It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pull Out of Iraq!!

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I am a libertarian leaning Republican, a former Marine, a current Christian, and a supporter of both the military assault on Iraq, and the current war on terror. I believe it is time, however, to withdraw from Iraq, and I list below both the reasons why and how we can accomplish this.
I wanted to start, however, by pointing out one very important thing. I believe that the war in Iraq has been won. The justifications for this war I was both given, and later came to on my own, has resulted in the accomplishment of the goals that I believe were set for us. There are a limited number of responsibilities that we now have in that country, most of which can be attained with the removal of our military.

What were these goals and victories I speak of? I know that there are many on this site who will tell me of the atrocities wreaked by the both awesome and terrible machine that is war. I know that many will try and say that we are past this point of barbarism, that peace and the extended hand of brotherhood are all that is needed in this modern world. I know that many of you see the wounded and dead of this war, and cannot see how this has resulted in the safety of any americans. I will answer that below...

And to the other side; I know that many may see the idea of leaving this conflict as some sort of "loss of face". Afraid that we may be seen as cowards, or worse, without the stomach to see through the results of our saber rattling. I know that many republicans fear, and should, that the democrats will seize upon this as nothing they have ever before. They will scream that they were right, that we never should have gone, that we look, and are weaker. I sadly understand that our political system is both corrupt and destructive, and that many will do anything to gain whatever they can. That many socialistic programs will come into being if the Dems are able to turn this into a landslide democratic victory in all the houses. So I say to you, that if you read what I say below, you will agree that we have as much right to claim victory as they do defeat...

So why and how;

The united states military has engaged three types of enemy thus far. Two types of insurgents;

Definitions of insurgent on the Web:

(joint) Member of a political party who rebels against established leadership. (JP 1-02)
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-07-22/glossary.htm
a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment
in opposition to a civil authority or government
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. ...

(courtesy of the Dictionary

This term applies to both the early fighting done by the remnants of the Iraqi Army, and the current fighting done by Hojatoleslam Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia.
Defeating the earlier insurgency was a goal of the U.S. military. Through both diplomacy, and a series of events that included the death of Saddam, the earlier Insurgency gave up, were defeated, or made compromises;

The Associated Press is reporting today that Izzet Al-Douri, Saddam’s former Vice-President and the currently at-large figurehead of the Ba’athist renegades, has called for a general ceasefire. Allegedly, Al-Douri’s couriers carried his message to the various midlevel commanders of the insurgency only after Saddam was found guilty and sentenced to death.

If this story is true, then it bolsters the claims made recently on Talisman Gate that the Sunni insurgency is experiencing fatigue, and that the guilty verdict issued yesterday knocked the wind out of the insurgents’ resolve to fight for re-instating Saddam. It is also seems to confirm the notion that the most recent spike in violence over the last two months was timed to coincide with America’s midterm elections.

link to source
As for the Second group of insurgents, that is an internal issue. As we are considered targets, it almost seems as though we would be better served to leave those streets. Our support of the Iraqi government should be to prevent the influence of other countries on their democratic process. Sadr and his army, if they are not attacking civilians, are only engaging in the type of civil war that we did in this country. Preventing the Iranians from sending in weapons should, however, be something we continue to stop, but more on that in a second.
The last enemy that has been engaged in Iraq are terrorist groups. We have obtained victory on this in three ways; Terrorists were unable to promote follow-up attacks on the U.S and other countries due to the resources lost fighting the U.S. troops on the battlefield. link to source
Also, resources and information gained from being "on the ground" so to speak has prevented further attacks on both the U.S. and other NATO countries, as well as helped the nations dissect cells of terrorists.
Lastly, the terrorists were forced from the post of government in Afghanistan, the result of which has been gains that any humanitarian should boast about but won't.

