Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

 

Poll

Should we pull out of Iraq

Right now14%14% - 20
Yes13%13% - 19
No wait until Iraq can support themselfs71%71% - 98
Total: 137
2006-04-17 21:46:29
Tushers
Noctwisaskfirtush
+224|6925|Some where huntin in Wisconsin
I know there are probaly a million jillion post about this but I would like to get some new reactions.  I am a republican, I support the troops and the war too.  This has come up at this last Easter super with all my aunt/uncles, and realations.  And I would like to know every ones opinion, me personaly I like Bush.  I know alot of people don't for there own reasons.  We went into Iraq to free the country from the basterd sadam hussain, and to give them a healthy demacracy.  Yes we have gave Iraq there freedom they have all longed for, but it is not stable enought to succeed.  I have lost my uncle in the war, from a snipers' bullet he was instantly killed.  My whole family even my friends were shooken but this tragdey, but that changed my though.  From lets pulled out right away to lets kill all those basterds that ever did somthing bad in that country, like rapped someone, killed/genocide, even burned an american flag for saddam. 
    I would like to hear everyones voice, if any one can give me an answer that floats my boat i might change my mind but so far... no one has even budge it.
2006-04-17 22:31:32
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6915|Canberra, AUS
Pull out when they're ready.

'No, pull out now!' I hear. Great idea. Go in, destabilize the place, and leave it in the hands of religious fundementalists!
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-18 00:49:17
BVC
Member
+325|6936
Pull them out when Iraq can take care of itself, and is rebuilt.
2006-04-18 01:44:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6841|132 and Bush

Whether or not you think we should have went in or not in the first place I can't imagine pulling out until Iraq can support itself. I feel the best way to honor your Uncle is to finish the job. I'm sorry to hear about your loss as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-04-18 01:52:46
Marinejuana
local
+415|6825|Seattle
It scares me to think that people think of bf2 and real war as part of the same topic...
2006-04-18 02:46:47
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7081|Cologne, Germany

Marinejuana wrote:

It scares me to think that people think of bf2 and real war as part of the same topic...
what makes you think that ? This is the "debate and serious talk" subforum in the community section.

The idea behind this was to give forum members the opportunity to discuss topics that have nothing to do with BF2.
2006-04-18 03:01:53
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6915|Canberra, AUS

B.Schuss wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

It scares me to think that people think of bf2 and real war as part of the same topic...
what makes you think that ? This is the "debate and serious talk" subforum in the community section.

The idea behind this was to give forum members the opportunity to discuss topics that have nothing to do with BF2.
It scares me that people can't see this...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-18 03:06:51
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7081|Cologne, Germany

well, if you pull out now you'd leave the country in chaos. No effective policing, no public safety, no working government. A dream come true for the insurgents.

The problem with democracy is of course that you cannot force it upon people. Normally, it would take generations for a working democracy to develop. Creating one from scratch is nearly impossible, especially with tensions between the various ethnic groups running as high as they do.

It might take ten years or more to establish a working democracy in Iraq, it might never happen. Maybe the region just ain't ready for it yet. Time will tell.

Still, you have to finish what you started. Whatever your feelings about the initial motivation for going to Iraq were in the first place, now you are in. You cannot turn back the time.

Democracy is a funny thing though. Once you give people the choice, who knows who they are going to vote for ? Remember, the current Pres. of Iran was also put into office through a democratic election.
2006-04-18 04:58:23
david363
Crotch fires and you: the untold story
+314|6979|Comber, Northern Ireland
i kno most of you guys are from the US but me, i'm from Ireland i'm a Royal Marine, i have served 3 tours in iraq so far, but i dont think that we should pull out right away, i have seen the true iraq and what goes on, its really not as bad as you think. i myself have lost 2 good buddies of mine and many good US soldiers but the fact still remains that we need to get that country back up onto its own two feet. if we just walk away now, doing the half assed job what image does that give us for the rest of the world? that we go into a country take out its leader and then back out when the heat gets turned up?

if we dont help them to rebuild their government they will destroy eachother and then the rest of the world, with a country run by, criminals, insurgents and corrupt cops and soldiers.

i just wanted to speak my mind there
2006-04-18 05:47:57
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6887
Anyone who said don't go to war in the first place, well that's their opinion and I don't mind. Anyone who says pull out now is an idiot.
2006-04-18 06:17:16
Kimosabe-sa
Member
+11|6929|Port Elizabeth, South Africa
I say pull out, when Iraq is stable. That may take a long time. A LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG TIME. I doubt it will ever be stable.
2006-04-18 06:23:35
kkolodsick
Member
+14|6906
If you agreed or didn't about the initial war, we started it and have to finish the job. 
I happen to agree with and support our president and his choice to go to war.  We needed to take the fight to them instead of waiting for another attack here.  This country would be absolutely devastated if another 09/11 type attack hit again. 

What scares me several years later is that the people in Iraq may never be ready to take care of themselves. 

We are better than just pulling out before the job is done, we always have been and always will be.

