Jump to content


Photo

One thing I have to know, should we stay or should we go?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

Poll: Should the West pull out or stay in Iraq?

Please Choose and Post your Response.

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Silent_Killa

Silent_Killa

    Village Idiot

  • Project Team
  • 790 posts

Posted 19 May 2007 - 03:58 AM

I meant against other terrorist attacks on targets outside of Iraq, like say in the US or Europe, or an embassy somewhere. Sorry for not being clear on that.

so we just pick a random target in the middle east every time we're attacked? And how often are targets in the US and Europe actually attacked? :)

Paradox... sometimes I just don't know what to say to you... this idea that imposing things like not stoning people to death, and not having mass genocide being a bad thing confuses me. After all, that's pretty much all we're capable of even trying to change at this point. To say that Western Democracy isn't better than an Islamic Theocracy is just plain silly.

Imposing our values really isn't the issue here though. We can worry about that when stuff is no longer being blown up. Right now it's about keeping the body count down. The US fuels terrorism, but prevents all out civil war followed by genocide. Neither option seems like a good one to me anyways, so I suppose it doesn't really matter.
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64


"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell

#22 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 19 May 2007 - 04:36 PM

My point is that America should LET THEM DEAL WITH THEIR OWN INTERNAL PROBLEMS. That means keeping its nose out. It isn't your responsibility to change their culture for them. You removed a dictator. The people hate you for it. You've done enough damage turning them into a "Democracy" that you really don't need to do any more by turning them into "Americans".

As I say, the Iraqis can sort their own cultural issues out themselves. They don't need you to destroy their values for them. Whether their values are 'right' or not is a matter of perspective. From within your own culture looking out, your view is always going to be subjective and is going to see any deviant culture as being barbaric. What you forget is that this is much more socially acceptable in their society.

Who can judge which society is better? Only people from that society, or from an outside perspective. Whose opinions are naturally going to be juxtaposed.

Please think for a moment that this stuff was of no detriment to our own society when we did it. Just because they're a little backward by your own standards doesn't mean that they won't get it sorted at some point. And they can do that on their own.

#23 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 19 May 2007 - 05:33 PM

My point is that America should LET THEM DEAL WITH THEIR OWN INTERNAL PROBLEMS. That means keeping its nose out. It isn't your responsibility to change their culture for them. You removed a dictator. The people hate you for it. You've done enough damage turning them into a "Democracy" that you really don't need to do any more by turning them into "Americans".


That is not true. The vast majority of the population was very happy to get of Saddam. The are unhappy about what is happening now. And how the hell are we trying to turn Iraqis into Americans? Do you have any idea how many countries have a democratic government? Its not just the US. If Iraq was really being turned into the US, there would be a Starbucks on every corner, right next to the Walgreens and McDonald's that are on every corner. There would be a Walmart every few miles, and everyone would own at least one car. I think you need to open your eyes a little more and actually look at what's happening. All the US did in Iraq was get rid of Saddam and try to set up a democratic government. No one is forcing their culture on anyone.

As for letting people deal with their own internal problems: Its that exact line of thinking that is keeping anyone from doing anything in Africa. Do you really think that the child soldiers and civil wars on that continent do not need intervention of some kind? Or is it really just not our problem since it is not our kids being kidnapped and turned into soldiers? What if the US and UK had told France that Hitler was continental Europe's problem and not theirs? What if the rest of Greece had told Athens that Persia was their problem? There are countless examples of why we should not just sit on our asses and watch as other countries try to hack it on their own.

Who can judge which society is better? Only people from that society, or from an outside perspective. Whose opinions are naturally going to be juxtaposed.


Well, here is my "tainted" view of it. The Middle East used to be one of the most advanced places in the world, culturally and technologically. That's where civilization started and a lot of things like mathematical formulas and such came from the Middle East IIRC. That was all before these theocracies took over, and now the Middle East is considered largely part of the third world. So I can't really see how the current situation in the Middle East is doing anything but holding the people back and oppressing their culture.

Edited by narboza22, 19 May 2007 - 07:09 PM.

Posted Image

#24 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 19 May 2007 - 07:08 PM

Paradox, if we packed up and left, the sectarian violence would turn into a rebuttel slaughter. Than we'd be blamed for allowing a genocide to happen.

As well as giving the opportunity for free zones where terrorist training camps would blossom.

It would be really stupid at this point to pack up and leave. If you think it's bad now, imagine if the iraq government didn't have US troops to back it up.

The country would disintegrate into province states and Iran would surelly proxy control the shia sections.

Let's create a real scenerio. If sunni and shia begin to duke it out in full scale, Iran would be funding one side while nations like Saudi Arabia would be funding the other.

