Hard to say how long, but we pulled out, turned our back and how did that turn out for South Vietnam?


No, I would say stop because it is nothing close to what we are talking about. Nice try, but it doesn't relate.


Again, I don't see the relevence. Can you compare apples and apples, or do we continue to use unrelated comparisons?

I guess I want a summary. You are willing to leave the Iraqi people behind, without security, without a government, without any type of protection and let them fend for themselves?

The logic problem with the argument of soldiers 'dying in vain' is that it is self-perpetuating. The more soldiers die, the more that they would have died in vain if we leave? So to stop that paradigm from occurring, we have to let more soldiers die? There's never an end. Just as there is never an answer from Iraq war supporters as to how long or how many casualties will be too much.

I thought that Iraq war advocates supported the troops?

Which is one reason I left that out. Both sides can use the argument. By the way, since when was a set timetable and a death count used to determine the outcome of a war? I don't know of any time in history that was used. I will admit that I am not a history major.

Again, I ask those that insist on an immediate withdraw, are you comfortable with leaving the Iraqi people with no protection? Do you honestly think they will be safe? Do honestly think they will be better off without us?

This is the wrong question. The right question is: will the Iraqis be *worse off* without us? The answer here is "no". The Iraqis will see increased violence in some places and decreased violence in other places. The Iraqis, of course, will not be safe. They haven't been safe. They won't be safe for a very long time. The Iraqis weren't safe under Saddam; neither are they safe under the thumb of US occupation. There is no safety in war.

Ok, so they won't be worse off. How do you know this? You seem pretty certain of yourself. I guess I would agree that if the Iraqi people kept their mouths shut and didn't cause the Saddam regime any trouble, they were probably not going to be killed. Sounds like they were pretty well off. I don't think that is a valid argument to turn our backs on the country that we decimated. I would think most people with a conscience would agree that we should fix what we broke. You think we look like bullies now? What does it say when we go in, destroy their government, destroy their country and then just walk away?

Well, you could win or concede defeat. You are on the ground, or at least have been of late. Which do you think is more likely?
Mrs Pigpen recently posted poll results that indicate Iraq is improving. The BBC writes articles which make Iraq look like its heading in the abyss of civil war. I have supported and been against the war depending on the information I have had. Currently I think John McCain's position is the most realistic. Pulling out now would be irresponsible and render the last five years efforts null and void. Yes, it means more soldiers dying, but I'm afraid that is what you, as a people, voted for when you put GW Bush back into office. If America really cared, then American apathy wouldn't be so great a problem.

There is a simple way out. Vote for Barack Obama.


Thats a question no one can ever answer with a number DTOM, and surely you already know that.

How many casualties will be too much?

The answer is one more than it takes to get the job done.


edited to add apathy link.

You are disputing logophage's suggestion that Iraqis won't be any worse off, if not better, if we leave. Are you not working under an assumption that things are going to get better? Why do you think that things will get better if we stay? How long will it take? How many more Americans and Iraqis will get killed? How much will it cost? Will the costs bankrupt this country or interfere with things we need to do in, like revitalization of our infrastructure? What limits, if any, do you put on our continuation in Iraq?


Quarkhead is presenting an analogy. If you’ve ever looked at one of those books that is supposed to prepare people for Mensa membership, you realize understanding analogies is a big thing.
By nature, an analogy can address apples, by making a comparison to oranges or whatever.

You have used this “apples to apples” argument in so many posts, that it's to a point of ad nauseam.The argument is so old, and in the case of analogies so wrong, that one might think the apple was a lemon if they actually bit into it.

You might review the definition of analogy, before you drag out that apples to apple argument again.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy

It is more of an assertion that by leaving, it is more logical to me that things would get worse. Where do you suppose all of the insurgents are going to go? Are they just going to dissapear and become model citizens and follow whatever the new Iraqi government says? Do you think that there aren't powers in this world that are just dying to get in and topple the weak Iraqi government and take over another dictatorship? I can't imagine how things would be better there now without us.

