..that the Iraqi's don't want them there either, and they should pull out now, before another 2,500 soldiers are killed. Who cares what happens over there anyway? Get out now and let them deal with it themselves. We can defend ourselves for the most part. We shouldn't worry about what happens in other countries. They should be left to fend for themselves.
| CNN wrote: |
Iraqi colleagues killed U.S. soldiers, military says
Wednesday, June 21, 2006; Posted: 11:11 a.m. EDT (15:11 GMT)
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Two California soldiers shot to death in Iraq were murdered by Iraqi civil-defense officers patrolling with them, military investigators have found.
...
...
"I really want this story to come out; I want people to know what happened to my son," she said. "There is no doubt to me that this (ambushes by attached Iraqi units) is still happening to soldiers today, but our chain of command is awfully reckless; they don't seem to give a damn about what's happening to soldiers."
Iraqi forces who had trained with the Americans had fired at them twice before the incident that killed Patrick McCaffrey, and he had reported it to his superiors, she said.
|
| Quote: |
| ..that the Iraqi's don't want them there either, and they should pull out now, before another 2,500 soldiers are killed. Who cares what happens over there anyway? Get out now and let them deal with it themselves. We can defend ourselves for the most part. We shouldn't worry about what happens in other countries. They should be left to fend for themselves. |
They didn't want you there at all though so I'm afraid political high-ground taking comes into play. The US will insist on appearing to be as moral as it can and with the rest of the world (rightly) taking the "you started it, so you finish it" stance I can't see a withdrawl happenning any time soon.
That is on top of the fact that the US is far to proud to admit to being beaten. Withdrawl is far too easily warped into retreat.The problem is its as simple as some people like it to be You can't just ignore whats happening in other country's as it has an effect on us. We can't just sit back and let shit happing with out at least tiering help. Now I;m not saying we should go out and take over other country's in the name of good will but do what we can to help as much and as many as we can. I
The problem with Iraq is if we stay, we have to stay for a llllooonnnngggg time , if we leave it will come back to bight us in the ass. Ether its just as bad, its a loose loose situation. The question is :how do you wont to loose?"
| The Conspirator wrote: |
...
The problem with Iraq is if we stay, we have to stay for a llllooonnnngggg time , if we leave it will come back to bight us in the ***. Ether its just as bad, its a loose loose situation. The question is :how do you wont to loose?" |
If those are the only two options, I'd have to say that leaving now would save lives, while leaving later would save face... tough call.Not unnecessary. In the 80's during the Soviet war in Afghanistan the US supplied the Mujahideen with weapons and money helping tern the Soviets war there into the Soviet version of Vietnam, then when the Soviets pulled out the US let the country go to hell which ultimately lead to the Taliban and 9/11. So if we leave now it could end up costing us more lives in the future.
Iraq and decision made about Iraq will have effect long into the future. So you have to ask your self "What effect will Iraq and the decision made about Iraq have 5, 10, 1,5 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now and on into the future?"
| The Conspirator wrote: |
Not unnecessary. In the 80's during the Soviet war in Afghanistan the US supplied the Mujahideen with weapons and money helping tern the Soviets war there into the Soviet version of Vietnam, then when the Soviets pulled out the US let the country go to hell which ultimately lead to the Taliban and 9/11. So if we leave now it could end up costing us more lives in the future.
Iraq and decision made about Iraq will have effect long into the future. So you have to ask your self "What effect will Iraq and the decision made about Iraq have 5, 10, 1,5 20, 30, 50, 100 years from now and on into the future?" |
I don't disagree that there would be effects due to our pulling out. So what do you see as being possiblities that would cost more lives than staying. As a thought game, assume we pull out all troops, but continue to support whatever government evolves. Be an ally, but let the Iraqi government police their own country. Can you give one or two situations that might arise that would lead to a worse situation?The government falls, a civil war ensues, the winning side being or allied to fundamentalist Muslim militants, who then tern Iraq into a theocracy, Iraq become a hiding and training ground for radical fundamentalist Muslim militants who then plan a big attack on the US (like a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons), they then succeed dwarfing 9/11.