It would turn into a full blown regional war. Civilian deaths would be enormous considering the fighters rounding up civilians from the other side and shooting them like they are now.

But on a much grander scale.

If we left, the country would end up as three smaller nations that would slaughter each others civilians in retaliation to each others actions.

Now that would cause a flood of millions of refugees in every direction. Who would have to pay for that? The rest of the world. Not only that but terrorist training camps would flood new al queda fighters and those can easily move with the mass refugees.

It's a really bad scenario that I believe would be the outcome of the US leaving Iraq.

#25 Cheshire Fox

Cheshire Fox

    El Hombre Sinestro

  • Hosted
  • 755 posts
  • Location:Western Mass!
  • Projects:Keeping Apocalypse and Wrath alive
  •  Apocalypse Admin, Wrath of Orion Admin

Posted 19 May 2007 - 07:50 PM

The real problem here is that we went in. There was no way this was going to go down well.

As for Paradox, I really do agree with much of what you say. Yes, we have a lot of problems in our culture, but that is absolutely no good reason not to interfere with other countries afairs. I am not referring to Iraq when I say this, however. The Iraq war was sheer idiocy based on shameless lies. However, sometimes actio needs to be taken. Action needed to be taken against the German war machine. Action needed to be taken against slavery. And now, action needs to be taken against the genocide in Darfur. I'd just like to point out the irony of:

Than we'd be blamed for allowing a genocide to happen.

We are letting a genocide happen. That is an example in which there needs to be interference. However, the rest of the world just doesn't give a shit. And the U.S. is to busy fucking itself over in Iraq.
Posted Image
This is the place where all the junkies go, where time gets fast but everything gets slow.
I'll get to the moon if I have to crawl.
The problem with any government is that it eventually attracts politicians.

#26 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 19 May 2007 - 07:55 PM

We are doing our best to stop a genocide, we're not "letting it happen"

And arguing over how we got there is fine for another thread. Seeing we're already there, this is what we are discussing in this thread.

#27 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 19 May 2007 - 09:46 PM

That is not true. The vast majority of the population was very happy to get of Saddam.

So, why is it they're now blowing you up so happily? The USA is blatantly doing SOMETHING wrong.

Also, why didn't THEY do it before you did? They've had ample time. It isn't THAT hard to kill someone, especially in a nation where everyone seems to have access to a Kalashnikov or two.

The are unhappy about what is happening now.

Really, what's the difference? This is the 'gotten-rid-of-saddam' Iraq. It is this present-day Iraq that people are pissed about.
Gee, before the USA conquered Iraq, there weren't all that many American troops got killed in Iraq. ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!

And how the hell are we trying to turn Iraqis into Americans?

Going into a country to depose its government and install one that favours you more is working towards that end. Giving them the US culture's take on 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' without having any reason to believe they even WANTED it. They might, for all you know, want a popular King or something, I dunno. While yes you've deposed what you and a number of Iraqis consider a tyrant, why don't you depose your own? :crazed:

Do you have any idea how many countries have a democratic government? Its not just the US.

Want me to give you a little history lesson as to why that is? Once upon a time, in France, there was a King. He wasn't a very good king. The people were starving, they were unhappy, shit generally wasn't going well. So they overthrew him and chopped his head off. They chopped his bird's head off too because she was a bit of a skag and was prolly a bit ugly. You know what the French are like - any excuse for a bit of a scrap.

Anyway, after that, they thought 'Hmm, what should we do now?' Then someone had this great idea, 'Hey, let's not have monarchs, let's vote for our leaders! Let's call him a president!'
And everyone rejoiced, for that was a great idea.

Meanwhile, in other countries in Europe, the common people looked at France and thought, 'Hey, shit yknow, look at these guys. They don't have a king anymore!"
*GASPS THROUGHOUT THE AUDIENCE*
"No king? Who rules them, then?" spoke one random dude, to which the speaker replied, "They vote for a dude who runs their country."
"Jumping jellybeans!" the other guy said, "that's a great idea! Let's do that too!"

And so, the way to become a republic spread throughout the world, by word of mouth and by trade and by a whole host of other stuff.

-Fin-

I don't recall one instance where democracy was installed to a nation by another nation coming in and forcing it upon them. I've known instances where they've TRIED, and it has mostly been American perpetrators, however it's hypocritical to force your own perverse ideal of 'Freedom' upon people.

If Iraq was really being turned into the US, there would be a Starbucks on every corner, right next to the Walgreens and McDonald's that are on every corner. There would be a Walmart every few miles, and everyone would own at least one car. I think you need to open your eyes a little more and actually look at what's happening. All the US did in Iraq was get rid of Saddam and try to set up a democratic government. No one is forcing their culture on anyone.

