We're Finally Making Progress In Iraq

[jpeyton]

Text

Is there any better proof of the perpetual state of war Bush trapped our country in? Since its inception, the war on terror has been nothing more than a guise allowing the military/industrial complex to grow limitlessly, eroding our civil liberties in the process. America has seen its share of enemies and wars in the past, but never has our reasoning been so misguided or our threat so overstated.

Is 2008 going to bring another Republican campaign championing fear, war and terror while important everyday issues get swept under the rug? A better question is, will the American people be duped again?

 

[1EZduzit]

They're in their last throes, don'tchknow.

As my grandaughter always says, "just one more".

 

[First]

What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

 

[First]

^ And yet, the best they (supporters of continued U.S. presence in Iraq) can come up with is that "More people will die in Iraq than are dying now". Yet, this is based on what data? What conclusions? Certainly nothing that has been objectively tested, verified or simply experimented with by any other such occupation.

In the end, supporters of the Iraq war have been wrong going on 5 years now, about basically everything. Is there any good reason we should believe leaving Iraq will create genocide or a terrorist haven?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

We could wait 4 more years and they could easily still have a genocide or revolution.

 

[First]

^ Precisely.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

In Viet, they executed thousands of US supporters after the US left.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

In Viet, they executed thousands of US supporters after the US left.

And we had lost so many boys nobody cared. Where do you propse we set the number for "acceptable losses"?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3)

Your point #2 made me LAWL considering how often your buddies around here remind us that we've made their government impotent and exponentially worse that when Saddam was in power.

Question: What happens if an ongoing genocide does occur? what's your plan for that? After all, it would be awfully ironic if you and yours don't have a follow-up plan, wouldn't it?

My guess is that all you want is The Big Ugly off of your TV sets every evening... out of sight, out of mind, right? What happens to the Iraqis next doesnt concern you at all, does it?

 

[Moonbeam]

I sure do wish we could have a real win in Iraq.

Maybe Saddam so traumatized that society the level of self hate is really so great the people there can't wait to self destruct.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Why not worry about the actual genocide that's taking place in Darfur? Rather than the 'could-be'?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Why not worry about the actual genocide that's taking place in Darfur? Rather than the 'could-be'?

You mean you want us to get involved in another civil war? :Q

 

[First]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3)

Your point #2 made me LAWL considering how often your buddies around here remind us that we've made their government impotent and exponentially worse that when Saddam was in power.

I'm not of one mind who can't think for himself, unlike yourself I'm afraid.

Question: What happens if an ongoing genocide does occur? what's your plan for that? After all, it would be awfully ironic if you and yours don't have a follow-up plan, wouldn't it?

My guess is that all you want is The Big Ugly off of your TV sets every evening... out of sight, out of mind, right? What happens to the Iraqis next doesnt concern you at all, does it?

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died as a result of jihadist terrorists attempting to kill U.S. troops but, inevitably, missing and killing unintended targets. Frankly, to even suggest there will be a genocide (or more net death than is currently occurring) is sad fear mongering at its worst, because it's not supported by any reality that exists; who will commit these genocides against the Iraqi people? And why would they, what is there motivation if there is little to no U.S. presence?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Why not worry about the actual genocide that's taking place in Darfur? Rather than the 'could-be'?

You mean you want us to get involved in another civil war? :Q

So you're admitting that Iraq is in a civil war?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

What I find most astonishing is that someone could actual post something like this and be serious.

So if we just up and leave everything will be all peachy keen in Iraq. The lions will lay down with the sheep and so forth?

Fern

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Text

Is there any better proof of the perpetual state of war Bush trapped our country in? Since its inception, the war on terror has been nothing more than a guise allowing the military/industrial complex to grow limitlessly, eroding our civil liberties in the process. America has seen its share of enemies and wars in the past, but never has our reasoning been so misguided or our threat so overstated.

Is 2008 going to bring another Republican campaign championing fear, war and terror while important everyday issues get swept under the rug? A better question is, will the American people be duped again?

What is your definition of a valid war?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Does the situation in Afganistan with a puppet government, Warlords, and Taliban give anyone a forecast of Iraq's future?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

What I find most astonishing is that someone could actual post something like this and be serious.