Such events could play out over a long period of time so we may nit feel the full effects of pulling out until 10, 15 years in the future.
Well that's what the US gets for electing an idiot like B*sh TWICE!!!! They should just pull out. It will save a lot of lives. The situation will get worse at first but will eventually improve. There will be no improvement if the US maintains the current troop levels.
The US screwed up and that's the price you pay for such a royal f*** up!!
Hopefully , US won't learn from terrible lessons.
| lyndonray wrote: |
Well that's what the US gets for electing an idiot like B*sh TWICE!!!! They should just pull out. It will save a lot of lives. The situation will get worse at first but will eventually improve. There will be no improvement if the US maintains the current troop levels.
The US screwed up and that's the price you pay for such a royal f*** up!! |
But the thing is, it could end up costing more lives if we just pull out. We leave, the Iraqi "government" falls, civil war ensues, who ever takes over would have won using terrorism and be allied with other terrorist groups. Thus Iraq could become a place for terrorists to hide, train and plan attack. And its only a madder of time before there is a biological, chemical and nuclear attack.
Thus leaving could end up costing more lives. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| lyndonray wrote: | Well that's what the US gets for electing an idiot like B*sh TWICE!!!! They should just pull out. It will save a lot of lives. The situation will get worse at first but will eventually improve. There will be no improvement if the US maintains the current troop levels.
The US screwed up and that's the price you pay for such a royal f*** up!! |
But the thing is, it could end up costing more lives if we just pull out. We leave, the Iraqi "government" falls, civil war ensues, who ever takes over would have won using terrorism and be allied with other terrorist groups. Thus Iraq could become a place for terrorists to hide, train and plan attack. And its only a madder of time before there is a biological, chemical and nuclear attack.
Thus leaving could end up costing more lives. |
Could. Maybe not. That is for someone with more info than anyone here to mull over. I see what you're saying, but couldn't that be true of scores of other third wolrd countries? Do we impose our military on any place that "might" be a danger to us in the next 50 years? I don't think we have the right or the resources to do that. The government is going to have to make a decision and I haven't been convinced that the possibilites of damage to the US are worse if we pull out than if we stay.I'm afraid we're stuck. There are two basic options:
1) Stay. It may be for an extended period, but we should see the work through and not leave the country in disarray (then even MORE people would be mad).
2) We can leave. Iraq collapses, another dictator comes to power, and we're back at square one. The 2500 soldiers who have died would have died in vain.
I really think we need a long-term, stable plan.
| Soulfire wrote: |
I'm afraid we're stuck. There are two basic options:
1) Stay. It may be for an extended period, but we should see the work through and not leave the country in disarray (then even MORE people would be mad).
2) We can leave. Iraq collapses, another dictator comes to power, and we're back at square one. The 2500 soldiers who have died would have died in vain.
I really think we need a long-term, stable plan. |
I agree with your last statement, but that's about it. We really need a plan.
In option 2 you just assume it will collapse. I don't think that is a proven concept.
Option 1 ensures more deaths and more anger. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Soulfire wrote: | I'm afraid we're stuck. There are two basic options:
1) Stay. It may be for an extended period, but we should see the work through and not leave the country in disarray (then even MORE people would be mad).
2) We can leave. Iraq collapses, another dictator comes to power, and we're back at square one. The 2500 soldiers who have died would have died in vain.
I really think we need a long-term, stable plan. |
I agree with your last statement, but that's about it. We really need a plan.
In option 2 you just assume it will collapse. I don't think that is a proven concept.
Option 1 ensures more deaths and more anger. |
But thats not an assumption, its a fact, the government in Iraq (if you could call it that) dose not have the power nor dose it have the support to stand on its own. It is only by the our troupes being there that it stands.
Best case scenario is it would become like Iran just after its revolution, worse case scenario is Iraq brakes up into 3 different country's a Sheit and Sunni country both with radical fundamentalist theocracy's and A Kurdish nation to the north which would have allot of problems with Turkey. | The Conspirator wrote: |
But thats not an assumption, its a fact, the government in Iraq (if you could call it that) dose not have the power nor dose it have the support to stand on its own. It is only by the our troupes being there that it stands.