Yes, you are. You're giving Iraqis the American warped ideal of 'Freedom'. Freedom isn't free when your variant is forced upon you. What's free about not even being given a choice about how to go about it, how to attain it? And yes, you are installing a government of your own preference. As I say, what happens if some guy comes along with the popular support of the people, says "Fuck off, Yankees" and then proceeds to proclaim himself King?

No, the US'd much rather have a puppet like they tried to do in Vietnam. Again, forcing the American will upon the world. The colonists did it a few hundred years ago, and it's a trend that you, as a nation, have not really got out of the habit of.

Now, that's not to say that England hasn't done its fair share of that, and I'm not defending them. But that doesn't give the US the right to do it either. And at the moment the US IS by far the biggest perpetrator.

As for letting people deal with their own internal problems: Its that exact line of thinking that is keeping anyone from doing anything in Africa.

Well then, why can't you do it elsewhere in the world? :popcorn:

To be fair, giving Africa the means to irrigate isn't the same as giving it a system of government you think is right, nor is it the same as interfering with their culture.

Do you really think that the child soldiers and civil wars on that continent do not need intervention of some kind? Or is it really just not our problem since it is not our kids being kidnapped and turned into soldiers?

Well, not really. UN laws don't apply to nations that aren't actually signatories of the UN charter. One way or another, Africa's problems will sort themselves out. Africa has always been that way. When they got hold of guns and stuff, things just got more lethal than if they'd just had spears. Problems that are attributable to the west, the west is liable for. The west isn't really liable for tribal warfare in Africa that has gone on since before the Western nations even existed. It's only because they're using guns not spears that anyone in the west even gives a shit.

What if the US and UK had told France that Hitler was continental Europe's problem and not theirs?

The UK was already involved by that point. The US needn't have been if they hadn't wanted to be. The difference? Hypothetically speaking, the war woulda dragged out longer until the Soviets destroyed the Wehrmacht. Much of Europe would've been part of the Soviet Union until the end of the Cold War. And Japan would probably have lost the war a bit earlier.

Alternately, Germany might've won and the cold war would've been between Germany and USA instead of Soviet Union and USA.

The world as a whole would not have ended up a great amount different, except that I might be speaking a different language right now. Just as the world would not be any different if you had not been to Iraq, beyond that we would not be having this conversation, and I would not be sick of seeing the word 'Iraq' in the news.

What if the rest of Greece had told Athens that Persia was their problem?

Then our history books would be slightly different. Just as they would be slightly different if Germany had won, or if the Soviets had lost. The history books would be different. That would be the only significant consequence.

There are countless examples of why we should not just sit on our asses and watch as other countries try to hack it on their own.

No, those are examples of when nations DIDN'T. You cannot say 'shouldn't have', purely because you'll never know what happened on the flipside.

Well, here is my "tainted" view of it. The Middle East used to be one of the most advanced places in the world, culturally and technologically. That's where civilization started and a lot of things like mathematical formulas and such came from the Middle East IIRC.

Indeed.

That was all before these theocracies took over, and now the Middle East is considered largely part of the third world. So I can't really see how the current situation in the Middle East is doing anything but holding the people back and oppressing their culture.

But when did that become the USA's problem?

Paradox, if we packed up and left, the sectarian violence would turn into a rebuttel slaughter. Than we'd be blamed for allowing a genocide to happen.

But eventually, the violence would end and things would quieten down. Give these people the credit enough to think for themselves and not spoonfeed them. Once upon a time, they put Western minds to shame.

As well as giving the opportunity for free zones where terrorist training camps would blossom.

Ah, so you must restrict the freedom you purportedly give them. Interesting.

In all fairness, Hostile, how hard do you think it would be to set up a terrorist cell in the USA? It would be easy as pissing up a wall, I bet you.

It would be really stupid at this point to pack up and leave. If you think it's bad now, imagine if the iraq government didn't have US troops to back it up.

Then it would either survive on its own (bearing in mind this government IS NOT POPULAR, and so it goes against the entire premise of democracy), or it would collapse and a new one would rise to take its place.

The country would disintegrate into province states

Is that a bad thing? Oh, wait, sorry, it would make the map more complicated.

and Iran would surelly proxy control the shia sections.

So?

Let's create a real scenerio. If sunni and shia begin to duke it out in full scale, Iran would be funding one side while nations like Saudi Arabia would be funding the other.

It would turn into a full blown regional war. Civilian deaths would be enormous considering the fighters rounding up civilians from the other side and shooting them like they are now.

But on a much grander scale.

If we left, the country would end up as three smaller nations that would slaughter each others civilians in retaliation to each others actions.

