Originally posted by RedWhiteandBlood
No, I'm saying that it is not good to act like a bunch of bitchy supermodels when the stakes are this high. And guerilla warfare doesn't work. The
only way we can loose this war is by convincing ourselves we don't want to win it, which you are doing ever chance you get.
Like saying why isn't the electricty on? What are you trying to do? Say we are losing and let's pull out?
And for what? Do you want to just prove to everyone you are right and we are wrong?
That statement is very telling. You see, when I see something like "The electricity is out in Baghdad for 2 years" I say, well, we must get it back
on to improve conditions so people will have something to live for and be proud of.
You go, "We're losing, the war is a mistake. Let's give up no matter what the cost."
I do believe the war is not going well, and I think it's important that we acknowledge these facts, because only when we deal with the reality of
this war can we constructively pressure our elected leaders to change tactics promptly instead of dragging their feet for as long as they feel they
have room to do so by the voters.
I didn't say, and I don't believe, that we should give up in Iraq. I think it was a mistake to invade but it would be both disasterous and
dishonorable to pull out now. I support our troops there 100% and, while I don't believe Iraq becoming like South Korea is a possibility, at least in
the next 10-20 years, I think there is much good our troops are doing and can do to improve the situation.
OK. This is pretty hypocritical. You accuse Bush of warmongering with Iraq, and not going to war with Saudi Arabia at the same time?
Don't you think that if Bush was the war crazed fool you guys made him out to be he would go to war with everyone all at once?
Also, what do you suggest we do with this one? Oh yeah, pullout and let them cooperate even further.
Maybe you should start looking at it realistically. There is a big distinction from Saddam Hussein, someone who wanted to attack the US and helped al
Qaeda, then Saudi Arabia, a state that al Qaeda is targeting and is trying to fight terrorisn.
Saudi Arabia has some problems. They need democracy and human rights badly. But they are trying and are approaching the negotiation table civially.
Look, terrorists, drugs, and guns have come from Canada. Does this mean we are going to go to war with Canada?
I am not a peacenik opposed to all wars- I do believe, in the wake of 9/11, military action was justified. I just feel that Iraq was not the target
where best use could have been made of our forces and the mandate the US had from its people and the world immediately after 9/11. Saddam may have
had some ties to al-Qaeda, but they were not significant enough to pose a threat in the eyes of the CIA and British intelligence, as reports from
these bodies have stated.
Saudi Arabias leadership is one of the most two-faced regimes on the planet. On the one hand they play the helpless victims of fundamentalist forces,
begging the US for our guns and helicopters to fight their citizens with, but on the other hand they turn right around and use the money they get in
large part from American oil sales to fund all sorts of terror groups, preserving their image as "good muslims" for the benefit of the extremists in
I don't suggest invading Saudi Arabia outright would be a good thing, but I think an attack on terror has to be an attack on terror, everywhere, not
just in Iraq. I think we could have done a lot more to fight terror diplomatically and economically with Saudi Arabia than we ever could have
militarily with Iraq.
Pakistan seems to have an enlightened leader (as military dictators go) but our cozy relationship with them these days obfuscates the fact that their
ISI had a big hand to play in 9/11. I would like to see us being able to have good relations with Musharraf as we are trying to have, but I feel our
support for this lader may not be as beneficial in the long run as it seems. It undermines his credibility to associate with the US, and all the
hardware we are selling them currently may easily end up in the hands of a fundamentalist Pakistan should he be toppled.
OK first Saddam was funding terrorism. He had links with al Qaeda. He gave money to hamas and suicide bombers.
Also with Saddam in power there would be no chance of Iran disarming. They would have an excuse to keep their nukes.
I don't know what would happen with the Palestenian elections, but Saddam in power would screw things up.
There is Lebanon giving it's WMD program.
And there is the fact that Saddam would have got weapon sanctions removed. He had the UN in his pocket. Also what happens when Saddam dies and his
sons come into power?
But the most important thing is that you never have the oppurtunity to build a true capitalistic country in the Arab world. The idea is that building
an true democracy in Iraq will bring a ton of money in and help out the people. They will have something more to live for than terrorism and be proud
of themselves. They will also be very rich.
Imagine an economy like S. Korea, India or Japan right in the middle of the Arab world. Do you know what would happen? This terrorist problem would be
In my opinion it is worth the risk.