So if we just up and leave everything will be all peachy keen in Iraq. The lions will lay down with the sheep and so forth?

Fern

I can't help it that you can't read critically.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Why not worry about the actual genocide that's taking place in Darfur? Rather than the 'could-be'?

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group.[1] While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the most prominent definition in international law is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It would not be that hard to look at Iraq today and label it a genocide already
But no ones going to do that, the US can't be the cause of a genocide

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Why not worry about the actual genocide that's taking place in Darfur? Rather than the 'could-be'?

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group.[1] While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the most prominent definition in international law is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It would not be that hard to look at Iraq today and label it a genocide already
But no ones going to do that, the US can't be the cause of a genocide

It's not like it's the first one the US is responsible for, but stuff like responsibility is just words for the prentd to be cowboys of the US.

The US never wants to take ANY responsibility for ANY action they have EVER taken EXCEPT for the Balkan wars, i was there, the US bombings didn't do squat, they did not hit anything but infrastructure where no soldier was at, what DID make a difference was the deals between the Russians and the US in the UN, but of course, everyday American fools don't know their arse from their elbow and think that the US was actually responsible for bringing peace to the region (in a way they were but not by bombing the shit out of civilian areas).

In Iraq the US will stay until you fix your fucked up mess, don't come whining to the international community, most countries didn't get your no intrest loans that others got for getting involved and the UK is against it now.

Your mess, you deal with it, kthxbye.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Question: What happens if an ongoing genocide does occur? what's your plan for that? After all, it would be awfully ironic if you and yours don't have a follow-up plan, wouldn't it?

Grab some popcorn, or deal with Iranian nuclear weapons, or send our military to our border. I?m going to bet that if we leave, it turns into next Afghanistan. If we stay and leave anytime in the next decade or two it turns into the next Iran.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets take the post at face value---and conclude despite all evidence to the contrary----"We're Finally Making Progress In Iraq"

Now riddle me this---how come why fort is the GWB administration saying they need to delay the promised 9/15 progress report until November?

Things are getting better remember---ring those McCain church bells-----and play share and show---rather than claim without basis.

 

[LongTimePCUser]

Right.
And they are executing 3000 us supporters per month as we stay there.
If they execute "thousands" when we leave then our supporters come out a head the sooner we leave.

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

In Viet, they executed thousands of US supporters after the US left.

 

[LongTimePCUser]

If we get up and leave the Sunnis and the Shia will eliminate all the AQ terrrorists left.

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What I find most astonishing is that most of the people against immediate and/or phased withdrawal actually believe they know that a genocide or some sort of violent revolution will occur when we leave. Of course, there is no reason anyone should believe any such thing will occur; 1) there is no data or past history that suggests that will be the case (in similar contexts), 2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3) every intelligence report (recent or otherwise) has strongly suggested that the mere U.S. presence in Iraq has stoked terrorist jihad in the region, which suggests that perhaps a surge and continued U.S. presence is having the opposite intention (i.e. instilling stability).

What I find most astonishing is that someone could actual post something like this and be serious.

So if we just up and leave everything will be all peachy keen in Iraq. The lions will lay down with the sheep and so forth?

Fern

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
2) Iraq isn't any weaker than the Saddam-led regime of the past few decades, which was never close to being taken over by any terrorist state/organization, and 3)

Your point #2 made me LAWL considering how often your buddies around here remind us that we've made their government impotent and exponentially worse that when Saddam was in power.

I'm not of one mind who can't think for himself, unlike yourself I'm afraid.

Does that mean that you believe our efforts to install a stable government have been largely successful?

Even the biggest Bush supporters are not that ignorant...

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have died as a result of jihadist terrorists attempting to kill U.S. troops but, inevitably, missing and killing unintended targets.

If you genuinely believe that the majority of civilian deaths were "unintended targets," then you are clueless - and quite possibly crazy!

Let me share something with you: AQI and the sectarian groups target civilians much more often than they target the US. I don't know the exact ratios at the moment, but it probably hovers around 200:1. By that i mean that there are at least 200 intentional attacks against civilians for every single attack against the US forces. (kidnappings, mass killings, suicide bombings, IED's, etc)

You are absolutely clueless.

Trust me, if we leave, that place may become the bloodiest massacre in the last few centuries..