As opposed to an outside nation comnig along and slaughtering them and otherwise oppressing them.

That's where the UN would be called in. Better that than the US acting alone and doing it their way and to Hell with the UN.

Now that would cause a flood of millions of refugees in every direction. Who would have to pay for that? The rest of the world. Not only that but terrorist training camps would flood new al queda fighters and those can easily move with the mass refugees.

You've said that was already happening many times before. I fail to see as how the outcome would be much different on this score.

It's a really bad scenario that I believe would be the outcome of the US leaving Iraq.

The real problem here is that we went in. There was no way this was going to go down well.

Indeed. Hindsight is always 20:20. But the scenario would be little worse than it is now.

As for Paradox, I really do agree with much of what you say. Yes, we have a lot of problems in our culture, but that is absolutely no good reason not to interfere with other countries afairs.

There is never any good reason to directly meddle in another country's affairs without directly being invited. Germany was an aggressor nation. France and the UK asked for US assistance, and it was given. That is a valid intervention. Iraq wasn't attacking, say, Iran, and Iran didn't ask for help to defend its borders. The US took it upon itself to attack.

Action needed to be taken against slavery.

That was not solved by force, as I recall. At least not in the sense of armed conflict.

#28 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 19 May 2007 - 10:01 PM

Paradox, I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine living a life where I saw everything the way you do.
Posted Image

#29 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 19 May 2007 - 11:03 PM

As opposed to an outside nation comnig along and slaughtering them and otherwise oppressing them.

That's where the UN would be called in. Better that than the US acting alone and doing it their way and to Hell with the UN.

So you think US forces are there in Iraq slaughtering people. :popcorn:

If that is what you think. Than I can't really understand your ideas. There are sunnis and shia lining up people and shooting them. We're trying to stop that.

But you are persistant in your remarks that state the US are the ones slaughtering people.

I trully don't understand your position...

#30 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 19 May 2007 - 11:58 PM

Paradox, I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine living a life where I saw everything the way you do.

Jee, that hurts my feelings. Your mum tell you to say that? :popcorn:


And Hostile, if you don't understand my position by now, you really haven't been paying any attention.

It basically amounts to 'Get the fuck out of Iraq and let them work it out for themselves'. They don't need bloody spoonfeeding. I see things in terms of 'why the hell are you nosing in everyone else's business? What gives you the right? What the fuck makes you so much better than everyone else that you're allowed to just trample over their sovreignty?'

I have still yet to hear a straight answer as to why this is so that isn't ethnocentrically biased.

Edited by Paradox, 19 May 2007 - 11:59 PM.


#31 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:23 AM

It's interesting how none of you defending the invasion and occupation or Iraq dare mention how it's turning into genocide anyways. Thing is you can't prevent it unless you kill them all instead, but by staying there it's only gonna drag out and take even more Iraqi lives, and a whole lot of western ones too. It's a lose-lose situation if you look at it that way - unless of course if you look at it another way in which case its a win for the USA for taking and holding the hill (the oil fields). Nothing else matters.

The way I see it - the pointless and stupid invasion of Iraq caused this load of bollocks in the first place. Saddam may had been an asshole, and he may had killed quite a few people, but at least he knew how to keep the damn region from tearing itself to pieces. Calculating the losses - the death count is quite a lot bigger than the death count during Saddam's rule. While I may be cynical here, the outcome of this war was quite easy to predict by anyone with any kind of geopolitical knowledge of the area so it would indeed be better if it never happened.

That proves one of two things: either every analyst in the US is a blockhead, or "saving" Iraq wasn't the real reason behind the invasion. Quite simple really. As for the outcome: all the US has done so far is actually BOOST terrorist activities, not decrease them. I wrote about this a while ago. Terrorism as an idea cannot be defeated with guns, unless you're plain too stupid to understand. "Fighting terrorists" does about as much good as kicking the wind.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#32 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:23 AM

Paradox, I feel sorry for you. I can't imagine living a life where I saw everything the way you do.

Jee, that hurts my feelings. Your mum tell you to say that? :popcorn:


And Hostile, if you don't understand my position by now, you really haven't been paying any attention.

It basically amounts to 'Get the fuck out of Iraq and let them work it out for themselves'. They don't need bloody spoonfeeding. I see things in terms of 'why the hell are you nosing in everyone else's business? What gives you the right? What the fuck makes you so much better than everyone else that you're allowed to just trample over their sovreignty?'

I have still yet to hear a straight answer as to why this is so that isn't ethnocentrically biased.


