an interesting question posed by the article

Superfreak said:
see... ya were gettin all pissy with me when in reality you actually agreed with the point the article was making.
Click to expand...

Oh GTF off your high horse

You stated:

.........Tell me genius... WHO should make the decision? You? Me? Pelosi? Reid?

You base your OPINION on EMOTION. As do I. We do NOT have the data to make an informed decision
Click to expand...

and I gave you some broad reasons as to why I believe we should get out and that the basis of this author's argument is flawed in that, yes, its gotten better, but before that it became much worse. Getting us back to just very bad as opposed to $hiteous isn't a basis for changing one's opinion in the first place.
 
The reality in Iraq is we have gotten ourselves into a you break it you buy it situation. If we pull out really fast we will be the cause of a precipitious decline in civility in that country. Sunni's and Shia's will be at eachother's throats. The Kurds, who have been our strongest allies there will be screwed. However, I believe that if we leave in 5 years Sunni's and Shia's will be at eachother's throats and the Kurds, who have been our strongest allies there will be screwed.
 
LadyT said:
Oh GTF off your high horse

You stated:



and I gave you some broad reasons as to why I believe we should get out and that the basis of this author's argument is flawed in that, yes, its gotten better, but before that it became much worse. Getting us back to just very bad as opposed to $hiteous isn't a basis for changing one's opinion in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, I stated that to Dung, but you can be included as well. Your opinion, like ours, is also based on emotion. Not data. From 23% of the news coverage to 3%. We are not getting the information we need to make rationale decisions.

From this article, it suggests that things are not just getting back to shitty. It suggests that in fact things are improving in that the government in Iraq has not been stronger than it is now, that the Iraqi forces are taking more of a lead etc...

Again, this is one article, so take it with a grain of salt. But I think the main point of it has been validated as far as this board goes by the reaction of yourself and dung.
 
Socrtease said:
The reality in Iraq is we have gotten ourselves into a you break it you buy it situation. If we pull out really fast we will be the cause of a precipitious decline in civility in that country. Sunni's and Shia's will be at eachother's throats. The Kurds, who have been our strongest allies there will be screwed. However, I believe that if we leave in 5 years Sunni's and Shia's will be at eachother's throats and the Kurds, who have been our strongest allies there will be screwed.
Click to expand...

True. Given the historic relationship between the three sects, that may very well happen regardless of what we do.
 
It does seem that the news in Iraq is improving so quickly that the media is beginning to feel compelled to cover it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/2959990

Lull in violence in Iraq prompts question of U.S. departure

By Mike Tharp, McClatchy NewspapersSun Jun 8, 6:00 AM ET

BAGHDAD — After weeks of relative calm, two questions are being asked in war-torn Iraq and in the United States :

Will it last? And when can American forces start coming home?

Real peace, of course, has hardly broken out, and the improved security environment may be fleeting. But recent substantial gains by the Iraqi army, flagging insurgent violence and civilians reclaiming a sense of confidence have produced expectations that are higher than at any time since 2003.

It's increasingly reasonable to assume that Iraq's security environment will continue to improve— slowly, maybe at the margins and with the chance that things could go south fast.

Generals and politicians avoid responding directly to questions about troop withdrawals because an answer would determine whether America stays here indefinitely as an occupier or leaves in a way yet to be decided. Indeed, many Iraqis believe that the Status of Forces Agreement being negotiated with Washington is a pretext to allow a permanent U.S. military presence, a charge that American officials deny. The agreement would establish a continued U.S. presence in Iraq once the United Nations' permissions expire Dec. 31 .

One clue about withdrawal is what's already on the record.

Gen. David Petraeus told Congress that after the last "surge" combat brigade leaves Iraq in July, there'll be a 45-day period for him to assess the situation and make recommendations for further reductions. Over the last few months, some 12,000 troops have returned to the U.S. without being replaced.

Petraeus will present his recommendations to his civilian and military superiors in Washington and at Central Command this fall. But as he noted in April, this approach "does not, to be sure, allow establishment of a set withdrawal timeline."

...

From May 15 to June 3 last year, 316 incidents marred stability in Baghdad . This year there were 68.

Evidence of near normalcy is widespread.

In central Baghdad , as carp lolled in a circular pool, Al Faris Restaurant owner Haj Hashim said he now served fried fish to 10 or 12 tables of customers a night, up from only two tables a month ago.

