Full Version: Will Iraq occupation show strength or weakness of US?
One of the pro-war comments is that the US will not cut-and-run.
Others mention that the US leaving Mogadishu was a sign to terrorists that the US was weak and would leave if Americans lost life. And that the US needs to show that it is strong by staying the course.
My question for debate:
Do you think the situation in Iraq shows that the US can win the war against terrorism, or are they showing they can NOT win?
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
Others mention that the US leaving Mogadishu was a sign to terrorists that the US was weak and would leave if Americans lost life. And that the US needs to show that it is strong by staying the course.
My question for debate:
Do you think the situation in Iraq shows that the US can win the war against terrorism, or are they showing they can NOT win?
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
QUOTE(RedCedar @ Aug 3 2006, 11:26 AM) 
Do you think the situation in Iraq shows that the US can win the war against terrorism, or are they showing they can NOT win?
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
1. Today, General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in Iraq told the Senate Armed Forces Committee that the country may fall into a civil war.
link
For months conservatives have ripped Congressman John Murtha for saying first what the generals are saying now. The United States can win the war against terrorism, but when the Bush Administration invaded Iraq, the war in Afghanistan wasn't yet over and Iraq was not the hub of terrorism that it is now. Bush has left the next president one heck of a mess due to his botched plan.
2. As Iraq slowly sinks into civil war, the Bush Administration's happy talk about troop withdrawals and turning over more of the responsibility of fighting the insurgents over to the Iraqi army looks more and more like a failed p.r. campaign. Over 100 Iraqis are being killed every day due to violence. The country is becoming more lawless and unsafe, not less so even after three years of U.S. occupation. Until the Iraqis decide they want to fight and die for their democracy, the American public will continue to turn away from the president's willingness to let our soliders die instead.
3. Yes I do and the Republican Party may pay the price for Bush's failed war in November.
Do you think the situation in Iraq shows that the US can win the war against terrorism, or are they showing they can NOT win?
The war in Iraq shows we don't care about the war on terror, this was a side-show for other purposes entirely. If we'd been committed to the "war on terror", we'd have finished the job in Afghanistan then turned our attentions to the true sponsors of terrorism, including our "friends" the Saudis. Instead, we've created a whole new breeding & training ground for terrorists and given them more reason to fight.
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
They know they will eventually win out, they don't need signs. They live there we don't and eventually we will have to leave, and terrorism will still exist in the world including Iraq for as long as they believe they have something to fight for.
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
I'm not sure that anyone believes anymore that "staying the course" means strength, instead I think it means the administration can't see a way out without admitting they were wrong and are paralyzed. They need to start listening to their Generals for a change.
The war in Iraq shows we don't care about the war on terror, this was a side-show for other purposes entirely. If we'd been committed to the "war on terror", we'd have finished the job in Afghanistan then turned our attentions to the true sponsors of terrorism, including our "friends" the Saudis. Instead, we've created a whole new breeding & training ground for terrorists and given them more reason to fight.
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
They know they will eventually win out, they don't need signs. They live there we don't and eventually we will have to leave, and terrorism will still exist in the world including Iraq for as long as they believe they have something to fight for.
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
I'm not sure that anyone believes anymore that "staying the course" means strength, instead I think it means the administration can't see a way out without admitting they were wrong and are paralyzed. They need to start listening to their Generals for a change.
Do you think the situation in Iraq shows that the US can win the war against terrorism, or are they showing they can NOT win?
I'm not really sure what you're getting at by wording the question that way, but if you're simply asking if the U.S. can win the WOT, the answer most certainly is yes. Some people in this country may not want us to win, at least as long as there's a Republican in the White House, so they do everything they can to demoralize our side. That's a time-honored method of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, so they can then point to the results and say "See? We're not gonna win this thing," and on and on the cycle continues. Will they succeed? That depends in large part on how wise the American people become to the tactics of the doomsayers.