That'd be m-O-m actually :crazed: , since apparently I am an ignorant, arrogant American, I'll point that out, but enough with the pissant personal attacks. I understand that you do not think the US is good enough to make serious decisions, and that's great, but what exactly makes you so right that you can sit there above the rest of us and show us the errors of our ways? Do you really think that you or anyone else on these forums is qualified to evaluate what is happening in the world. I mean, what do you or I know? We have the internet, which is basically a giant pool of crap that people make up and other people believe in, and then we have the media, which is even more made up that the crap on the internet, and then we have the propaganda both good and bad that every government in the world releases like a stream of direrea everyday. Unless you are sitting in on Bush's cabinet meetings, watching insurgents plan their next attack, or seeing the raw data before that comes out of Iraq before everyone puts their own spin on it, you basically know nothing, just like the rest of us, as you are quick to point out.

I have still yet to hear a straight answer as to why this is so that isn't ethnocentrically biased.


What does that even mean? That you think the US is forcing their culture on the Iraqis? The type of government yes, but not the culture. Have you lived in the US before. I can guarantee you that setting up a democratic government would do nothing towards creating a US like atmosphere in Iraq. You say it yourself when you describe what a terrible place the US is with our arrogant and "dog eat dog" culture. None of that could ever be moved to Iraq by setting up a democracy. So why don't you tell me what culture is being forced on them?

Edited by narboza22, 20 May 2007 - 12:31 AM.

Posted Image

#33 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:27 AM

And nor are you. You can equally not prove or make an adequate case FOR the US being in Iraq. And thing is, notice how Saddam got tried AFTER he'd been fucked over for a year or two. AFTER he'd been ousted from his rule. 13 years AFTER he'd actually done anything wrong in the first place. And indeed, the Americans and the governmental marionette installed in his place are actually doing a WORSE job at keeping order than he did. Doesn't say a lot for you.

And actually, it's 'mum'. Given we INVENTED the friggin' language, I think I'd know. :popcorn:

#34 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:42 AM

And actually, it's 'mum'. Given we INVENTED the friggin' language, I think I'd know


And actually, according to google, "mum" is slang in most parts of the UK and "mom" is slang in North America and some parts of the UK. And since I do live in the US(last time I checked, I'm sure you can correct me on that) it is mom.

And nor are you. You can equally not prove or make an adequate case FOR the US being in Iraq. And thing is, notice how Saddam got tried AFTER he'd been fucked over for a year or two. AFTER he'd been ousted from his rule. 13 years AFTER he'd actually done anything wrong in the first place. And indeed, the Americans and the governmental marionette installed in his place are actually doing a WORSE job at keeping order than he did. Doesn't say a lot for you.


I never said I was qualified. Aren't you the one saying that the US set up a crappy government in Iraq? And now you're complaining that the US gave them to much time to try to get on their feet before putting them in charge? Or are you saying that the US should have gone in sooner that 13 years later? I was under the impression that you thought any war the US fought was wrong because of this so called ethnocentric thing. Why would 13 years make any difference?

Edited by narboza22, 20 May 2007 - 12:56 AM.

Posted Image

#35 Cheshire Fox

Cheshire Fox

    El Hombre Sinestro

  • Hosted
  • 755 posts
  • Location:Western Mass!
  • Projects:Keeping Apocalypse and Wrath alive
  •  Apocalypse Admin, Wrath of Orion Admin

Posted 20 May 2007 - 04:23 AM

This is kind of a delayed reaction post, but here goes anyways...

Alternately, Germany might've won and the cold war would've been between Germany and USA instead of Soviet Union and USA.
The world as a whole would not have ended up a great amount different, except that I might be speaking a different language right now


Now this is not true. I would not be alive. The Roma would not be alive. The worst genocide in human history would have destroyed mutliple cultures and races down the last man woman and child. Seriously man, have you studied the Holocaust at all? I know it's an overused point, but it was horrific beyond belief. More than any of us can come close to imagining.

There are sunnis and shia lining up people and shooting them. We're trying to stop that.


And failing. Much as it pains me to say it, I think blodo is right. Saddam was a terrible, twisted, sicko, but...how much better have we really made things? Seriously consider it. I'm not saying it's definitely worse, but I don't think it's much better. The genocide situation has not improved. It's like Yugoslavia.

13 years AFTER he'd actually done anything wrong in the first place.


Little Bush felt he had to finish what his daddy started. At least Senior, idiot that he was, had the wits not to invade Iraq itself.