I understand you don't like my form of debate, but when you want to buy a new car, do you compare the Toyota Camry with a Mac truck? Let's be realistic. Comparing things that are so dissimilar is not condusive. We are talking about leaving the Iraqi people without any form of strong security. You honestly support that?

It seems you do not understand analogies or how they work. Quark's analogy was a bit more sophisticated than what you are talking about above.

Ok, so we are now arguing the fundamentals of an analogy. Great. How about this analogy: The police bust into your home, breaking all of your windows and doors. They tear up your house looking for drugs and guns. The crash through walls and break your possessions. They throw tear gas to gain control of everyone in the house, which now is a lingering stench. Then, one says, "Ok, we have destroyed the place and we are getting no where, let's take off!" Wouldn't you want them to provide some sort of security and fix everything they broke before they left you high and dry? Don't you think that it would be their responsibility to fix what was broken by them, make sure that your family was safe until all the windows and doors were replaced? Don't you think that they should post a patrol car in front of your house while they rebuild everything destroyed by their search? Or would you be ok with your family exposed to anyone that wanted to jump through the broken windows and busted down doors to steal from you or harm your family? Do you think you should be responsible for fixing the walls, replacing the property that was damaged, putting up new doors and windows?

I think this is the best analogy to what we did in Iraq, and what many people are calling for our government to do. But you are right, BoF, I don't understand what an analogy is.

Colin Powell made the observation to Bush before the war that if we broke it, we had to fix it. Bush listened to Cheney and an assortment of other neocon fools instead, Look where it's taken us.

Here's where your analogy falls apart. If the police did what you suggest, especially without a search warrant, then they would take off. If the citizen filed a complaint, then in internal affairs would look into the matter. If the matter were egregious enough the city, county or state - depending on jurisdiction - would offer a monetary settlement. If the home owner didn't think the proposal was adequate or the jurisdiction did not offer one, then the homeowner could sue.

If the "poor Iraqi" sob story is all you've got, and I'm not sure that was the intent of the thread, then how about this for a solution. We should figure out how much damage we've caused. Propose paying that amount to the Iraqi government. They could propose an alternate amount. If agreement could not be reached, then an international body could - perhaps the World Court - arbitrate the matter.

Once we paid a fair amount, we could get the hell out of Dodge and let the Iraqis fix it themselves.

I'm sure there is technology in other parts of the world to do the rebuilding.

The hated occupier would be gone and what we broke would be fixed.

In the long run, I think it would save both American and Iraqi lives and money.

I have been reading this thread with considerable interest in the insights many have provided here. Most interesting and insightful in my opinion have been those shared by DTOM because I think it adds a context to this discussion that most people may not understand. DTOM is right that most Americans don't really understand war, probably moreso now than any other time in American history. They haven't seen the face of war "up close and personal". So, we have threads like this where numbers like 4000 are discussed with the antiseptic view of statistics comparing this number to the body counts of past wars and to some "it ain't so bad". To others, there is the emotional argument of what a "tragedy the death of 4000 Americans is" as though the shear weight of that number is what counts. If it were "only 2000" it would be better, 6000 and it would be worse. These are abstract numbers, and to be honest, they don't mean a damn thing. DTOM's cited article from TIME magazine explains why. Wars aren't fought in thousands by the warriors fighting them. They are fought on a much smaller scale, single and maybe double digits. Usually, it's the guy kneeling next to you in some stinking rice paddy or in the middle of some other godforsaken hellhole and the goal is survive the day. You and him and when something bad happens and his brains get blown out and you taste them and you realize that an inch or two to the left or right and your brains would be spattered into his mouth...... And, you wonder if that might not have been better...... That was what that young soldier was talking about in TIME. The day when that happens the ONLY number that's important in the war is the number ONE. Unfortunately, the nature of war is that number continues to grow, maybe to TWO, maybe to FIVE or TEN.

"My" war's number was in excess of 58,000 for the statisticians, but when I visit The WALL in DC, my number is 6. All of those names, and I see 6. And the other people there visiting that WALL, see another number, maybe ONE for a son or daughter, or a brother or sister or a father or mother. That WALL isn't a picture of the tragedy that was Vietnam, it is a mosaic of tragedies that was Vietnam and that is the nature of war. The "big picture" may mean something to strategists planning campaigns and to politicians making decisions on them, but to the guys and gals on the ground, it's not quite such a grand scale. People on both sides should understand this when they start arguing numbers either way. It's not really that important at the end of the day.