Best case scenario is it would become like Iran just after its revolution, worse case scenario is Iraq brakes up into 3 different country's a Sheit and Sunni country both with radical fundamentalist theocracy's and A Kurdish nation to the north which would have allot of problems with Turkey. |
I have to disagree with your use of "fact". I don't think it is in anyway guaranteed that it would collapse. At best you could say "likely to". And to further state that the best case would be Iran like just more suppostion. To state this as "fact" is just misleading, to say the least.
These are poosiblities. It is also possible that it would stablize. Maybe not with a govenrment we approve of, but that is not the point, is it? Are all Islamic states trying to attack the US?
A fact is that our troops are getting killed daily. Another fact is that our being there is a constant source of outrage to many Islamic groups, terrorist and otherwise. Still another fact is the our stated reason for being there was incorrect.
I still think that getting out is our best chance to stop the loss of US lives and stop causing more hatred against the US.But it won't get any better there, it will only get worse, the majority of the Iraqis doing the fighting are fighting the US and currant Iraqi government not to mention that the problems between the Sunnis and Sheits are far from salved. Remember the majority of Iraqis did not support Hussein just as the majority of Cubans do not support Castro but it doesn't madder who the majority supports, it madders who has the power and the currant Iraqi govwermint dose not have the power and if we leave, it will collapse and that collapse will lead to a vacuum of power leading to civil war and ultimately the one who takes over will be a fundamentalist Islamic militant much like post revolutionary Iran.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| But it won't get any better there, ... |
I admire your absolute knowledge and your ability to ignore anything else. I still hold that you are using worst case scenarios to justify the loss of hundreds or thousands of US troops. Remember, people were absolutely sure
that if we pulled out of Nam, all of southeast asia would fall to the communists and threaten world peace.But Iraq is not Vietnam, were not dealing with a government, we are dealing with radial fundamentalist militant. The Iraqi government dose not have the power to stand on its own, it will collapse and there will be no government to take its place like in Vietnam, that leads to chaos and civil war and who ever wins will be a radial fundamentalist militant. Thats the best case scenario.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| But Iraq is not Vietnam, were not dealing with a government, we are dealing with radial fundamentalist militant. The Iraqi government dose not have the power to stand on its own, it will collapse and there will be no government to take its place like in Vietnam, that leads to chaos and civil war and who ever wins will be a radial fundamentalist militant. Thats the best case scenario. |
Well, you mean "Radical" I think, but again you missed the point and are unable admit anything but omnipotence... the ref to Nam was to point out how sure they were before the pull out and how wrong they were after.
You keep repeating the same suppositions as fact and they are not. The only fact in this discussion is that US soldiers are being killed and we are p*ssing off another generation of potential terrorists. That is a fact. That is occurring as we type back and forth. All of you arguments for staying are "predictions".
And as I said earlier (and you ignored) are we supposed to attack and occupy every country that has a predictive capability to harm us 50 years in the future?Were not talking about other country's, were talking about Iraq.
1. We started the shit over there.
2. Right now, given the power base of the Iraqi government and the currant situation, the best case scenario is not near good.
3. You have to ask :how will this action effect the future" and then look at the most plausible scenario. The most plausible scenario is a civil war and radical fundamentalist militants taking over.
Not looking at the plausible consequence of of our acting is how jr. got us in this situation.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
Were not talking about other country's, were talking about Iraq.
|
Let me say it again. You are guessing about any future US casualites. LIke I said...
| Quote: |
The only fact in this discussion is that US soldiers are being killed and we are p*ssing off another generation of potential terrorists. That is a fact. That is occurring as we type back and forth. All of you arguments for staying are "predictions".
And as I said earlier (and you ignored) are we supposed to attack and occupy every country that has a predictive capability to harm us 50 years in the future? |
S3nd K3ys, why do you have to keep posting these? At first it was fun, pulling a few idiots out of the wood work to harass, but I think your just validating their shenanigans now.