A mile or so away, bookseller Jumaa Mohammed says sales of his newspapers and paperbacks have jumped 60 percent from early this year and 80 percent from a year ago. Now he boasts a table to display them. Before they were spread on the sidewalk.

Between their two establishments, bookstore owner Daoud Mohammed is proud to show his translations of Proust, Melville, Pasternak and Shakespeare. He does so in the dark: power is out again. He sells around 10 books a day, down from about 100 three years ago, but more than earlier this year.

Several developments account for the relative tranquillity.

The buildup of U.S. troops last year included the tactic of moving them off so-called forward operating bases and into command outposts closer to the people they're intended to protect. Iraqi forces have conducted successful operations in Basra and Sadr City, the teeming district of western Baghdad .

However, U.S. and British military transition teams worked with the forces, and coalition air support was brought in to help. Militants often say they could whip Iraqi security forces if it weren't for the backing of U.S. aircraft.

But U.S. officials say Iraqi troops succeeded because Iraq's army strength has swelled to 559,000 from around 400,000 a year ago. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki gained street credibility by overseeing some operations himself.

The "Sunni Awakening" in formerly deadly Anbar province helped turn once-hostile forces into allies or at least mercenaries— since the U.S. has paid them handsomely— against al Qaida in Iraq . A cease-fire declared by cleric Muqtada al Sadr for his large and anti-occupation Mahdi Army militia seems to be holding.

Finally, the Iraqi people are fed up with the violence and are cooperating more with government forces. ...
Click to expand...
 
Socrtease said:
The reality in Iraq is we have gotten ourselves into a you break it you buy it situation. If we pull out really fast we will be the cause of a precipitious decline in civility in that country. Sunni's and Shia's will be at eachother's throats. The Kurds, who have been our strongest allies there will be screwed. However, I believe that if we leave in 5 years Sunni's and Shia's will be at eachother's throats and the Kurds, who have been our strongest allies there will be screwed.
Click to expand...

I have a completely different perspective and that is our military should only be used for speficific missions with tangible results. Simply staying there because we feel bad is irresponsible.
 
Dungheap said:
OK, so when can we leave?
Click to expand...
We can't. It used to be that we could not pull out because if we did, Iraq's government was so weak that the country would collapse. But now, IF the situation has indeed gotten better, then we can't leave because that would weaken the Iraqi government. Violence would pick up again and sectarian bloodshed would start all over and we couldn't leave then because after getting strong the Iraqi government will get weak and then we will have to stay until they get strong again and then once they are stong we will have to stay to preserve that strength, because if we don't stay to preserve that strength they will get weak and ....................
 
Dungheap said:
The bottom line is that most Americans want us to get out of Iraq regardless of whether they feel that things are going well or not. If things are going poorly, why don't we get out? If things are going so well, why do we need to stay?

One candidate wants to stay in Iraq into perpetuity while the other wants to start packing up and coming home.
Click to expand...

Most Americans want us out... according to most polls... , but thankfully we dont run our Country "via" the Gallup ....or do we?

But I agree .....the findings could benefit both candidates..it will all depend on whats going on with our wallets ... bottom line ...
If Oil dramatically drops ... and the economic vital signs show some recovery... Mccain will benefit. If Oil continues to rise... and we get a hurricane or two through the Gulf Coast... and we are paying 6.00 a gallon.... The Big O will landslide.
 
Socrtease said:
We can't. It used to be that we could not pull out because if we did, Iraq's government was so weak that the country would collapse. But now, IF the situation has indeed gotten better, then we can't leave because that would weaken the Iraqi government. Violence would pick up again and sectarian bloodshed would start all over and we couldn't leave then because after getting strong the Iraqi government will get weak and then we will have to stay until they get strong again and then once they are stong we will have to stay to preserve that strength, because if we don't stay to preserve that strength they will get weak and ....................
Click to expand...

This is the conventional wisdom for keeping a strong military presence remaining in Iraq. Again I disagree. We're forcing our military to stay for non tangible theories and scenarios that may or may not play out. Upon any invastion they should have specific jobs and should leave upon finishing. Keeping them there because we can't figure out an alternative is a band-aid and not a solution.
 
Dungheap said:
Yeah, I read it some time ago in a book called Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. We can't leave because it's bad, but when it gets better we can't leave because it's good.
Click to expand...

exactly.

so you have to make the decision to put us in a secure and better position than the one we're already in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top