So, why do we do this at all? How can I support a war like we are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? DTOM once again supplies the insight with his signature. "Americans are at the mall"..... I could interject a comment about rather having them there shopping than at an airfield spitting on returning soldiers and taunting them with cries of "baby killer" and "war criminal", but America has grown up a little in the past 30 years. Now, they shop at the mall, drive their cars, watch the NCAA Basketball Tournament on television and BBQ on the 4th of July. They also come to places like AD and post without fear of retribution that President Bush is a moron and an idiot, and this country is going to hell in a hand-basket. They can do that. Try doing that under a tyrant or an oppressive society like many of those who oppose America have. That's why we fight these wars. Some here have a different viewpoint and think there might be a better way, and that's a good subject for public debate. Some may choose instead to go to the mall. Some, our best and brightest have chosen to go to into battle. The death of even one of those fine people is a tragedy and it has been through our history. The numbers don't matter, they lend no additional weight to the sacrifices made. What does matter is that people are still free to sign on to places like America's Debate and exercise their freedom to criticize their leaders. Or, they can choose instead to go to the mall.


Aquilla

Like Shafer, I wonder whether spitting on returning Vietnam vets is more myth than fact. And if fact, whether a few incidents have been stretched to support one ideology.

If it is true I disagree we've grown up much. We may not be spitting on vets precisely because we're at the mall.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!
I can think of nothing. Presuming Iraq/Iran will turn off the oil is a wasted thought. Presuming Iraq/Iran will squeeze the oil as leverage to pursue their own policies is politics as usual except, good heavens, it is states other than Saudi Arabia messing with us. Even then international pressure will come to bear and limit their aspirations and the regimes have to contend with their own populations.

Some international corporations won't get to control more resources if we pulled out. Boo hoo.

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?
Opposition may be ongoing but it isn't as pervasive as it was pre-invasion and therefore isn't meaningful. I hope the country is waiting for 2008 to pressure a Democratic Congress and White House into picking one of 50 available plans for an orderly withdrawal.

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?
Yes and yes.

It's a fact. Whether you or Shafer chose to believe it or not is completely up to you. I don't care one way or the other.

Your second statement makes absolutely no sense. But then again......


Aquilla

If the cops did that to me, I think I'd want them the hell out of there.

Of course, they are leaving, and you have to fix everything yourself, hope that no one breaks in before you get your home secured and you have to replace anything they broke. No help from them at all. Good plan? Not even the most adament against the war would think that is appropriate.

Hey, it's your analogy, answer it any way you want. But consider....

Do you want the same guys that wrongfully trashed your house to stick around, sitting there in your house for years as a reminder of how you were wronged? You would trust the same guys who ruined your place to put it back together the way you would do it, and not with their own plan? What would you say to them when they expect you to thank them for all of their trouble? How about when they want you to pay for their time and repair job with your assets (oil, in this case)?

If you want to throw roses at their feet, there they are, propped up on your good coffee table. Just don't look too threatening when you do it.

No, I would expect them to fix everything. If that means bringing in another group to help (UN), then so be it. You can't honestly say that you would rather they come in, destroy everything then leave you with the mess, and without security. If you can, you are the wrong person to be having a discussion with. Spin it all you want, but the fact is, no sane person would want them to just leave without fixing everything that is broken. We have destroyed the country of Iraq. We leave now, we will be leaving them without any form of security, and leaving the mess up to them to clean up. How can you honestly say that this is ok?

I have a question for you, scubatim. In 2003, when this war started, you were a 25-year-old, intelligent being - an adult with knowledge of what was going on around him.

Did you approve of Bush and his wrecking crew tearing the place up as much as you want it put back together now?

From the little that I followed politics at the time, yes I did. I am not one that buys into the theory that Bush just wants to rule the world. I am not one that buys into the theory that he wanted to finish the job is Daddy didn't complete (or Clinton for that matter). Since Rockefeller at the time was on the Intelligence committee, read the same intelligence reports as Bush, and our Congress easily approved military action, I trusted them and supported them.

