite and various foreign Islamic fanatical factions to share common cause in Iraq. Removing American forces, removes their unity of purpose.

A full withdrawl of American military forces from Iraq is said to be impossible because it would turn Iraq into chaos. I respectfully submit that Iraq is already chaotic as a failed state, with an insurrection against a foreign occupying army and a religious-civil war all going on similtaneously. There is little scope for it to actually get worse - it is already a festering mess.

And that is the ultimate reason the US needs to withdraw. As it stands, with the US occupying Iraq, there is no possible 'realistic' resolution to the present quagmire. As long as US remains occupying Iraq, it will remain a quagmire. It is only when one removes the US military occupation of Iraq from the picture that one is able to actually see potential resolutions taking shape in Iraq.

Ergo, as long as US stays, Iraq today is as good as it is going to get and will never be anything but what it is now (with lots of scope for actually getting worse). If the US pulls out, then resolution becomes possible (not guarenteed or even likely, but at least possible).

As for the timing of a pullout - fast or slow - that is of little concern. The US military cannot pull out quickly even if it was ordered to do so. It would take them at least six months to do it if you ordered it immediately. And the US military-industrial-political complex is way too heavily invested in the Iraq operation so they will fight tooth and nail against ANY withdrawl no matter what.

Indeed, without a method of 'face-saving' for the US here, I don't see how it is possible. US high-level politicans have proven (now as well as back in Vietnam) that they will leave the army out to die if it means them saving
face or salving their egos. So any withdrawl from Iraq MUST have a method of US saving-face - otherwise, it ain't gonna happen (no matter how necessary to US long term security it is). This applies even after the present occupant of the WH is thankfully ejected in January 2009.

And I can pretty much guarentee that the US will still have some 150,000 troops in Iraq come November 2008 - no matter what.
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
rob_just_rob, is Ayatollah al Sistani a moderate? Here's is a quote: "Those who commit sodomy must be killed in the harshest way".
 

SteveHd

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Posts
3,678
Media
0
Likes
79
Points
183
Location
Daytona
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And the US military-industrial-political complex is way too heavily invested in the Iraq operation so they will fight tooth and nail against ANY withdrawl no matter what.
I'm not sure about that. A number of big-ticket items have had to be deferred or cut back because of Iraq. The XM8, for instance, was shelved. At best, it's a wash, good for some but not for others.
 

dreamer20

Worshipped Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Posts
7,963
Media
3
Likes
19,708
Points
643
Gender
Male
You can believe all you want that it had to do with 911 but I still believe it had to do with protecting Saudi Arabia. The United States imports over 30% of it's oil from Saudi Arabia. Sadaam was threatening it.

Saddam was hardly a threat to the wealthy and powerful Saudis. Yet the events of 911 were embarassing to Saudi Arabia as wealthy Saudis had funded and supported the Taliban and the Al Queda organizations. Osama Bin Laden was one of those wealthy Saudi citizens who also masterminded 911. The Saudi royal family was swift to condemn the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Saudi Arabia subsequently took action to freeze terrorist funds and has continued to take steps to support these actions. There were numerous terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia between 2002 and 2004 which resulted in the deaths of numerous Saudi and foreign nationals. The government of Saudi Arabia held a Counter-Terrorism Conference in February 2005 in order to exchange information and expertise more widely in the international community.

Saddam Hussein was not connected with 911. The lure of controlling the oil of Iraq was cleary stated by G.W.Bush as one of the benefits that would be gained form his unlawful invasion of Iraq. But those military forces were , and still are, desperately needed in Afghanistan to battle the Taliban and Al Queda.