Obama to announce Iraq troop draw down today.

[Engineer]

Waste implies that nothing positive came out of something. Are you really saying that not a single positive thing came out of it? Are you really that pessimistic in life?

No, I'm not for a tax raise at all. Maybe if the government stopped this:


We wouldn't be in as big of a hole as we are now. (This is not to say that the Iraq war didn't contribute to the financial hole we are in now. It is simply saying that it is part of many items that dug the hole as deep as it is)

-GP

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. To me and millions of others, it was a waste, period. Oh, and the classic "pay for things I want but fuck paying for other stuff that we have already run a debt for" applies here.

By the way, if you're the company CEO and you're employing those damn overpriced Americans when you could cut them in favor of Chinese workers and double your profit, would that be a "waste"? I mean, there are positives out of American's working so it couldn't possibly be a "waste" at all to the company, no?

 

[senseamp]

Once a politician decides to enter into a war, they have no business running the show if they intend on seeing it through. While they certainly have the power to withdraw troops, they need to defer to the Generals if they have any intent on doing the job correctly.

While they may defer the fighting to the Generals, the actual decision to stay or not is, and should be, a purely political decision. Except for military junta run banana republics, the generals fight wars they are ordered to fight, it's not their role to decide what those wars are.

 

[senseamp]

Waste implies that nothing positive came out of something. Are you really saying that not a single positive thing came out of it? Are you really that pessimistic in life?

No, waste implies that the result is not worth the expenditure, not that nothing positive came out of it. It has cost US nearly $1Trillion to depose Saddam the stupid way, while it only cost $1B to depose Gadaffi the right way.
$1Trillion is an astronimical sum for almost no direct benefit to the US. That's $3000 per every American, at a time when we have millions of Americans who can't even afford health insurance, and are dying due to delayed care. It's an absolute waste of American treasure and lives, not just those of soldiers, but other Americans whose lives could have been saved with that money.

 

[Ausm]

No, waste implies that the result is not worth the expenditure, not that nothing positive came out of it. It has cost US nearly $1Trillion to depose Saddam the stupid way, while it only cost $1B to depose Gadaffi the right way.

http://costofwar.com/en/

Should be up to about 1.3 Trillion in cost by Monday

 

[Gamingphreek]

Oh so now that Iraq has a Hotel Hilton that should justify the deaths of these soldiers? I got to run that one past my next door neighbor whose child got turned into liquid jelly by an IED on Patrol in Iraq.

Yes because I'm focusing on tourist attractions. Way to throw a straw man argument out there...

How and it what ways is it better? Saddam Hussein isn't in power and hence isn't torturing people any more. So that's one way.

Is the economy/standard of living better there?

Is the populace in general safer or less safe from violence?

Is government corruption greater or lesser now than before?

Is the situation more or less politically stable than it was before?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I'm inviting you to make your case. Honestly I'd rather that you be right than wrong.

- wolf

I would say the first way is the most significant. Must be nice to know that you aren't in jail for "voting" for the wrong candidate or you aren't getting gassed like the Kurds were.

http://www.epic-usa.org/node/5620 - As the conclusion says, they deserve better, but you can't discount the fact that conditions are improving.

With regards to violence and government corruption, I feel as though that falls directly in line with the first point. The fact that there is government in place that doesn't kill you for voting "incorrectly" tells me that things are better off.

No worries - I didn't feel as though it was argumentative in the slightest. I wish I had a more intricate knowledge of the situation and could provide more information that things are getting better, but I just don't know all the intricacies of life over there.

I hope that things continue to get better over there as well and don't regress. It would be nice from a purely humanitarian standpoint to see them stand on their own and become a respectable nation.

-GP

 

[Ausm]

Yes because I'm focusing on tourist attractions. Way to throw a straw man argument out there...

-GP

No strawman argument there just pointing out the utter absurdity of your post countered by an equally absurd retort.

 

[Wordplay]

http://www.kdvr.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-iraq-usa-obamatre79k4lr-20111021,0,1223365.story

Who's next?