However, whether or not you think it was right to go to Iraq five years ago, it is irrelevant now. We are there. We broke the country. It is our responsibility to put it back together again. I am amazed at how many people here want to turn their backs on this country after we brought it to it's knees.

Don't try to tell me how I would be feeling. You have no clue. I would honestly be chafing under the constant military presence of the country that came in and bombed the crap out of my home with no reasonable provocation. And there is a real good chance, if I were Iraqi, and probably a Muslim, that I wouldn't want an American system in place. I probably would not want a huckster like Chalabi installed as my puppet president. And I would probably resent the hell out of an idiot like Bush presiding over the whole mess.

You think you know how Iraqis should be feeling about all of this? Well, so did Bush. And he's been dead wrong. That is the kind of ignorant arrogance that bugs the living s--- out of the whole world.

THIS OPINION PIECE speaks to the "costs" of the war to the Iraqis and to the real motivation of American policy makers in Iraq.





And this doesn't even mention the 4 to 5 million displaced persons - 1/5 of the population including most of the middle class to other countries. My one hope, is that Obama (if elected) would use his demonstrated powers of analysis and communication to express some of this reality to the American public even though he dare not express it during the campaign.

The problem is, scubatim, that whenever Americans do restore electricity, water, or plumbing to Iraqi neighborhoods, resurgents come along and destroy it. That's one of the most frustrating things about it. They do not want their countrymen to benefit from the American presence, because they see Americans as the oppressors, adulterating a society that is supposed to be Muslim (whatever flavor depending on the faction) and not occupied by "infidels".

For years now, soldiers/marines, etc. have been ordered to work to "win the hearts and minds" of a people who don't want their hearts and minds won by outsiders.

If it were simply a matter of cleaning up the country after the invasion, our forces would have been out of there by now. They HAVE been fixing things, building health clinics, and whatever else they can to improve the living circumstances of the Iraqis.

The Iraqis don't want us there, for the most part. We're not going to change that regardless of what our troops do right, and they will continue to be targets for disgruntled Iraqis who would rather die and take some others with them in a violent way than let Iraqis benefit from the American presence.

Aren't you assuming you know how they should feel about this, kind of like Bush and me? Do you bug the "living s--- out of the whole world"? Or are you the only one that is right here?


Where is everyone lambasting the use of an opinion article? Especially one from an obviously biased "progressive" source? Not sure this reallly holds much water in debate, sorry.

Thanks for sharing an opinion. It is duly noted.


I can clearly understand most of your post. So, since you have pointed out the problem of the insurgents, what is the solution?

I can't honestly believe anyone wants to leave these people with nothing? I am not completely sold on someone saying that Iraqis don't want us there. I am sure there are some that do, but from the conversations I have had with veterans that have been there multiple times, more and more Iraqis are happy to have American troops in their country.

I think it's hard to gauge the Iraqi population's overall opinion by personal encounters. Opinion polls, including those commissioned by the American command, have long suggested that a majority of Iraqis would like American troops withdrawn. The Iraqis soldiers meet don’t generally represent the full spectrum. I don't imagine there's much friendly discourse amongst soldiers and insurgent spheres. Also, Middle Easterners are extremely polite and hospitable. They will give you a meal even if it means they go without if you are a guest in their home. They won't generally get in your face and openly insult you (unless they're fighting you of course). So, cordiality doesn't equal wish-we-would-stay.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives

Congressional authorization was given to combat the threat of Saddam's WMD. That goal was finished before it started. Justified lives ended towards that goal=none.

Then, there was the next phase in which we were obligated to maintain order until a sovereign Iraq government could be assembled, and its police force take over. I'd say we were obligated to stay during that timeframe. I couldn't place a number of lives that were worth that sacrifice, because the first venture should have never been started, but wishing something away doesn't make it go away.....

Since then the UNSC has extended a mandate for MNF every year. To my knowledge, we are not legally bound to supply troops for that mandate. I'd say we should go home. I don't think any lives are justified for what we've obtained at this point.