The point being, we have engaged our enemy, and defeated them in many ways. But we are at the point, an invisible line if you will, where our continued involvement will begin to cause more harm that it is helping. We have made our gains, and our victories, even with the worst war plan since vietnam. I know that there as been a lot of damage, collateral, and to our reputation, but we did do a lot to help this country. I believe this to be true, and Lord knows that we helped the Kurdish peoples of Iraq, whom are now thriving.
So how do we leave? Well, I say, pack up the bases, surround every american with a LOT of fire-power, and back away, carrying everything, and I mean everything, that the military brought with it back out. We turn over all of our bases to their military, and step back, running air cover over the countries borders in order to allow it time to get through it's inevitable civil war. We then need to adopt a policy of attacking government heads and military heads of rogue nations. Cruise missiles and assassination teams would have far more of a good impact than destroying an entire nations infrastructure. Trust me, you kill enough heads, some guy in line will negotiate...

So, any thoughts?

[edit on 27-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]

[edit on 27-5-2008 by jasonjnelson]




posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I admit that although these arguments ay seem obtuse, the semantics in so many political arguments prevent a lot of real change from happening. No real change is going to come of either candidates election if we cannot agree that there were many detractions and positives of the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars...



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
As a Marine, DAV, and baby killer from the Viet Nam conflict, all I can say is if Cruise missiles and assassination teams were the answer to what we went for, then we would have used Cruise missiles and assassinations teams.

What we went for was more than WMD, it was more than to remove Saddam Hussein, it was more than to liberate these people, and it was more than just oil.

America wanted a foothold in the middle east. A place we could call our own where we could control the policies, the oil, and the people.

That is something we haven't accomplished. And the reason we can't pack up and come home.

Every nation has its share of people who are willing to stand by and let other nations send their own children to die for the freedoms they want. But those freedoms are meaningless if they aren't willing to die for them themselves.

As it looks, greed took us there; our leader expected quick profits, victory parades, oil and the ability to make decisions in the Middle East that would be in our favor here at home. They wanted something in return for something they themselves wouldn't give up. Yet, they sent our children knowing some would die.

We never should have went.

We can't fix it.
We can't win it.
We can't save face.

All we can do is come home and save a few American kids in the process.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by garyo1954
 


I agree that one could find many motives and show facts to prove their point, but I digress that the meaning of this war is the same to all people. Without falling fully into the anti-bush trough, I have to assume that our leadership had a bigger picture in mind. Hopefully for the good of the nation. That said, I have to point out that from my view, I have seen, heard, and felt the positive effects this war has had on any, the Kurds to the north being the greatest example of that. I just feel that there is no way to please all people on the end result of this conflict.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Freedoms hell. Manifest destiny gone East. If we put the trillions of dollars on this mollasses that is Iraq we could have tricked USA out renewable energy sources.
Ask the hadjess how they are enjoying 'their' freedoms. This is not a mil hater thread. It's a policy hater thread.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 

Oh my God, I never thought I would ever star one of your posts. However, I don't think your boy Obama has what it takes either, not to send the cruise missiles anyway. He will pull everyone out while apologizing the whole way. This will kill us in Russia and China.

Now I am off to do the unthinkable...



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I neglected to mention in my original post, that I think nothing is more valuable that a democracy earned through blood. Screw whatever Canada did, it was only because Great Britain was forced to break up it's empire.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Star back at ya'. Ye of little faith Jason. Ok, let's put in McCain and have another 100 yrs of 'occupation'. Is that really what you want? Really?



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Cant leave Iraq now. We are there, now we have to heklp stabalize it. Its going to take time. Deal with it. Its called reality.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
'heklp stabalize it'. Do you mean 'help stabilize it?' Deal with it. It's reality.
No. I don't want to deal with it. Bring our people back and defend from the borders.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
No, i mean stay there long enough for their security forces to be able to independently handle the current situation. Leave RIGHT NOW and leave a power vacuum so that the place falls apart and into more chaos than has ever been seen there? Thats the dumbest thing ive seen yet on ATS and ive seen some stupid stuff. Its like people dont even think before posting.



