Is using the deaths of Iraqi civilians as a reason to leave Iraq intellectually dishonest?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

How do we fight AQ in Iraq if we leave?


Just like we did this past January in Somalia - from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
At least now non Prof John asks some valid questions.---namely--BTW why don't you refute what Liberman actually said.
How do we fight AQ in Iraq if we leave?
If you really believe that Iraq is lost then why fund the war for another year?

I don't refute Lieberman because its not worth responding to a clueless idiot who has no real question and no answer---and oddly enough I agree with you---and also believe just cutting and running in Iraq will likely lead to a mid-east meltdown. Unlike you, I have long ago given up on GWB&co. and take the position no real progress is possible in Iraq until we get rid of the roadblock which is GWB&co. Which then leads to viewing a cut off of funding as a positive development---because then it both forces GWB&co to get real and also may force the international community to step up. After all the withdrawal is not immediate---it only starts later--and is not completed until much later than that.---which then leaves diplomacy with time to work.

In terms of fighting AQ---who said we are fighting AQ in Iraq?---we may be fighting some AQ in Iraq---but its not even the cause of 5% of our present woes in Iraq. And if GWB&co. does not understand what he is fighting--it does go a very long way towards explaining why he makes no progress. Terrorism is a tactic---and not something you can drag out in the open and defeat---if you want to fight terrorism you must reduce its appeal---and all GWB&co does is increase its appeal because the life of the man on the street continues to get worse.

And in terms of funding---continued funding of the GWB plan is just pouring money down a rat hole---which we have been doing for 4 long years---get a clue---the answer is in diplomacy which GWB has been doing none of---unless you are so stupid to think Condi Rice fits the definition of a diplomat when she is really nothing but a gangster and a thug.
Kinda sleezy Rice is just part and parcel of the GWB my way or the highway mindset---which flopped years ago.

Hope that answers your questions.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Again, if you want to leave Iraq because 100 Americans died there last month then go ahead and make that argument. But if you want to leave Iraq because too many Iraqis are dying then provide me proof that our leaving will result in less Iraqis dying.
Well said Prof. I sincerely doubt most of these people even understand your point.. They have chosen to ignore that very point every time they beg for our withdrawal.

Like I said above, based on their ignorance of that point, I can only conclude that it's not the deaths of iraqi civilians that really matter to them. Instead, all they really care about is getting the ugly pictures off of the evening news.

The irony, of course, is that if we DO pull out prematurely, the news is still going to show the ugly pictures... and they are going to get even UGLIER! DOH!

then what? When our withdrawal leads to 1000 Iraqis dead every day, rather than 100, how will the world solve that problem?

The anti's have no answer for that - except for a small number of them who may admit that they really don't care about the dead Iraqis.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Again, if you want to leave Iraq because 100 Americans died there last month then go ahead and make that argument. But if you want to leave Iraq because too many Iraqis are dying then provide me proof that our leaving will result in less Iraqis dying.
Well said Prof. I sincerely doubt most of these people even understand your point.. They have chosen to ignore that very point every time they beg for our withdrawal.

Like I said above, based on their ignorance of that point, I can only conclude that it's not the deaths of iraqi civilians that really matter to them. Instead, all they really care about is getting the ugly pictures off of the evening news.

The irony, of course, is that if we DO pull out prematurely, the news is still going to show the ugly pictures... and they are going to get even UGLIER! DOH!

then what? When our withdrawal leads to 1000 Iraqis dead every day, rather than 100, how will the world solve that problem?

The anti's have no answer for that - except for a small number of them who may admit that they really don't care about the dead Iraqis.

I have many in depth answers, all of which go unchallenged.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Again, if you want to leave Iraq because 100 Americans died there last month then go ahead and make that argument. But if you want to leave Iraq because too many Iraqis are dying then provide me proof that our leaving will result in less Iraqis dying.
Well said Prof. I sincerely doubt most of these people even understand your point.. They have chosen to ignore that very point every time they beg for our withdrawal.

Like I said above, based on their ignorance of that point, I can only conclude that it's not the deaths of iraqi civilians that really matter to them. Instead, all they really care about is getting the ugly pictures off of the evening news.

The irony, of course, is that if we DO pull out prematurely, the news is still going to show the ugly pictures... and they are going to get even UGLIER! DOH!

then what? When our withdrawal leads to 1000 Iraqis dead every day, rather than 100, how will the world solve that problem?

The anti's have no answer for that - except for a small number of them who may admit that they really don't care about the dead Iraqis.

I have many in depth answers, all of which go unchallenged.

You guys are amusing me. You are trying to frame the argument in a specific light in order to make an argument that works for your side.