I haven’t heard uninformed CNN special (now I’m an expert) heard-it-from (95% of what people say they heard from someone else, the other 5% is BS) crap like this in a while.
US ‘started’ it
Mujahidin
Vietnam
Get out now = save lives
Get out Later = save face
Things not going well……
I’m boycotting ‘Discus World News’ for the next week. No….maybe I’ll just PM you every time someone posts something asinine to these sarcastic topics of yours.
You simplifying the situation's far from 1 fact in play here.
For a government to survive it needs to have enough power to defeat or find off any internal and or external forces against it. Now this usually means a powerful military and police force. The insurgents do not like the Iraqi government, that is a fact, the Iraqi government dose not have a powerful enough military yet, that is a fact, the Iraqi government dose not have a powerful enough police force yet, that is a fact. Out them all together and the fact you get is the Iraqi government can not stand on ts own.
With out the support of the US troupes the Iraqi government will collapse. Which out anything to take its place, it will lead to chaos and civil war and other than the foreign military forces in Iraq, the most powerful group is the insurgents who are dominated by radical fundamentalist militants who are allied with other radical fundamentalist Islamic militants (you know, "Islamic terrorist groups")
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| You simplifying the situation's far from 1 fact in play here..... |
And you can read tea leaves while US soildiers die.
I'm gonna let you get the last word now and then sit back and see if anyone else is even here. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
S3nd K3ys, why do you have to keep posting these? At first it was fun, pulling a few idiots out of the wood work to harass, but I think your just validating their shenanigans now.
|
It wasn't about pulling idiots out of the woodwork, but that's a nice 'beni'. And while I enjoy pulling them out of the woodwork, it's not to harrass them, it's more to enlighten the ignorant and expose the radicals. (The latter usually takes care of itself with just a little prodding.)
As for validation of their mis-informedness, I'm sorry. I have to make a good case in order to be successful. Something many on the other side still haven't figured out yet.
But if you're getting fed up by what little I've done so far, you might as well stay outta here for good. There's going to be some 'situations' coming up in Iraq very soon which I intend to let loose on... It's not going to look good for Shrub-co and friends. 
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: | | You simplifying the situation's far from 1 fact in play here..... |
And you can read tea leaves while US soildiers die.
I'm gonna let you get the last word now and then sit back and see if anyone else is even here. |
I not reading tea leaves. I'm judging the mos plausible outcome of an action based on the currant situation.
The world isn't simples, the world isn't fare and the would isn't just. It doesn't madder what the people support what matters is power, who has, who wont's it, what there willing to do to get it and what they are willing to do with it. You can't just do something and hope for the best, you have to look at the currant situation, look at all the factors in play and from that you must judge the most plausible outcome. Sometimes you will find that what seems the best action would do more harm than good.
I know US solders are dieing there but thats what solders do, the very nature of there job is risking there lives in extreme and dangerous situation's and if they leave, the situation will get allot worse and allot more innocent people will suffer and die and I don;t give a damn what nationality they are they are people and thats all I need to know. | The Conspirator wrote: |
| HoboPelican wrote: | | The Conspirator wrote: | | You simplifying the situation's far from 1 fact in play here..... |
And you can read tea leaves while US soildiers die.
I'm gonna let you get the last word now and then sit back and see if anyone else is even here. |
I not reading tea leaves. I'm judging the mos plausible outcome of an action based on the currant situation.
The world isn't simples, the world isn't fare and the would isn't just. It doesn't madder what the people support what matters is power, who has, who wont's it, what there willing to do to get it and what they are willing to do with it. You can't just do something and hope for the best, you have to look at the currant situation, look at all the factors in play and from that you must judge the most plausible outcome. Sometimes you will find that what seems the best action would do more harm than good.
I know US solders are dieing there but thats what solders do, the very nature of there job is risking there lives in extreme and dangerous situation's and if they leave, the situation will get allot worse and allot more innocent people will suffer and die and I don;t give a damn what nationality they are they are people and thats all I need to know. |
As someone who has so much trouble with English, I bet you sure are a good source for speculation based on knowledge... 