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
If we give in to the incessant calls to pull out, that will certainly send that signal. The fact that there are signs that the administration is giving in is already having an effect on the situation in Iraq, in my view. If you're an Iraqi, and it appears to you that the U.S. is going to pull out soon, your incentive is going to be to get as much of a personal advantage out of the situation as you can. That means striking at your sectarian rivals, or it means offing a U.S. soldier for a quick buck, paid for by the insurgency. All wars are sensitive to internal division on one side to some degree, but that's especially true for this war. The lack of unity on our side is in all likelihood having a very real effect the situation on the ground.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at by wording the question that way, but if you're simply asking if the U.S. can win the WOT, the answer most certainly is yes. Some people in this country may not want us to win, at least as long as there's a Republican in the White House, so they do everything they can to demoralize our side. That's a time-honored method of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, so they can then point to the results and say "See? We're not gonna win this thing," and on and on the cycle continues. Will they succeed? That depends in large part on how wise the American people become to the tactics of the doomsayers.
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
If we give in to the incessant calls to pull out, that will certainly send that signal. The fact that there are signs that the administration is giving in is already having an effect on the situation in Iraq, in my view. If you're an Iraqi, and it appears to you that the U.S. is going to pull out soon, your incentive is going to be to get as much of a personal advantage out of the situation as you can. That means striking at your sectarian rivals, or it means offing a U.S. soldier for a quick buck, paid for by the insurgency. All wars are sensitive to internal division on one side to some degree, but that's especially true for this war. The lack of unity on our side is in all likelihood having a very real effect the situation on the ground.
Do you think the situation in Iraq shows that the US can win the war against terrorism, or are they showing they can NOT win?
We have been fed a number of reasons for invading Iraq: (1) weapons of mass, (2) create a “democracy” in the Middle East, (3) fight them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here,” (4) and now it seems the invasion of Iraq has become an integral part of the “war against terrorism.”
I reject No. 4 completely. I question whether or not the "War on Terrorism" forum is the correct place to start Iraq threads. "Foreign Policy" might be a better forum for Iraq threads than the "War on Terrorism," but that's a terrifying thought. It would stress optimism and diplomacy rather than pessimism and war.
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
Fighting a war in a democracy is different than fighting them in a more controlled state. Here are two examples of opposition to earlier wars. One can find similar opposition to other wars
Even during the Revolutionary War, loyalists in the colonies rejected the split with England.
Revolutionary War
http://www.plpsd.mb.ca/amhs/history/loyalists.html
WWI
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_73_Notes.htm
In short, I think the freedom of speech rights of Cindy Sheehan and others far outstrips any imagined damages to the effort in Iraq.
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
I agree with what Thomas Friedman said on Sunday's Meet the Press.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14028605/page/6/
Yes, things do seem to be backfiring. My hope is we can wade through the mire for a couple of years and elect someone in 2008 who is less pigheaded than our current “leader” and more capable of implementing meaningful diplomacy and foreign policy than Bush and Rice.
We have been fed a number of reasons for invading Iraq: (1) weapons of mass, (2) create a “democracy” in the Middle East, (3) fight them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here,” (4) and now it seems the invasion of Iraq has become an integral part of the “war against terrorism.”
I reject No. 4 completely. I question whether or not the "War on Terrorism" forum is the correct place to start Iraq threads. "Foreign Policy" might be a better forum for Iraq threads than the "War on Terrorism," but that's a terrifying thought. It would stress optimism and diplomacy rather than pessimism and war.
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
Fighting a war in a democracy is different than fighting them in a more controlled state. Here are two examples of opposition to earlier wars. One can find similar opposition to other wars
Even during the Revolutionary War, loyalists in the colonies rejected the split with England.
Revolutionary War
QUOTE
About 16% of the total American population were colonists who did not want to break away from Britain. That meant that 500,000 colonists wished to remain loyal to the British crown. They were mostly farmers. They were called British Empire Loyalists because of their loyalty as British subjects.
http://www.plpsd.mb.ca/amhs/history/loyalists.html
WWI
QUOTE
As stated earlier during World War I (and other times but that has been covered before and will be covered again) the United States government attempted to silence opposition to the war and thus restrict the rights of citizens. The government claimed these restrictions were necessary in order to protect the good of our society. Where they right? That question was for the United States Supreme Court to answer.