We are doing our best to stop a genocide, we're not "letting it happen"


Are you fucking kidding me? We are doing nothing close to our best. Are we combatting the Janjaweed? Are we sending more than a pathetic little aid package to those people? Oh, and the food we send needs to be cooked. To cook, you need fire. To get firewood, you leave the camp. Out there the Janjaweed rape any woman or girl they find, and kill any man or boy. We are doing nothing about it realisticly. But we can't take the blame entirely. No one is stopping this. We are just fucking standing by and watching, like we do for every genocide, and then cluck our teeth over it afterwards. And before you accuse me of doing nothing, I've been to the protests and written letters and my family and I donate money.

It's interesting how none of you defending the invasion and occupation or Iraq dare mention how it's turning into genocide anyways. Thing is you can't prevent it unless you kill them all instead, but by staying there it's only gonna drag out and take even more Iraqi lives, and a whole lot of western ones too. It's a lose-lose situation if you look at it that way - unless of course if you look at it another way in which case its a win for the USA for taking and holding the hill (the oil fields). Nothing else matters.


All I can say is well spoken. Throughout the whole post. You pretty much got the nail on the head.

Why would 13 years make any difference?


The point is that we've fucked more people over in six. Had we let them alone, they would be better off.

EDIT: Oh and when I said "much as it pains me to say it" I didn't mean I hated agreeing with Blodo, I meant it's sad that a twisted dictator is doing better than we were.

Edited by Darkskul, 20 May 2007 - 04:24 AM.

Posted Image
This is the place where all the junkies go, where time gets fast but everything gets slow.
I'll get to the moon if I have to crawl.
The problem with any government is that it eventually attracts politicians.

#36 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 20 May 2007 - 06:25 PM

I strongly state, this thread is for what do we do now and not about how we got there in the first place.

So I'd assume the world is ready for a mass genocidal civil war if/when we depart as so many of you all have stated. No one addressed my concerns of what would happen if we pull out and let the sunnis/shia/kurds free reign to slaughter each other.

It's also not been addressed that terrorist camps will spring up like weeds. And we all remember the target of terrorist camps. The West...

So look ahead to 3 years after a pullout when a new invasion would have to happen to detroy terrorist camps. People will state then, we should have never left and let them build them

You know they will build terrorists camps. They are already building them as well as slaughtering each other.

This would happen 10x more if we weren't there. I cannot fathom how anyone could deny that wholesale genocide would not happen if we left.

And I challenge anyone to suggest numerous terrorist training camps would not appear if we weren't there. At least now we find them and destroy them.

Currenlty we've got alot of countries pumping funds and arms into the region for a full war. Maybe I should agree with you all and say "fuck the iraqis" let the slaughter begin and get the hell out of there now.

http://edition.cnn.c...nnis/index.html
http://www.talkingpo...ives/012259.php
http://www.washingto...6112801277.html
http://www.csmonitor...ailyUpdate.html

The resource list goes on and on. This isn't speculation, this is real life. If we pull out there will be a serious fucking war. The sunnis and shia are preparing to duke it out, and there isn't shit we are gonna do about it once we leave.

But everday we stay there we prevent/delay this scenerio. So I want all the bleeding hearts to fully understand, if we pack up and go home, there will be an amazing body count.

And remember once the body count numbers start rolling in, we'll only have the bleeding hearts to blame for thier short sighted "cut and retreat'

So if you all really care about the Iraqi people, then understand what will happen to them if we do as you all have voted for.

Remember this is not about how we got there, we are already there, this is about what do we do now. :popcorn:

#37 narboza22

narboza22

    Q6600 :)

  • Hosted
  • 357 posts
  • Location:United States
  • Projects:Tactical Warfare
  •  US supporter to the end

Posted 20 May 2007 - 06:55 PM

No one addressed my concerns of what would happen if we pull out and let the sunnis/shia/kurds free reign to slaughter each other.


I am tempted to say lets get the hell out and watch the entire region explode, just so we could say "I told you so" to everyone who wants the US out. But in the long run, while it would give me a warped sense of satisfaction for being right, it would not help the Iraqis at all. I still think what I said in my first post. The US should use its troops to protect Iraq's borders and oil fields, thereby cutting down on the amount of weapons and insurgents flowing in from other countries, and by preserving Iraq;s best resource for them once they get on their feet.