I would love to see Iraq, or any middle eastern country, become a new S. Korea or Japan, but I don't think it's going to happen. The people are not
the same, the history is too different. I don't think it's defeatist of me to say so. I think we might, at best, be able to turn Iraq into a kind of
Lebanon. Not 100% safe, prosperous, or democratic, but as close as is it gets in the region. Which yes, would be a good thing compared to Saddams
Iraq, but the cost will be high.
Iran would have had Israel to justify its nuclear ambitions. Saddams donations to suicide bombers were for show. The real money for such terror came
from Iran and, again, the wealthy gulf arab states. Saddam supported anti-Israeli groups because he had pan-arabist ambitions, not because he was a
The UN is a large body. Because they were taking bribes doesn't mean the weapons inspections group wasn't doing a good job. They found a lot of
stuff, and eventually Saddam realized the futility of pursuing his WMD program and quit. I can provide sources for all this if you wish.
You mean Libya, I think, regarding giving up it's WMD program. Personally, speaking as someone who knew some Libyan diplomats, they were itching for
closer ties to America for a long time now, Iraq did not cause any drastic shift in Gaddafi's thinking, although it may have sped up his timing
Okay, pakistan is a big problem. Saudi Arabia is a big problem too. But look above. They are trying and are willing to come to the table. Saddam
didn't and had to be taken out.
And focusing on domestic security? What do you mean here? Playing defense and ruin our economy by having every container inspected? That's impossible
and means the terrorists won. Also you are applying a police solution, using the FBI to fight terrorists, which they aren't equipped for.
Iraq was a unique oppurtunity to make a real change and help people. We couldn't pass this one up.
Saddam allowed inspectors into his country, only kicking them out once the US placed a spy in their ranks which was discovered. I think you could
debate just how much of a chance Saddam was given to come to the table, but your point is taken. I don't believe though that either the table or
force provides results if not used honestly, and the situation currently and our justifications for invading Iraq were not honest, and neither, I
think, is our diplomacy with the Saudis and Pakistanis.
I do believe terror is primarily a police problem. I think this issue is too complex for me to describe here, but I agree the FBI is not equipped to
deal with terror. I know it's cliche for us liberals to point to Europe as a mythical land where everything is better, but we can learn a lot from
the UK, France, Italy, and Spain, which all have much more experience with terror than the US and treat it as a police problem, with not insignificant
success. The resources being drained in Iraq could have been used in all sorts of ways to cope with terror at home. We need bomb squads, emergency
response teams, vaccines, more secure borders- there are ways to find a balance between security and an efficient economy, and whatever we are
spending on these things currently pales in comparision to what we are spending on Iraq.
Talk about playing into steroetypes. I'm a narrow headed member of the religious right I guess?
I look at Iraq as a unique oppurtunity to end terrorism. It first proves to the terrorists that who they are messing with. After the halfhearted
missle strikes and no respones, Osama thought he could do anything he wanted to. Now him, and every other terrorist out there knows we are playing for
Also we raised the stakes to their highest. If we win, there is democracy and civil rights in the richest country in the Middle East. Arabs will be
asking themselves "If it is good for Iraqis, why not me?"
We also took out a big threat. Saddam hated the US and we knew very little about him. He was bribing the UN, supporting terror, and disrupting the
region. We turned Iraq into the terrorist battlefield instead of New York.
And just to squash what you are going to say, terrorists aren't being created there. Good people don't just turnaround and say "I'm going to kill
30 schoolchildren so I can kill 2 marines." They were going to be terrorists anyways, so let's get this over with.
I admit I may have my stereotypes, and if you felt I was labelling you then I apologize. Now we are in Iraq, then yes, lets try to see it as an
opportunity and do what we can.
I don't think the bringing-the-war-to-the-enemy argument is persuasive. It's easy enough to say because we haven't experienced any large terror
attacks since 9/11, but I've seen no evidence that there is less desire to attack the US or even less capability by terror groups to do so. Those
that find it easier to go to Iraq will go there, but there are still those who have their eyes on the bigger target.
I cannot agree with your last point. Iraq *is* a breeding ground for terrorists, at least at the moment. I cannot say what makes a terrorist a
terrorist, but I can say that having your business and your loved ones killed by american bombs may turn you into a worse person than you were.
Similarily, feeling that only by joining the terrorists because you do not feel safe enough to defy them, could also change your outlook. Maybe Iraq
is not breeding terrorists directly, but it is breeding fear, anger, and instability, which terrorists thrive in.
Ultimately, I don't think pulling out of Iraq is the thing to do now, but I will not speak optimistically about the situation there unless I see
reason for optimism. I hope one day soon I will.
[edit on 5-7-2005 by koji_K]