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?
Well, people can vote, and write persuasively to shift public opinion in their favor.

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

Would I participate in a campaign of civil disobedience over this? No. I haven't lost that much faith in our democratic republic yet. Not even close. If I did lose faith enough to start blocking traffic and public buildings and spitting on people and acting violently, I'd start by refusing to pay my taxes. Not through tax evasion...I'd make a public statement as to why I wasn't paying, and go to prison. That would be a very direct way to show my displeasure rather than pusillanimously demanding that soldiers violate their vows of service to this country, and/or support fratricide as some do.

And, if I DID completely lose faith to the point that I believed that soldiers should violate their vows (not inconceivable, though unlikely), I wouldn't stop at telling them not to go to Iraq (or wherever), I'd advocate civil war, treason, and a revolution, because such actions would require an overthrow of the Constitutional law of our republic...though I'm not sure what would go up in its place? Military coup? Oh, well, whatever. I'll leave the details up to those who advocate it...

I took your analogy as you presented it and I told you how I would feel. You proceeded to tell me I was wrong. You told me how I should feel, and how Iraqis must feel - anybody that didn't think like you thought they should think, well, they shouldn't be a part of this discussion, because we must be either spinning the facts or just plumb crazy! End of story! Bush is right again!

You will notice in my answers that when I wasn't answering for myself, I was not speaking in absolutes. That means that, unlike you and Bush, I don't presume to know how every Iraqi feels about the invasion and occupation, but I took an educated guess (educated by the fact that after 5 years, there still seems to be a teeny bit of unrest in Iraq). If you and Bush were right, we would have rebuilt Iraq, with the help of millions of smiling Iraqi helpers, and been on our merry way long ago, still smelling of rose petals.

Did I say Bush was right? My discussion is based on the fact that we are there now, whether or not the policies are right.

I don't think that I have said that I know how Iraqis feel. I think my point is how we should not turn our backs on those that we have destroyed. Maybe you and I are understanding the term 'absolutes' in the way we define it, but what absolute have I said in reference to what Iraqis should or does feel?

So, what you are saying is that we should leave Iraq and leave them unprotected with little infastructure and a weak government? Can you answer that question? I have laid out my position, what is yours? What do you propose we do to help the Iraqi people?

Here are your words again:



So what I guess you meant was that there would be a few Iraqis that wouldn't want us to stay there, but they are either insane or dishonest.



I know your postition. You say you want to protect them and rebuild, which is a nice sentiment. Except that you want to protect them from anti-American insurgents, basically, a group that is not without support among regular Iraqis. Also mixed in there are a few more things: we don't want to "lose" the war. We don't want an unfriendly government in power. We don't want terrorists to have another safe place to operate out of. We want to protect the business interests of our oil companies. But none of those reasons center around the Iraqi people - that's all stuff that WE want. It sounds like what you really want is to successfully conquer and subjugate Iraq and impose America's will.

If they want us to get out, we should get out. (They meaning the Iraqi people.) After 5 years, they aren't safe, their infrastructure is still a shambles, and their government is ineffective. They might have done better on their own. Vietnam is up and running, isn't it? I thought I made my position clear enough in previous posts. If not, here are a few more analogies to bring it more into focus:

I wouldn't want the guy that poisoned me to be the one to administer the antidote.
I wouldn't want the doctor who bungled my operation to be the doctor to try to fix the damage.
I wouldn't want the attorney who's incompetence got me put in jail to be the one handling my appeal.

I don't see your point. TedN5 was honest enough to label his link as opinion.

I am glad you called the article "progressive." The opposite of "progressive" is "regressive" - a nice synonym for conservative, especially the authoritarian neocons.

You could have countered with an opinion article from Human Events, such regressive acts as Monica Crowley, Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter and a particularly obnoxious and nauseating clown named Terence P. "Terry" Jeffrey.

http://www.humanevents.com/view-all.php?type=columnists

The question is not “How many is ok” but how important is the ME to this country. How important is the ME to our 13.5 TRILLION $$$$$ economy. Obviously if you look at the polls the #1 issue is now the ECONOMY and the price of oil plays largely into that.