If the US did pull out completely, then Iran would out all supporting one faction, the Saudis would support another, and the Kurds would continue to fight with both of them. Eventually, imo, this would spill out of Iraq and into the rest of the Middle East, thereby forcing the rest of the world to go in and stabilize the area in order to protect their oil supplies. So, I think pulling out would just lead into a huge bloody circle that would end with foreign troops invading again, which defeats the purpose of pulling out in the first place.
Posted Image

#38 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 20 May 2007 - 07:41 PM

nobody is denying the fact that there will be hell if the US retreats and leaves a new power-vacuum in Iraq to be filled by incompetent people.

if one want to leave Iraq, someone has to fill the country with troops to do their job. these troops has to be trained in arabic, thus they would most likely come from the neighbours.

naturally we would then see sunni countries come in around the centre of iraq, iran and other shiites would come to the southeastern parts, and perhaps turkish troops will come down to the kurds to keep them oppressed and out of their hair(the kurds is probably the only part of Iraq i personally believe would have a better situation if they were allowed to start their own country).


this is technically impossible with the foreign policy that the US has today. this is in my eyes the best solution for all parties, and it still has alot of flaws.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#39 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 21 May 2007 - 12:07 AM

And actually, according to google, "mum" is slang in most parts of the UK and "mom" is slang in North America and some parts of the UK. And since I do live in the US(last time I checked, I'm sure you can correct me on that) it is mom.

Where you are, that may be. But don't try and fucking correct me when I'm right where I am. Still, as I say, we invented the language. You guys screwed with it. So it's 'mum', end of story. :thumbsupsmiley:

I never said I was qualified. Aren't you the one saying that the US set up a crappy government in Iraq? And now you're complaining that the US gave them to much time to try to get on their feet before putting them in charge? Or are you saying that the US should have gone in sooner that 13 years later? I was under the impression that you thought any war the US fought was wrong because of this so called ethnocentric thing. Why would 13 years make any difference?


I refer to the first Gulf War. If you'd gone in and deposed him then, when Saddam actually WAS gassing Kurds, the action would seem significantly more legitimised, especially considering people were clamouring for US help and assistance.

Now this is not true. I would not be alive. The Roma would not be alive. The worst genocide in human history would have destroyed mutliple cultures and races down the last man woman and child. Seriously man, have you studied the Holocaust at all? I know it's an overused point, but it was horrific beyond belief. More than any of us can come close to imagining.

Do you think I'm a fucking idiot? I AM aware of the holocaust. I have actually SEEN Auschwitz with my own eyes. I can have a pretty good idea of how bad it was. You completely missed what I was trying to convey.

Have you studied the REST of the war at all? In all probability the Soviets would have utterly battered the Germans just as they did in our version of events. They would just have got further. Probably the East-West divide would have been somewhere at the French border. Perhaps even Vichy-French if they'd been particularly swift about it.

And just think how many capitalist pig-dogs would have been killed? Probably quite a fair number of them. Easily comparable to the genocide conducted by the Nazis, I would wager.

As opposed to ending in 1945, it may have ended...outside shot, '47. The statistics may have been different, but overall, from a political point of view, not much would have changed. When you say entire cultures would cease to exist, I personally beg to differ. There will always be those who survive. Significantly MORE people from those ethnic groups may have been killed, I don't deny that. However you make it sound as if 100% of the Jewish population of the world resided in central Europe. That is simply not true. And even if it was, the Germans were unable to eradicate 100% of their own population of Jews. You cannot successfully do such a thing - people go underground. People hide. People move.

Nonetheless, I speak from a purely hypothetico-political point of view. Germany would have still lost the war, even without America's help. It would have just taken longer, and the USSR would have grabbed more land. And believe you me, the Russians were NOT very nice to the Germans. I would imagine the numbers of German noncombatants they slaughtered would easily put them down as an equal genocide if they'd been allowed to thrust even further westward.

As for much of the rest of your post, I do concur with it.

So I'd assume the world is ready for a mass genocidal civil war if/when we depart as so many of you all have stated. No one addressed my concerns of what would happen if we pull out and let the sunnis/shia/kurds free reign to slaughter each other.


I did. I said 'may the best group win'. At least thatway, you get a bit of closure and resolution of the conflict, rather than hatred brewing up and being vented here and there and killing people far more important to the American people than the Iraqis. Who, frankly, the average American couldn't give a shit about (and rightly so, given the fact that the average Iraqi probably wants to drink his blood, if your sniping is to be believed, Hostile).

It's also not been addressed that terrorist camps will spring up like weeds. And we all remember the target of terrorist camps. The West...

Only the fact that I really do think you're seeing Osama as a sort of Emmanuel Goldstein. I doubt the man is even alive anymore. As I said, it would be a cinch to set up a terroist camp inside US borders. Why the fuck would you bother to make one in a dustbowl country in the middle of nowhere 15,000 miles away? Would look a little suspicious, Arab male checking out from a flight from Afghanistan, don't you think? US authorities'd be all over that, just as they're all over any NON-Arab who fancies taking a trip over there.

I'm sorry, but you are blowing that FAR out of proportion. Besides, if the people are actually free to think for themselves, they might install someone they want to have as their leader, not someone the US wants them to have as their leader to get the cheap oil deals.