GOD bless America
2006-04-18 10:25:02
Tushers
Noctwisaskfirtush
+224|6925|Some where huntin in Wisconsin

Kmarion wrote:

I feel the best way to honor your Uncle is to finish the job. I'm sorry to hear about your loss as well.
thanks
The only somewhat good thing that came out of him dieing, was he had some deisiehe came down w/ and they where gonna give him the boot.  IDK what the thing was that he had but he could have been parazlyzide soo yea...i did get a car, lolz he knew i loved it. it was a honda civic and it looked liked a race car.
   I know alot of people would want to pull out and some want to stay i would like to stay, cuz look what happend the first time we went there killed a couple and then we pulled out.  Then all hell broke lose, and we were in the same postion so i think i would be best to stay untill the Iraq government is stable...my 2 cents
2006-04-18 10:52:25
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6976|Salt Lake City

kkolodsick wrote:

If you agreed or didn't about the initial war, we started it and have to finish the job. 
I happen to agree with and support our president and his choice to go to war.  We needed to take the fight to them instead of waiting for another attack here.  This country would be absolutely devastated if another 09/11 type attack hit again. 

What scares me several years later is that the people in Iraq may never be ready to take care of themselves. 

We are better than just pulling out before the job is done, we always have been and always will be.

GOD bless America
Oh, you mean another 9/11 attack from a country that wasn't involved with it?  A country like Iran that has been working on nuclear development.  Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi, and were training and planning in Saudi, supposedly our strongest ally in the middle east.

Sadam was a bad guy, one that we help put in power, but his killing of Iraqi's is nothing compared to the genocide going on in other countries, especially Africa.  So why were we so hell bent on going into Iraq?  Don't tell me WMD's, because that bullshit excuse is no longer holding water.  Lets see, hmmm, Iraq was UN sanctioned, so their ability to export oil is restricted.  So in the end we go in there to remove him under the guise of removing a ruthless dictator, while we sit by and watch far worse civil wars and genocide go on elsewhere.  What's the difference?  Those other countries aren't oil rich.

Now that we've hosed things up we have to stay until the country is more stable, but should never have been there in the first place.  Bush went in there for one reason, and one reason only...to get that country's oil flowing into the market again.
2006-04-18 11:00:28
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6902|USA
Unless there is an established US military base that will be in Iraq for ever and ever, it won't work; we will never be able to leave that country to itself. Britain invaded Iraq in 1941. Pretty similar idea's. It didn't work to good then either.

http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResourc … leEast.asp
2006-04-18 11:10:26
Mike_J
Member
+68|6909

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

kkolodsick wrote:

If you agreed or didn't about the initial war, we started it and have to finish the job. 
I happen to agree with and support our president and his choice to go to war.  We needed to take the fight to them instead of waiting for another attack here.  This country would be absolutely devastated if another 09/11 type attack hit again. 

What scares me several years later is that the people in Iraq may never be ready to take care of themselves. 

We are better than just pulling out before the job is done, we always have been and always will be.

GOD bless America
Oh, you mean another 9/11 attack from a country that wasn't involved with it?  A country like Iran that has been working on nuclear development.  Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi, and were training and planning in Saudi, supposedly our strongest ally in the middle east.

Sadam was a bad guy, one that we help put in power, but his killing of Iraqi's is nothing compared to the genocide going on in other countries, especially Africa.  So why were we so hell bent on going into Iraq?  Don't tell me WMD's, because that bullshit excuse is no longer holding water.  Lets see, hmmm, Iraq was UN sanctioned, so their ability to export oil is restricted.  So in the end we go in there to remove him under the guise of removing a ruthless dictator, while we sit by and watch far worse civil wars and genocide go on elsewhere.  What's the difference?  Those other countries aren't oil rich.

Now that we've hosed things up we have to stay until the country is more stable, but should never have been there in the first place.  Bush went in there for one reason, and one reason only...to get that country's oil flowing into the market again.
*sighs*  hey bud look up General Georges Sada.  you'll find some interesting info on WMD's.  also look up when the UN sanctions on Iraq would end.  i think you'll be quite shocked when you see how this information fits in well together.  also, if you think this is about oil i highly recommend doing a little bit of economics research.  look up the American Petroleum Institute or any other official organization that has statistics on oil.  then look up Venezuela.  i think you'll notice that if we REALLY were in it for oil, we'd go into a country abundant with it, and begging for us to transform their government.

regardless of the politics, i supported this war for it's ideals- to rid of evil people off the earth (especially if they can't be changed for the good).  i do agree with you somewhat on your questioning of why we didn't go into places that are in more need, but i'm just glad that Bush has a backbone and started somewhere.  afterall, no matter what you think, it is the responsibility of able nations to promote and spread the ideals of righteousness.

*edit: concerning the topic matter of "how long will we be there," i'd say to really get the job done will take at least 10 years the way things are going in that region.