So the question is do we want to turn over Iraq to chaos and Iran and live with the consequences for our economy or do we stay and finish the job?

I say we stay because our vital interests are right the heck there. And if you are going to tell me that “our economy” and millions of jobs “is not worth it” – LOL.

First off, try 90,000 at best, Ted.

Iraq Body Count

And as far as the number of our dead used in context to "carnage", I would remind you that this war still has one of the lowest death tally's in our history.

It would take over 350 years at this rate to achive the number of combat deaths we suffered in all the years of WWII.

This war is not simply a matter of policy goals and whether or not they are achieved. This war, needless to say, has evolved.

In the beginning this war, which was under U.N. approval lest I remind everyone, was about Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the internetional communities demands for transparency and disarmament. When we completed the military objective, our focus became on political victory, after it became painfully apparent that our honeymoon with the Iraqis would be short-lived.

We were faced with a mess that we helped create, in all honesty, and that mess involved large sections of the citizenry hell bent on destroying each other and foreigners seeking to benefit from the chaos. Our continiuing political and ethical objective is to help Iraqis rebuild their nation. Now there are people who seek to violently obstruct this mission and if we need to stay to keep from failing, then so be it.

In the end, Iraqis will decide their own fate, but we must assure that they are able to decide their own fate without foreign influence, without fear for their safety, and without destroying themselves.

Those ideals are the "on-going nightmare" you describe.

Most Iraqis don't want an immediate withdrawl, in fact, more Americans want us to leave as soon as possible than Iraqis do. To leave now or in the near future, without aiding in the stabilization of this country, will make any and all our intentions and plans five years ago completely worthless.

The public's opposition to this "nightmare" is not anything unusual in our history. The last century and change has seen serious opposition to nearly every war we've fought within that span. Isolationists, moralists, and those with differing politcal ideologies have opposed wars viewed by history as more of a noble cause than this one.

When it comes down to it, they all lack the power to change that the war the rail against itself paradoxically supplies.

Fatigue. People of all stripes do not wish to see the horrors of war drawn out into the length of many years, especially Americans. Conventional wars lasting more than five years have never been our favorite past time. After awhile, the public tires of the images brought forth from the front lines, the tales of harrowing ordeals, and the reality that war is hell.

Civil disobedience will not make the war end any sooner. It will not make our responsibilities disappear nor will it hide us from the consequences of skirting them. The only way this war will end is if we ressurect our commitemnt as a public to the political victory we must see through with the Iraqis.

Their politcal victory is our victory of responsibility. And then, our men and women can come home with the knowledge that, whether or not they agreed with the politics of this war, that they fufilled a promise and responsiblity to do what was right.

Is that important?

Is it important to get so many more killed, just to assure those who return that they did a good job?

Of course, the 4000 + who have already been killed won't come home with any knowledge.

Maybe we need to admit that soldiers do sometimes die in vain.

Of course it's important. Unless you condone running from responsibility. Then I imagine it isn't.

I fail to see how finishing what we started isn't important. We spent billions rebuilding Europe. We stayed there with a large presence for over 50 years. But because things aren't as rosy now in Iraq, we should cut our losses and hope for the best?

If anyone should know about fulfilling responsibility, Titus, that would be you.

If the Iraqis don't want us there, should we go ahead and fulfill our responsibility anyway?

He complied as well as he could have. If he wasn't complying the IAEA would've given the invasion a thumb's up. What are you rewriting history for?


Your link doesn't work. Doesn't matter. A supermajority of Iraqis don't want us there:

73 percent say they oppose the presence of U.S. troops on Iraqi soil. When asked whether the U.S. troop surge has contributed to the drop in violence, a little more than half say no. But in a telling reality check, when asked whether U.S. troops should leave Iraq now, only 38 percent agreed the majority wants U.S. troops to stay until security is guaranteed.

First off, I posted a link to a recent poll that stated less than 40% want us gone ASAP. So I'm guessin a majority would want us to stay for a little while.