One has to consider everything, the deaths of innocents are tragic, BUT the deaths of our own AND the cost of the war needs to be considered. We've been sacraficing our kids for 4 years, has it helped? I believe if anything it's worse then it ever was. That alone should make you start questioning our strategy.

How do you know that we aren't the ones enabling the violence. There an occupied country, if someone was occupying us wouldn't you be resentful and fight back in anyway you could?

I think if we did a staged withdrawl and the Iraqi's knew well in advance that they were going to be on there own that they would be more willing, maybe even forced to work things out. As long as were there to enforce the general peace the more the radical elements are free to work behind the scenes killing both us and each other.

Whatever happens the current strategy isn't working and how anyone can blindly support continuing the current satus quo is beyond me?


 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The point is that GWB&co. had no answers to Iraq, have no present answers for Iraq, and show no promise of having any future options for Iraq.

The answer the neo-cons on this forum won't address is why we are not giving GWB&co. the old heave ho and then it suddenly becomes possible to discuss and explore the
options that will not lead to a bloodbath in Iraq---what is the difference between having a slow but steady bloodbath that will claim more lives in the end rather than having a short and bloody bloodbath?

If you want certainty---just roll back the clock to 1/2002 and tell GWB&co. he will make things worse if he invades Iraq.---and then just keep administering the dope slaps until GWB&co sees the light and does not Invade.

If you can't do that---then you, I, and everyone else are making at best informed guesses. And the only certainty is that GWB&co. will make no progress in Iraq--its just flat out not within their skillsets.----------how retarded to you have to be in order not to see that.---well over 1500 UNBROKEN DAYS of negative progress. Its time to try something else---like diplomacy, the Baker plan lays out the blueprint. We then have SOME HOPE of averting that bloodbath---which is not happening under GWB&co. at all. And worse yet, GWB&co. is alienating the very countries he will need to call on for diplomatic help.

It does not matter if you are concerned over the welfare of the Iraqi people or are just looking out for your own welfare, Iraqi instability will impact everyone either way.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I have an answer for Iraq: start a draft and put 750,000 US troops in, secure all of the borders, secure the infrastructure, and start disarming their entire population...completely! At the same time, I want to see France, Germany, Russia, and China bring in $1 billion in food PER DAY for the Iraqi people (our troops can secure the treatments).

If they want to see a real fvckin "occupation," we'll give 'em one!

The problems: NO politician is willing to make this happen and take the steps necessary to solve the problems of Iraq... not a single g'damn one of them, including Bush & Co. Second, I believe that 50-55% of the US population is too chicken-sh*t soft to go through with it and actually make the necessary sacrifices.

therefore, we have a stalemate. On one hand, we can stay there for a while, bleeding slowly, and hope and dream for a secure Iraqi democracy (yay!). On the other hand, we can pull out quickly and let them tear eachother to pieces for another decade or two...or three...or... (my guess: Total body count of dead Iraqi's will approach 5-10 million, and the battles will reach the borders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria...etc)

And all because Rumsfeld was an idiot, Bush is gutless, and the rest of you are p*ssies.

Swell.
 

LEDominator

Senior member
May 31, 2006
388
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Red Dawn---who points out---I never pretended to give a fsck about the Iraqis. I care about them as much as they care about us.

I hate to tell you Red Dawn--you better start caring---cause GWB&co. have bet the farm on Iraq.

And if Iraq keeps going the way its going---sooner or later its going total civil war that will spill far past Iraqi borders---which means de oil patch that keep all the world industrial economies going. And if the oil supply is severely restricted--we could be talking about $20.00 a gallon gas or higher in a few minutes as oil speculators push the price up through the roof---which would then result in economic collapse and worldwide depression at the very minimum worldwide---

Just thought a brief reminder on what the stakes are in this little poker game we let GWB&co. start.

Which is why I advocate impeaching the mistaken and clueless GWB&co so we can get a good policy before its too late. And WE better care.

Why would 20 dollars a gallon for oil be a bad thing? It would force people to conserve and ultimately would force people to find different types of energies that weren't as expensive. I don't think it would be as drastic as total world-wide economic collapse. People will always find a way around things and if need be, steam and horse power might make a comeback, who knows. But it is pretty drastic to say a worldwide economic pandemic will result with people fleeing godzilla-esque screaming I think is a stretch.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
I have an answer for Iraq: start a draft and put 750,000 US troops in, secure all of the borders, secure the infrastructure, and start disarming their entire population...completely! At the same time, I want to see France, Germany, Russia, and China bring in $1 billion in food PER DAY for the Iraqi people (our troops can secure the treatments).

If they want to see a real fvckin "occupation," we'll give 'em one!