 

[Anarchist420]

Actually, all troops aren't coming home from Iraq for good. We've got a military base there.

It takes President Paul to end it.

It's also ridiculous to credit Obama for anything, because he always voted in favor of it (he had an extremely securitarian voting record when he was Senator) and also because he could've pulled out the day he was inaugerated, but his Presidency will end with American forces still in Iraq.

 

[jman19]

Should do wonders for our unemployment numbers.

What a horrible reason to continue a war.

 

[Engineer]

Actually, all troops aren't coming home from Iraq for good. We've got a military base there.

Per every article that I've read....

The military will keep about 160 servicemen and women in Baghdad to provide security for the embassy there.

.

Nothing about any military bases being left behind. Links?

 

[Gamingphreek]

No, waste implies that the result is not worth the expenditure, not that nothing positive came out of it. It has cost US nearly $1Trillion to depose Saddam the stupid way, while it only cost $1B to depose Gadaffi the right way.
$1Trillion is an astronimical sum for almost no direct benefit to the US. That's $3000 per every American, at a time when we have millions of Americans who can't even afford health insurance, and are dying due to delayed care. It's an absolute waste of American treasure and lives, not just those of soldiers, but other Americans whose lives could have been saved with that money.

Millions dying due to delayed care? We "only" have 300M people living here - are you honestly saying that significant fractions of the population are dying because of this? Really!?

So despite all the backlash regarding Libya, that is the "right way"? Not saying I disagree with the bombings as part of a UN force, but you can't have things both ways.

Furthermore, I'm assuming the "right way" you refer to is a coalition with UN backing. I just want to know how much longer we should have waited for the UN to issue the same sanctions over and over again? It was like a little kid stealing cookies out of the jar while the Mom stood there and said "Don't do that" while he continued.... Not looking to start a topic on whether the Iraq war was justified or not, just interested in knowing why the UN should be the deciding factor in our decisions....

We will put the connotation of 'waste' aside. That is open to opinion on both of our sides and I certainly respect what you said. All I am arguing is that there are positives that came out of Iraq and that they shouldn't be thrown by the wayside.

-GP

 

[jackstar7]

Should do wonders for our unemployment numbers.

Thanks for making my joke in post #3 funnier for me.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes because I'm focusing on tourist attractions. Way to throw a straw man argument out there...



I would say the first way is the most significant. Must be nice to know that you aren't in jail for "voting" for the wrong candidate or you aren't getting gassed like the Kurds were.

http://www.epic-usa.org/node/5620 - As the conclusion says, they deserve better, but you can't discount the fact that conditions are improving.

With regards to violence and government corruption, I feel as though that falls directly in line with the first point. The fact that there is government in place that doesn't kill you for voting "incorrectly" tells me that things are better off.

No worries - I didn't feel as though it was argumentative in the slightest. I wish I had a more intricate knowledge of the situation and could provide more information that things are getting better, but I just don't know all the intricacies of life over there.

I hope that things continue to get better over there as well and don't regress. It would be nice from a purely humanitarian standpoint to see them stand on their own and become a respectable nation.

-GP

Part of the reason I asked was because honestly, we seem to have stopped paying much attention to Iraq several years ago and there isn't a lot of current information out there. Even your own link is I think a few years old, though I appreciate you finding it. Notice that the conclusion is overall negative - that the economy there was worse as of 2008 than it was before the invasion.

In regards to violence, I wonder if it isn't worse to face a daily threat of random terrorist violence as opposed to government repression. In most dictatorships the violence against the populace is at least predictable. You know what sort of behavior will make you a victim and how to avoid it. Stalinist Russia was an exception in that the regime executed and imprisoned people who did nothing at all against the government, just to keep the populace in a perpetual state of fear. But even in Nazi Germany you were generally OK so long as you weren't among certain disfavored groups, and so long as you didn't stand on street corners loudly denouncing the regime. It's different if you can die in a random car bombing at any time. There is no sense of security.

Obviously the best case scenario is for them to have democracy *and* not have the random violence. Let's hope they are able to achieve that down the road.

