When will we learn? - Pull out of Iraq NOW

Do you believe it will get better or worse if we were to pull out at this time?

We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before.... we owe them that at least.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you believe it will get better or worse if we were to pull out at this time?
Click to expand...

That's an insufficient reason for staying. No sane person tried to use that reason when we left somalia. The only ones saying that: "Hey, it may be bad now...but think how bad it will be when we leave!" - are the same ones who were wrong about everything else in iraq. All their predictions were wrong. I'm not in a mood to trust their predictions now ;)

We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before....
Click to expand...

The US Army is not under the command of the Iraqi government. And there really is no "iraqi government" per se. There is a collection of militias who run virtually all the ministrys, police forces, and government offices. Which militia's side are we on?

we owe them that at least.
Click to expand...

This at least makes sense. Yes, we did light a match and set their country on fire. I've got no problem with financial and diplomatic assistance, and humanitarian aid. But, I've seen zero evidence that the presence of 150k american troops has any effect on improving the situation. In fact, its just the opposite. The situation has gone progressivly downhill for four years.
 
"That's an insufficient reason for staying. No sane person tried to use that reason when we left somalia. The only ones saying that: "Hey, it may be bad now...but think how bad it will be when we leave!" - are the same ones who were wrong about everything else in iraq. All their predictions were wrong. I'm not in a mood to trust their predictions now "

I did not say that it was a reason for staying. I was asking Tiana for her opinion. Please do try to pay attention.

"The US Army is not under the command of the Iraqi government. And there really is no "iraqi government" per se. There is a collection of militias who run virtually all the ministrys, police forces, and government offices. Which militia's side are we on? "

I NEVER said that the US Army was under the command of the Iraqi government. So again, either pay attention to what I say or refrain from spinning it.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you believe it will get better or worse if we were to pull out at this time?

We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before.... we owe them that at least.
Click to expand...

The point is that our presence isn't helping. I'm not sure what will happen if we pull out.

LOL, btw - this is extremely hypocrital of you. We're not to be governed by the UN, however when its convenient, suddenly we are under the rule of the Iraqi 'government'.
 
Unfortuntely, there is no good or moral option. We've already destroyed the country, we can't make good on that. There are some actions that you can take, that can have such horrific consequences, that all you can do is know that you have blood on your hands for the rest of your life.

We have to get out, we're not making anything better. We need to pay them a lot of money, whatever it takes to rebuild. And I think that IHG had the right idea when he said we should be taking in as many refugees as we possibly can. There are now millions of Iraqi refugees.
 
Darla said:
We have to get out, we're not making anything better. We need to pay them a lot of money, whatever it takes to rebuild. And I think that IHG had the right idea when he said we should be taking in as many refugees as we possibly can. There are now millions of Iraqi refugees.
Click to expand...

I agree with that 110%. As I was pleased we'd at least taken in those who'd work with the US. But like you say, we probably should take in more.
 
"The point is that our presence isn't helping. I'm not sure what will happen if we pull out. "

The point is that you cannot say that our presence is not helping if you do not believe that the situation will get better if we leave. For if the situation got worse if we left, then our presence would have been helping.

"LOL, btw - this is extremely hypocrital of you. We're not to be governed by the UN, however when its convenient, suddenly we are under the rule of the Iraqi 'government'."

Who the fuck said that we were under the rule of the Iraqi government? They have been democratically elected. It is their country. To date, they have asked that we stay. We began this, so we are morally obligated to stay as long as they want us there. If they ask us to leave their country, then we should do so. That does NOT mean that they control our military or us. Talk about spin.
 
The point is that you cannot say that our presence is not helping if you do not believe that the situation will get better if we leave. For if the situation got worse if we left, then our presence would have been helping.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should put it this way then: WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO STABILIZE THE REGION. This is between Iraqi's at this point. There is NOTHING WE CAN DO.

Who the fuck said that we were under the rule of the Iraqi government? They have been democratically elected.
Click to expand...

You:
"We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before"

I'm sorry, when did we start taking orders from them?


It is their country. To date, they have asked that we stay. We began this, so we are morally obligated to stay as long as they want us there. If they ask us to leave their country, then we should do so. That does NOT mean that they control our military or us. Talk about spin.
Click to expand...

Right its their country. They should be responsible for civil unrest. I'm glad we agree. And further more, that is NOT spin. You stated that if they ask us to we remain. Is that not an order that we would have followed?
 
"We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before"

I'm sorry, when did we start taking orders from them?"

Semantics. You are suggesting that the military is under the Iraqi governments orders based on that? Here... let me clarify it for you...