The problems: NO politician is willing to make this happen and take the steps necessary to solve the problems of Iraq... not a single g'damn one of them, including Bush & Co. Second, I believe that 50-55% of the US population is too chicken-sh*t soft to go through with it and actually make the necessary sacrifices.

therefore, we have a stalemate. On one hand, we can stay there for a while, bleeding slowly, and hope and dream for a secure Iraqi democracy (yay!). On the other hand, we can pull out quickly and let them tear eachother to pieces for another decade or two...or three...or... (my guess: Total body count of dead Iraqi's will approach 5-10 million, and the battles will reach the borders of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria...etc)

And all because Rumsfeld was an idiot, Bush is gutless, and the rest of you are p*ssies.

Swell.

Do we all really have to suffer because of giant corporations and George Bush and the Neocons BEING ****** RETARDS

BTW, don't call people p*ssies who don't think wars like this solve anything. It really makes you look like less of a man when you choose to stoop to Rush Limbaugh level
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: dahunan
BTW, don't call people p*ssies who don't think wars like this solve anything. It really makes you look like less of a man when you choose to stoop to Rush Limbaugh level
The "p*ssies" are those who would refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to create a stable Iraq using the plan I laid out in the first paragraph... to date, nobody beyond the troops and their families have made ANY personal sacrifices in the GWOT or Iraq specifically; thus, I suspect that at least 55% of our nation would puss out of any sacrifices asked of them in the future.

And no, putting a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker on your car does not constitute sacrifice; nor does the extra 50 cents you spend at the pump. For anyone who wants to understand what genuine sacrifice is all about, I suggest you study WWII.

Until this entire nation is willing to make some sacrifices, I do believe the people of Iraq are screwed - and all of this is true regardless of whose fault it was in the first place!

When the "p*ssies" finally get their way, and we withdraw from Iraq prematurely - instead of sending in 600,000 more troops - you will see just how screwed the people of Iraq become.

If you think the bloodshed is bad now, you're in for a fvckin' wake-up call. The bodies just might stack to the heavens when you are finished pulling out the only troops - us - who stand between the Iraqis and a total massacre.

yay.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: dahunan
BTW, don't call people p*ssies who don't think wars like this solve anything. It really makes you look like less of a man when you choose to stoop to Rush Limbaugh level
The "p*ssies" are those who would refuse to make the sacrifices necessary to create a stable Iraq using the plan I laid out in the first paragraph... to date, nobody beyond the troops and their families have made ANY personal sacrifices in GWOT or Iraq specifically; thus, I suspect that at least 55% of our nation would puss out of any sacrifices asked of them in the future.

And no, putting a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker on your car does not constitute sacrifice; nor does the extra 50 cents you spend at the pump. For anyone who wants to see what genuine sacrifice is all about, I suggest you study WWII.

Until this entire nation is willing to make some sacrifices, I do believe the people of Iraq are screwed - and all of this is true regardless of whose fault it was in the first place!

When the p*ssies finally get their way, and we withdraw from Iraq prematurely - instead of sending in 600,000 more troops - you will see just how screwed the people of Iraq become.

If you think the bloodshed is bad now, you're in for a fvckin' wake-up call. The bodies just might stack to the heavens when you are finished pulling out the only troops who stand between the Iraqis and a total massacre <--- that would be us.

yay.

I think you're the p*ssy. Too afraid to face the truth. The truth that Iraq is a clusterfsck beyond all repair. Own up.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think you're the p*ssy. Too afraid to face the truth. The truth that Iraq is a clusterfsck beyond all repair. Own up.
I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone here specifically... but I see you can't resist doing so. GG!

that said, I also believe that you are wrong. We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.

So, if the shoe fits...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think you're the p*ssy. Too afraid to face the truth. The truth that Iraq is a clusterfsck beyond all repair. Own up.
I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone here specifically... but I see you can't resist doing so. GG!

that said, I also believe that you are wrong. We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.

So, if the shoe fits...

Yeah, I guess you should wear it proudly.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think you're the p*ssy. Too afraid to face the truth. The truth that Iraq is a clusterfsck beyond all repair. Own up.
I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone here specifically... but I see you can't resist doing so. GG!

that said, I also believe that you are wrong. We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.

So, if the shoe fits...

Yeah, I guess you should wear it proudly.
uhh... ya. great rebuttal.

derrr...
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
The truth is the pussies are the chickenhawk neocons SOB's who rushed us into this war with no real plans except making lots of money off of it. It was bascially "Mission: Impossible" from the get-go, and thats why Bush Sr. never went after Saddam in the first gulf war.