Second, that was pretty classy of you throwing personal things back in my face like that.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, I do know all about fufilling (and not fufilling) responsibility. I know that, while I don't regret what I have in my life as a result of the choice I made, there isn't a day that goes by that I don't regret leaving, especially in the manner which I did.

I am forever burdened with the emotional weight of my decision. To this day, there isn't a soldier I can't look square in the eye at first glance. Sometimes I think of seeing a friend of mine who's an Iraq vet, and in private, beg her for forgiveness. What I did was something I am ashamed of and I bear the consequences of my actions alone. And rightly so.

So what makes you think that leaving Iraq in the mess that it is is any more honorable than what I did years ago? What makes leaving a country in chaos, for reasons that noble or otherwise we helped create, morally acceptable?

I have not seen one answer as to why pulling out of Iraq is a prudent or logical thing to do. Yes, we have soldiers that have died there. No, no one wants to have that happen to their loved ones. But outside of our personal fear of loss, what has been said about pulling out that reflects logic?

Will us pulling out end the War on Terror? Will our exit be the catalyst that creates a Middle Eastern Utopia free from sectarian violence? More importantly, will our reputation be made better by leaving a country in near-ruin physically and politically because the American public is suffering from war fatigue?

I would go out on a limb and say no. And I'll go even farther and say that leaving now would make things worse.

No one wanted Iraq to turn into this mess we have now, but as you pointed out so crassly, even I know what happens when you run from responsibility.





Well, the IAEA has no authority over what the UN chooses to do. I'm not rewriting history, I'm just not forgetting it at my convenience.

1441 authorized an invasion/war to enforce itself? Forgive my ignorance. It's been five years and I'm still learning new "facts".

The IAEA had nothing to do with it. We know he had no nukes – but we didn’t know where lots of anthrax, VX and other nasty things were and he was compelled by UN 1441 to either bring them out or prove he destroyed them – he did neither.
The UN was, we found out later, compromised.

“Article Excerpt
Byline: Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Saddam Hussein used a U.N. humanitarian program to pay $1.78 billion to French government officials, businessmen and journalists in a bid to have sanctions removed and U.S. policies opposed, according to a CIA report made public yesterday.

The cash was part of $10.9 billion secretly skimmed from the U.N. oil-for-food program, which was used by Iraq to buy military goods, according to a 1,000-page report by the CIA-led Iraqi Survey Group.

According to a section of the report on Iraqi weapons procurement, the survey group identified long-standing ties between Saddam and the French government. One 1992 Iraqi intelligence service report revealed that Iraq's ambassador to France paid $1 million to the French Socialist Party in 1988.

The CIA report stated that the Iraqi ambassador was instructed...


http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-23...s.html#abstract

If I remember right, 1441 pointed to earlier resolutions from the first Gulf War that made clear any breach of that or future resolutions would entail some kind of military action.

I have to take off so I don't have the time to grab a link to that.

Regardless, we've debated the war's orgins for many years.

What needs to be debated is how we leave. And I've asked some valid questions which you and the others have not answered straight on yet. So when you decide to answer them, let me know.

Then maybe you shouldn't be lecturing people on the subject.

BTW: There is no such word as "fufilling."

It's "fulfilling."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fulfilling

You could have just copied it from my post.

While you're away take your time take a moment browse this list of withdrawal/exit plans. If you don't like what you see, I'm sure you can Google other exit strategies and find one to your liking—if you really want to leave. There is no shortage of plans.

Good point Bill Murray, maybe Hollywood Isn't as far gone as I once thought, lol.

My opinion is I don't think there has been an American war in all of history that lasted 5 years yet claimed as little as 4000 Americans. The only wars to claim such low numbers were shorter wars like the war of 1812, which lasted under a year and claimed 2,260 Americans. Or Desert Storm which lasted only a few months and claimed 358 Americans then some more died later from chemical exposure.