Originally posted by jpm1602
'heklp stabalize it'. Do you mean 'help stabilize it?' Deal with it. It's reality.
No. I don't want to deal with it. Bring our people back and defend from the borders.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
You call yourself the prince of peace and you can't spell with a thesaurus in your hand. And you have the audicity to call 'me stupid.' It takes a village all right, a village of idiots at times.
Iraq is sucking the life blood out of this country. We can't keep printing money and smiling and drooling on ourselves saying everything is fine.
Your attitude 'deal with it' 'its reality' 'stupidity', got me. I will not fight you on this subject. I believe your behaviour speaks for itself.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 



We cant help stabalize it because we are the instability there.
Bush wants a puppet Iraqi govt. The Iraqi people
wont accept this. They will fight as long as they can to oppose
any puppet govt. The US needs to get out and let the Iraqi people
deal over who will rule. The US has to apologize and let the Iraqis
handle everything themselves.
But we know Bush wont allow this and will keep
wasting enormous amounts of money and lives.



posted on May, 27 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
No, i mean stay there long enough for their security forces to be able to independently handle the current situation. Leave RIGHT NOW and leave a power vacuum so that the place falls apart and into more chaos than has ever been seen there? Thats the dumbest thing ive seen yet on ATS and ive seen some stupid stuff. Its like people dont even think before posting.



Not to pick on you but we have a uniform and contract with your name on it. Just sign and go.

But don't expect my respect for waving a flag and talking about doing what is right, when you aren't prepared to do what you profess as being right.

Not going to happen.


[edit on 28-5-2008 by garyo1954]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I don't understand how our country still wants to stay. This war should have never began. We can defend Iraq but we can't even protect our own borders. Once those planes flew into the World Trade Centers our borders should have been impenetrable within 24 hours. Don't tell me we couldn't do it. We have the most powerful military in the world. Our border's are still wide open to terroristic threat which is the main reason why I think the country's security is a joke. I don't want to hear we haven't got attacked since 911 because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't happen. Terrorists are very patient and should not be underestimated.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Korvenus
 


While I agree with you in sentiment, I argue that we should have gone in and destroyed Saddams government. However, we should have at first contacted the heads of the military and arranged for the security of the Iraqi border. There are many things that have gone wrong in our wara. But Afghanistan was a no brainer, and based on Intel shown to congress, so was Iraq. But now is the time, for one final push against the terrorists. Convince all sides of the Iraqi nationals that we are gone when they are. Then let them have their civil war. It was this new "compassionate" war that we are forced to fight by liberals, the one where we are required to rebuild a country after leveling it, combined with the warmongers desire to occupy a piece of the middle east. Agian, we have won, based on my assessment of the goals we had for this war in Iraq. Bring the boys home, LOCK DOWN THE BORDERS, and lets use our superior military to rock the crap out of anyone from afar. We should never be afraid to use force, as long as there are others willing to do the same. And we have no more debt to Iraq, other than watching their borders for them. They need to earn their own democracy.
As I've said before, I would deal with any pain in my butt to travel internationally in exchange for the interstate travel I enjoy so freely. Lock Down My Borders, That is the Federal Governments only JOB!



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Pulling out of Iraq right now is a terrible idea and would leave the place in worse shape than it is in right now.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I can't get over the thought. 'You break my nintendo, I light you up with white phosphorous. A type of tit for tat in a big boy arena. Do it again and see where it gets you next.
I could be totally wrong, and often am.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by josephine
We cant help stabalize it because we are the instability there.

No, the instability there is the fact that it was never, ever cohesive.

And Christ, leave that guy alone for a typing error.


Now, jasonjnelson, this is truly one of the better posts I've seen on the subject. My question to you is:
Do you think that the "power vacuum" theory has any merit? That is, that our (possibly premature) departure will cause the region, or the nation, or destabilize, to fall, or otherwise cause what we have accomplished there to implode? Essentially, I'm asking, do you think that our continued presence in Iraq is preventing a catastrophe?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnmike
 


I guess that depends on your idea of a catastrophe. For example, I am working on a thread questioning the validity of a theocracy. There is only one that is not attacked regularly, and that is the Vatican. So does someone have the right to democratically vote out all other groups? Really think about that before you answer it? So if the answer is a possible yes, then it seems to me that we have three groups fighting to segregate themselves from each-other without the loss of resources or border security. The Al-Qaida in Iraq situation was the unexpected cost and somewhat benefit of the war. Our job is not to tell them what kind of democracy to have. not all democracies are the same. Will there be a power vacuum and civil war? Probably. But I don't see that as the calamity most do. A revolution or war was bound to happen eventually in that area. But we should help defend their borders.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join