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_73_Notes.htm
In short, I think the freedom of speech rights of Cindy Sheehan and others far outstrips any imagined damages to the effort in Iraq.
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
I agree with what Thomas Friedman said on Sunday's Meet the Press.
QUOTE(MR. RUSSERT TIM Quoting THOMAS FRTEDMAN:)
“The world hates George Bush more than any U.S. president in my lifetime. He is radioactive - and so caught up in his own ideological bubble that he is incapable of imagining or forging alternative strategies.” Pretty strong.
MR. THOMAS FRIEDMAN: It was strong. It’s meant to be strong. Look at the situation we’re now in. You can’t go anywhere in the world right now—and I travel a lot—without getting that feeling from people thrown in your face. Why is that? You know, I’ve been asking myself that a lot. Some of it’s excessive, this dislike, this distaste, this hatred of George Bush. But what’s it about? Whenever you see something that excessive, you know?
<snip>
And so when we go from a country that, historically, has always exported hope to a country that always exports fear, what we do, and what this administration has done, is actually stolen something from people. Whether it’s an African or a European or an Arab or Israeli, it’s that idea of an optimistic America out there. People really need that idea, and the sort of dark nature of the Cheneys and the Bushes and the Rices, this, this sort of relentless pessimism about the world, this exporting of fear, not hope, has really left people feeling that the idea of America has been stolen from them. And I would argue that that is the animating force behind so much of the animus directed at George Bush.
MR. THOMAS FRIEDMAN: It was strong. It’s meant to be strong. Look at the situation we’re now in. You can’t go anywhere in the world right now—and I travel a lot—without getting that feeling from people thrown in your face. Why is that? You know, I’ve been asking myself that a lot. Some of it’s excessive, this dislike, this distaste, this hatred of George Bush. But what’s it about? Whenever you see something that excessive, you know?
<snip>
And so when we go from a country that, historically, has always exported hope to a country that always exports fear, what we do, and what this administration has done, is actually stolen something from people. Whether it’s an African or a European or an Arab or Israeli, it’s that idea of an optimistic America out there. People really need that idea, and the sort of dark nature of the Cheneys and the Bushes and the Rices, this, this sort of relentless pessimism about the world, this exporting of fear, not hope, has really left people feeling that the idea of America has been stolen from them. And I would argue that that is the animating force behind so much of the animus directed at George Bush.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14028605/page/6/
Yes, things do seem to be backfiring. My hope is we can wade through the mire for a couple of years and elect someone in 2008 who is less pigheaded than our current “leader” and more capable of implementing meaningful diplomacy and foreign policy than Bush and Rice.
QUOTE
Do you think the situation in Iraq shows that the US can win the war against terrorism, or are they showing they can NOT win?
Too soon to tell. If we cut and run as some would have us do we are doomed. The terrorists will see we can be beaten by their psychological warfare techniques.
QUOTE
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
It will be only if we bail out and let them win.
QUOTE
Do you think the policies for Iraq are actually backfiring on the purpose of this White House to show strength?
No war is good for an incumbent. Lots of money is spent and people die. Mistakes are always made and the opposition takes full advantage of same to make themselves look better.
QUOTE
Is this war sending a sign to terrorists that if they hold on, eventually they will win out?
The invader is on light ground so no matter the creed or religion or cause, the home team will always be able to win out. Docile minds lead people to take the easy way out, mentally speaking. Taking our principles and applying them to the other side of the world is a form of ignorance and short sighted. Watching a Fox story on a group building an Afghan or Iraqi school doesn't use the same formula as them building one in Ohio or Omaha or Florida or Texas and it's high time americans and westerners in general realized it. Does no one think about how in the past 20 days thousands of people have become victims in a mess which will only get worse now? Actually, I think that's the Planners' plan.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.