I remain a skeptic and I think the we're in the middle chapter of the saga of Iraq's transition from Saddam Hussein to whatever ultimately lies in its future. Since we bear much ownership for that future, I certainly hope it works out well for them. It is at least a better potential outlook than Afghanistan, though that isn't saying much.

- wolf

 

[jman19]

Thanks for making my joke in post #3 funnier for me.

The homers are so predictable.

 

[HomerJS]

The homers are so predictable.

Hey, I resemble that!

 

[Gamingphreek]

Part of the reason I asked was because honestly, we seem to have stopped paying much attention to Iraq several years ago and there isn't a lot of current information out there. Even your own link is I think a few years old, though I appreciate you finding it. Notice that the conclusion is overall negative - that the economy there was worse as of 2008 than it was before the invasion.

In regards to violence, I wonder if it isn't worse to face a daily threat of random terrorist violence as opposed to government repression. In most dictatorships the violence against the populace is at least predictable. You know what sort of behavior will make you a victim and how to avoid it. Stalinist Russia was an exception in that the regime executed and imprisoned people who did nothing at all against the government, just to keep the populace in a perpetual state of fear. But even in Nazi Germany you were generally OK so long as you weren't among certain disfavored groups, and so long as you didn't stand on street corners loudly denouncing the regime. It's different if you can die in a random car bombing at any time. There is no sense of security.

Obviously the best case scenario is for them to have democracy *and* not have the random violence. Let's hope they are able to achieve that down the road.

I remain a skeptic and I think the we're in the middle chapter of the saga of Iraq's transition from Saddam Hussein to whatever ultimately lies in its future. Since we bear much ownership for that future, I certainly hope it works out well for them. It is at least a better potential outlook than Afghanistan, though that isn't saying much.

- wolf

They said with respect to the levels that Iraq was at in the 1980's the economy is still worse. If you look, even immediately after the invasion, the economy wasn't much worse than it was under Saddam.

Ever since Bush left office nobody seems to want to report on the Iraq war anymore.

I hope things turn out well too...

-GP

 

[BladeVenom]

He was following the Bush plan.

 

[quest55720]

Great news now take the troops that are coming home and put them on the southern boarder. The only bad news is there are so many more places we need to get troops home from starting with Afghanistan.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

As far as foreign policy goes, Obama has really done an outstanding job.

Unfortunately for him, the economy will decide if he's a one/two term president.

 

[Fausto]

Christians defending war; is there anything more amusing?

 

[jman19]

Hey, I resemble that!

Doh!

 

[rudder]

Actually, all troops aren't coming home from Iraq for good. We've got a military base there.

It takes President Paul to end it.

It's also ridiculous to credit Obama for anything, because he always voted in favor of it (he had an extremely securitarian voting record when he was Senator) and also because he could've pulled out the day he was inaugerated, but his Presidency will end with American forces still in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/w...o-immunity-for-remaining-american-troops.html

This will mean the withdrawal of all troops. obama is lucky enough to spin this to his advantage but the Iraqi parliament is the reason all of the troops are leaving Iraq by 2012.

 

[Ausm]

Christians defending war; is there anything more amusing?

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Life seems cheap to them also

 

[Gamingphreek]

Christians defending war; is there anything more amusing?

So in your mind Christians are a bunch of people with our heads in the sand saying "If I can't see you, you can't see me"? And to think, if only Christians listened to your simplistic little incorrect representation of their faith... we could have been conquered a couple times and living under Japenese or Nazi rule....

Just because we believe in salvation and a defined set of morals, doesn't mean we would be opposed to standing up in various ways (War being one of them).

-GP

 

[Fausto]

So in your mind Christians are a bunch of people with our heads in the sand saying "If I can't see you, you can't see me"? And to think, if only Christians listened to your simplistic little incorrect representation of their faith... we could have been conquered a couple times and living under Japenese or Nazi rule....

Just because we believe in salvation and a defined set of morals, doesn't mean we would be opposed to standing up in various ways (War being one of them).

-GP

So, you're okay what has been tallied at hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq since this mess started? Is there an asterix next to that particular commandment?