So look ahead to 3 years after a pullout when a new invasion would have to happen to detroy terrorist camps. People will state then, we should have never left and let them build them

Or they'll say "we never should've gone in in the first place. We just pissed them off all over again!"

You know they will build terrorists camps. They are already building them as well as slaughtering each other.

I really don't think so. They haven't got the time with all these stonings and witchburnings and praise-be-to-Allah's.(!) :xcahik_:

This would happen 10x more if we weren't there. I cannot fathom how anyone could deny that wholesale genocide would not happen if we left.

It's not genocide if two groups are actually fighting one another. It's genocide if one group rounds them all up and executes them all.

You'd have civil disorder, perhaps civil war. But as I say, you'll also have closure on the issue.

And I challenge anyone to suggest numerous terrorist training camps would not appear if we weren't there. At least now we find them and destroy them.

OK. I'll say it. You're blowing the terrorist thing way out of proportion. You've more chance of growing another head than finding those vaporware WMDs. You were wrong about that. I really think they'd be more worried about their own civil unrest to be worried about blowing up the US.

Either way, doesn't say a lot for the US if it can't control who comes in and out of its own borders...

Currenlty we've got alot of countries pumping funds and arms into the region for a full war. Maybe I should agree with you all and say "fuck the iraqis" let the slaughter begin and get the hell out of there now.

Go for it. As someone else said, just keep the press nearby to boost CNN's ratings.

The resource list goes on and on. This isn't speculation, this is real life. If we pull out there will be a serious fucking war. The sunnis and shia are preparing to duke it out, and there isn't shit we are gonna do about it once we leave.

I believe you. But that basically means you will be there indefinitely and permanently. Because this WON'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE US TROOPS ARE THERE. You cannot 'cure' this problem. US troops may be keeping the tiniest shred of order (which, to be fair, they're not doing as successfully as you like to profess), but the problem is STILL THERE. Those groups of people will STILL HATE EACHOTHER. They will STILL BE VIOLENT, whether US troops are there or not. As I say, better that this hatred run itself out until the sides are too pissed off and have forgotten why the hell it is they're even fighting in the first place and then the reconciliation and rebuilding can commence. The US is basically Iraq's Sudafed tablet. Suppressing what is OBVIOUSLY there, and in so doing prolonging the suffering.

But everday we stay there we prevent/delay this scenerio. So I want all the bleeding hearts to fully understand, if we pack up and go home, there will be an amazing body count.

It's already pretty amazing, to be fair.

And remember once the body count numbers start rolling in, we'll only have the bleeding hearts to blame for thier short sighted "cut and retreat'

OK, so only 10% of the population your government is not listening to. Better than the 70-odd percent not being listened to at the moment.

So if you all really care about the Iraqi people, then understand what will happen to them if we do as you all have voted for.

They do. This is DEMOCRACY dude. They want their OWN friends and family to not be dead. Why should they even care about those faraway people who are quite capable of dealing with their own problems in whatever way they deem fit? As I say, they don't need the US to hold their hand, do them up the ass and generally hold them on a damned leash.

If the US did pull out completely, then Iran would out all supporting one faction, the Saudis would support another, and the Kurds would continue to fight with both of them. Eventually, imo, this would spill out of Iraq and into the rest of the Middle East, thereby forcing the rest of the world to go in and stabilize the area in order to protect their oil supplies. So, I think pulling out would just lead into a huge bloody circle that would end with foreign troops invading again, which defeats the purpose of pulling out in the first place.

So, the map would get more complex. And why would foreign troops need to invade again? As I say, let them shoot eachother. In truth, that'd LOWER terrorism - they'd be blowing one another up and not the US. :p

#40 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 21 May 2007 - 12:58 AM

That sure sounds like a plan to follow. Retreat all the troops and pray they don't come for us. That sounds pretty wise.

Just let them shoot it out, openly kill each other. Than whoever wins is the enemy?

I'm not sure if you noticed, but there is already insurrections in your country bro? They are already there in your country planning on changing your government. And your solution is just run away and pray they don't come for us. Because it's ALL our fault they hate us.

You think because we attacked Iraq is the reason why they are attacking us. Short memory 1996 embassy bombings, 9/11. Sure we can sit with our thumbs up our asses.

But that is thier goal. If the world was perfect and did what you said we should, the war vs islam would happen in Europe. See that's very close to where you live. Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?

What concerns me the most is alot of people think like you. It's all our fault and this wouldn't have happened if we didn't invade Iraq. Shall I list the resources to support my claim that islamic terrorism is nothing new?

It's only gonna get worse if we retreat. But the flaw is, if we retreat they gain ground. And we all know where thier ulimate target lies. The West...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users