"Shock and awe" are great, but it only gets you so far. It takes commiment, sacrafice, and plannng. Things Bush Jr. doesn't even have a clue about. Hell, Jimmy Carter could have did a lot better job then Bush did.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The truth is the pussies are the chickenhawk neocons SOB's who rushed us into this war with no real plans except making lots of money off of it. It was bascially "Mission: Impossible" from the get-go, and thats why Bush Sr. never went after Saddam in the first gulf war.

"Shock and awe" are great, but it only gets you so far. It takes commiment, sacrafice, and plannng. Things Bush Jr. doesn't even have a clue about. Hell, Jimmy Carter could have did a lot better job then Bush did.
ok.. so... we've established how you feel about Bush, and where you place all the blame - shocker - what next?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Ok Lemon, Bush leaves office tomorrow? now what do we do?

All your ideas about the war and just about anything else in this country start with Bush being removed. So let?s pretend that Bush IS gone, now what?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The truth is the pussies are the chickenhawk neocons SOB's who rushed us into this war with no real plans except making lots of money off of it. It was bascially "Mission: Impossible" from the get-go, and thats why Bush Sr. never went after Saddam in the first gulf war.

"Shock and awe" are great, but it only gets you so far. It takes commiment, sacrafice, and plannng. Things Bush Jr. doesn't even have a clue about. Hell, Jimmy Carter could have did a lot better job then Bush did.
ok.. so... we've established how you feel about Bush, and where you place all the blame - shocker - what next?

I've already stated that in this thread. Apprantley you were too busy calling evreyone pussys to bother reading the thread? Here, just for you:

You guys are amusing me. You are trying to frame the argument in a specific light in order to make an argument that works for your side.

One has to consider everything, the deaths of innocents are tragic, BUT the deaths of our own AND the cost of the war needs to be considered. We've been sacraficing our kids for 4 years, has it helped? I believe if anything it's worse then it ever was. That alone should make you start questioning our strategy.

How do you know that we aren't the ones enabling the violence. There an occupied country, if someone was occupying us wouldn't you be resentful and fight back in anyway you could?

I think if we did a staged withdrawl and the Iraqi's knew well in advance that they were going to be on there own that they would be more willing, maybe even forced to work things out. As long as were there to enforce the general peace the more the radical elements are free to work behind the scenes killing both us and each other.

Whatever happens the current strategy isn't working and how anyone can blindly support continuing the current satus quo is beyond me?

I didn't even mention Bush by name. :)
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think you're the p*ssy. Too afraid to face the truth. The truth that Iraq is a clusterfsck beyond all repair. Own up.
I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone here specifically... but I see you can't resist doing so. GG!

that said, I also believe that you are wrong. We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.

So, if the shoe fits...

Yeah, I guess you should wear it proudly.
uhh... ya. great rebuttal.

derrr...

I was just thinking, we're halfway through another year and your still here posting
Waiting these years to get your chance to step up must be driving you insane
Can't you switch places with some of those other guys on their 4th tour already
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think you're the p*ssy. Too afraid to face the truth. The truth that Iraq is a clusterfsck beyond all repair. Own up.
I wasn't pointing fingers at anyone here specifically... but I see you can't resist doing so. GG!

that said, I also believe that you are wrong. We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.

So, if the shoe fits...

Yeah, I guess you should wear it proudly.
uhh... ya. great rebuttal.

derrr...

I was just thinking, we're halfway through another year and your still here posting
Waiting these years to get your chance to step up must be driving you insane
Can't you switch places with some of those other guys on their 4th tour already
lol... my chance to step up? do you have any idea where I am?

I "step up" every damn day of my life Earl. Please point your false accusations elsewhere.
 

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
Alright, I'll give you your due this time

edit
I typed out a bunch of stuff and had to think twice about it. I don't want to argue with anyone over there doing their duty
Come home safe and we'll continue
:)
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok Lemon, Bush leaves office tomorrow? now what do we do?

All your ideas about the war and just about anything else in this country start with Bush being removed. So let?s pretend that Bush IS gone, now what?

Lock him and every neocon ESPECIALLY Wolfowitz up in jail and start the court hearings
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
We NEVER owed the people of Iraq ANYTHING

If we would have stayed the hell out of there then this clusterfck would not be what it is

I have really really been bothered lately by our past abuse of people in the middle east.. specifically in regards to Iran...

What is this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Why did we try to destroy Democracy in Iran?
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: palehorse74
We COULD fix what we broke in Iraq, but more than half of our country is too pussified to step up and get it done.
The President is in charge of the armed forces; I'm curious why you blame 150 million Americans for the leadership of one person?

If anybody is too big of a pussy to get the job done, it's Bush. 4 years into it, and he's still a certified loser in Iraq.