We SHOULD leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before. There, will that make you and Cypress cut the bullshit spin out now? I am sorry for not spelling it out more clearly for you. Somehow I think you knew what I meant, but just in case I hope this clears it up for you.
 
"Right its their country. They should be responsible for civil unrest. I'm glad we agree. And further more, that is NOT spin. You stated that if they ask us to we remain. Is that not an order that we would have followed?"

Right, it is THEIR country. If THEY ask us to stay to help with the unrest that was a result of OUR actions, then WE are morally obligated to stay and help as long as they want us in THEIR country. No, it is not an order... it is a request. We then decide whether or not to honor that request. It is my assertation that we SHOULD honor that request, WHEN they make it.
 
Superfreak said:
"We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before"

I'm sorry, when did we start taking orders from them?"

Semantics. You are suggesting that the military is under the Iraqi governments orders based on that? Here... let me clarify it for you...

We SHOULD leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before. There, will that make you and Cypress cut the bullshit spin out now? I am sorry for not spelling it out more clearly for you. Somehow I think you knew what I meant, but just in case I hope this clears it up for you.
Click to expand...

semantics my as$. You said: "We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before....

You don't make any stipulations as to what the US wants/needs to do. You simply state that we leave when they ask us to. That's mighty hilarious coming from the same person that said we should have inevitably invaded Iraq despite the fact that the UN dictated it was unlawful.
 
Superfreak said:
"Right its their country. They should be responsible for civil unrest. I'm glad we agree. And further more, that is NOT spin. You stated that if they ask us to we remain. Is that not an order that we would have followed?"

Right, it is THEIR country. If THEY ask us to stay to help with the unrest that was a result of OUR actions, then WE are morally obligated to stay and help as long as they want us in THEIR country. No, it is not an order... it is a request. We then decide whether or not to honor that request. It is my assertation that we SHOULD honor that request, WHEN they make it.
Click to expand...


So are you now saying we should stay only for "moral obligations" to the extent the gov't still wants us there?

(and they say liberals are touchy feely)
 
"semantics my as$. You said: "We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before.... "

And I clarified it for you since your panties were in a bunch about it.
 
"So are you now saying we should stay only for "moral obligations" to the extent the gov't still wants us there?

(and they say liberals are touchy feely)"

Call it touchy feely or whatever you want. But it is the right thing to do. If they say they still need our help, then we should provide it. If they say they no longer need our help, then we should withdraw.
 
Superfreak said:
"So are you now saying we should stay only for "moral obligations" to the extent the gov't still wants us there?

(and they say liberals are touchy feely)"

Call it touchy feely or whatever you want. But it is the right thing to do. If they say they still need our help, then we should provide it. If they say they no longer need our help, then we should withdraw.
Click to expand...

That's where we differ. I think the US military should not be used for simply touchy feely moral obligations. They should have clear objectives with a tangible outcome for success and most notably an exit strategy. Military presence should have a definitive part in assuring success, otherwise you end up with the quagmire we have today. No end in sight and no real goal or strategy as to how we are getting the hel* out or what metric to go by in determining when we've over stayed our visit. But then again, I'm not a con. I tend to be ruled by logic.
 
Superfreak said:
Do you believe it will get better or worse if we were to pull out at this time?

We leave when the Iraqi government asks us to, not before.... we owe them that at least.
Click to expand...
They have already asked us too, but because it wasn't the specific people(rather than the government which has already done so.) Bush Ignorees it, as tho it wasn't said. Let's face ot. "HE""HE""HE" doesn't want us to leave. Nothing short of his own assasination or dismissal from office is going to change that. regardless of how many Iraqis ask it.

If it was otherwise we would already have left.

(as for the answer to your question.) What will happen, will happen regardless of when we leave. It will be no worse if we leave now, than it will be 2, 5, or 50 years from now. the results are inevitable. those three entities will NEVER have a stable government except under some one like Hussan, or Hitler. The factions are too different.
 
doniston said:
What will happen, will happen regardless of when we leave. It will be no worse if we leave now, than it will be 2, 5, or 50 years from now. the results are inevitable. those three entities will NEVER have a stable government except under some one like Hussan, or Hitler. Th factions are too different.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. But that, like Superfreaks is just a theory. None of us knows exactly what's going to happen. But I do know our military presence is not securing the country and its a waste of money time and lives. Pull the fvck out now.
 
Umm is the leaders from Vietnam visiting Bush in the WH yet ?
Nam apparently did not turn out like the cons said, so why trust em this time ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top