Ive even researched multiple ((single day)) battles in history that have claimed more life than this 5 year war, some upwards of 70,000 people. The Battle of The Sit River is a good example, or this one.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_%281761%29

The Third Battle of Panipat in India, claimed a total of 60,000-70,000 men in one day. Each side suffering far more casualties than our country has in this entire 5 year war. People don't really realize that in comparison to most other wars this one is not that bloody, in fact aparently its not as bloody as some one day battles for coalition forces. Whenever someone says 4000 deaths!!!, then they ask how much is enough, its like they dont even understand what an accomplishment it is that we haven't suffered 40,000 deaths by now. I agree with what you said 100% that it is important to finish what we start, and if we lose this war mark my words it will be because we walked away, not because we were defeated. In light of recent events I think it would be a huge mistake giving up, now that we see some progress.

I swear net2007, you have the most ack basswards barometer for success that I have ever seen. Recent events haven't shown success, they've shown who really wields power in Iraq, as if it wasn't already known.

The premise for the argument of low casualties in this war is invalid becuase it always accompanies the argument that we shouldn't let the fallen soldiers die in vain; which is also invalid unless those proponents can admit that somewhere there is a line, a casualty, or an event that finally renders the cost to be too high, too many casualties, that they have died in vain. If not, then we are treated to the notioon that 40,000+ is worth this effort.

The problem with imposing liberal western values by military force is that it associates those values with oppression and violence in the minds of the occupied population; this in itself breeds fear, distrust and opposition separate from the physical oppression that accompanies occupation. Those who support this occupation seem to have discarded any amount of empathy, not only for the Iraqi's, but for the fallen Americans and their families.

Ack backwards? lol

Whats backwards would be for someone to claim that those who support this war discard any amount of empathy. Especially considering you once supported the war yourself and have been involved in fighting it, and your talking about backwards? Listen I don't throw that kind of rhetoric in your direction. What I see is a difference in opinion and a difference in perspective. You know what? I think life is important myself, always have, which is why I'm glad this war has a historically low death toll for our troops. In fact half of my reasoning for supporting this war is because I have empathy not because I lack it, otherwise I wouldn't care or have an opinion on it either way, yet while I say this, Ive never claimed that those who don't support this war, lack empathy. Some of the most sympathetic people on this planet are war supporters or war critics, we just look at things differently. By the way this includes many soldiers who see every bit as much as you do in Iraq, in many cases Id assume more, yet for those who support the war your saying they lack empathy? Or that I do because I'm glad this wars death toll isn't more in line with the Vietnam war?

You can label as you will, but id rather get criticized for holding the position I do, then change my position when criticized for having it. Its like many of the things you say, you conveniently deny or forget about when you receive criticism. Ive talked to you long enough to gather that. If I have to be seen as the insensitive right wing war monger who lacks empathy, due to my positions, hey whatever helps you sleep at night bud.

I think we've done that. This thread now has 95 posts. Have you read through them? The essence of your argument was presented by scubatim and countered by several of us.

This is from post No. 70, but you could probably go back a bit more.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=241904

Exactly. This is essentially the whole problem in a very uncomfortable nutshell.

How can a democratic nation, defined and governed by its laws, wage what is essentially, war in another country when that country has never attacked the democratic country, nor been proven to have been of any threat to it?

There is so much wrong with whats happened, and is happening in Iraq that it defies explanation. America should never have re-elected GW Bush. In doing so the American people approved what congress had done, namely put the exclusive authority to wage war in the hands of the president. Essentially, America made GW Bush into a king and now complains when he acts like one.


edited to correct a word

You're right. Empathy can cover a broad spectrum. Empathy can include throwing away American lives in pursuit of an American political goal. Empathy can include throwing away American lives to shore up one indigenous warlord against another. Empathy can include forcing a foreign form of government upon a people who didn't ask for it. Empathy can include reducing a nation with a much longer history than ours to a vassal state. Empathy can include all of those things....but it usually doesn't.

I don't believe that an empathetic person would employ critical thought and still choose this course voluntarily, which the US has. I'm not perfect, but empathy is one thing I've gained considerably since being here.



You put much stock in being consistent in your beliefs but apparently very little in being honest with yourself when you see that your beliefs were wrong.



I'm wondering if you believe that Iran is an enemy of the United States, and if so, I'm wondering why you would support the loss of American lives in defense of that enemy.



Why would you assume that? You have no earthly