Last edited by Mike_J (2006-04-18 11:12:17)

2006-04-18 11:13:54
kkolodsick
Member
+14|6906
Oh, you mean another 9/11 attack from a country that wasn't involved with it?  A country like Iran that has been working on nuclear development.  Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi, and were training and planning in Saudi, supposedly our strongest ally in the middle east.

Sadam was a bad guy, one that we help put in power, but his killing of Iraqi's is nothing compared to the genocide going on in other countries, especially Africa.  So why were we so hell bent on going into Iraq?  Don't tell me WMD's, because that bullshit excuse is no longer holding water.  Lets see, hmmm, Iraq was UN sanctioned, so their ability to export oil is restricted.  So in the end we go in there to remove him under the guise of removing a ruthless dictator, while we sit by and watch far worse civil wars and genocide go on elsewhere.  What's the difference?  Those other countries aren't oil rich.


It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback and complain when things don't go as planned. 
If you look at most major intelligence agencies in the world, they agreed that Iraq had either the weapons or the capacity to make the weapons.  It also doesn't take a rocket scientiest to note that Saddam didn't like us and would probably use or give/sell these materials to someone else that doesn't like us...hmmmmm who could that be. 

Of course it now all looks false and you can blame our President as the buck stops at him and I agree that if we knew this then, that there were no WMD, we shouldn't have gone to war.  But if you were the president and saw the same info and didn't attack then shame on you for not protecting our country.

It is absolutely crazy for anyone to speak of the fact that we went to war for cheap oil.  Maybe you own a car and buy gas but prices are crazy so where is the payoff?

There is genocide all over the world and it is terrible, but we cannot police the entire planet.  The Iraq situation at the time posed a potential threat the safety of this country and had to be dealt with.
2006-04-18 11:36:55
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7081|Cologne, Germany

kkolodsick wrote:

There is genocide all over the world and it is terrible, but we cannot police the entire planet.  The Iraq situation at the time posed a potential threat the safety of this country and had to be dealt with.
oh please. What threat exactly did the country of Iraq pose to the safety of the US ? They were under UN sanctions, and even if they had the capabilities to develop WMD's, they did not have and would never have had the means to successfully attack the US. No launching systems, no ICBM's. No submarines, no bombers.
US and british satellites were constantly monitoring the surface.
Saddam would not have been able to move an inch without you guys knowing it.

There was a multitude of reasons for the US to go into Iraq, but fear of an attack by that country sure wasn't one of them.

Personally, I think it was a strategical decision influenced by 09/11. But that's just me.
2006-04-18 11:38:16
Mason4Assassin444
retired
+552|6902|USA
FACT: 9-11 and Saddam/Iraq have nothing to do with each other :FACT
2006-04-18 11:45:09
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7081|Cologne, Germany

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

FACT: 9-11 and Saddam/Iraq have nothing to do with each other :FACT
and that is a FACT because....?
2006-04-18 12:02:14
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6976|Salt Lake City

Oh please.  The longer things have gone on the more information has come to light that GWB had every intention of invading Iraq regardless of whether weapons inspectors found anything or not.

Sadam didn't like us?  So what's new.  Most of the middle east doesn't "like" us, they tolerate us because we contiue to buy their oil.

Yes I realize that Venezuela and Russia both have very large oil supplies, but they simply can't pump and process as much as the arab oil nations can.

One general says something about WMDs.  Hmm, we have Bush leaking information about government operatives to quiet war naysayers, and even more retired military generals thrashing him.  I'm more inclined to believe that WMDs were the least of our worries with Iraq.
2006-04-18 12:06:40
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6884
THE U.S. WILL NEVER PULL OUT OF IRAQ.


Gonna be the same type of situation we have in south korea, except no whores.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-04-18 12:06:56)

2006-04-18 12:10:26
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6934|San Francisco
*sigh*
Any government that Iraq sets up will turn into a theocracy no matter what...that's just the way it's been there for the past 2000 years or so.  Tribal religious sects will not fare well underneath a representation of democracy that's only 200 years old.  Iraq will inevitably have to go through a civil war in order to stabilize itself, just as we Americans had to back in the 1860s, albeit for different reasons.

When Saddam was in power, Iraq was stable.  The dictatorship was able to keep such extreme religious sects at bay with one another, rather than constantly trying to initiate compromise between them all.  Now it's just going to be a massive power grab where the strongest and most passionate force will be the victor.  It reminds me of Tom Clancy's "Politika" scenario...
2006-04-18 12:17:29
kkolodsick
Member
+14|6906

B.Schuss wrote:

kkolodsick wrote:

There is genocide all over the world and it is terrible, but we cannot police the entire planet.  The Iraq situation at the time posed a potential threat the safety of this country and had to be dealt with.
oh please. What threat exactly did the country of Iraq pose to the safety of the US ? They were under UN sanctions, and even if they had the capabilities to develop WMD's, they did not have and would never have had the means to successfully attack the US. No launching systems, no ICBM's. No submarines, no bombers.
US and british satellites were constantly monitoring the surface.
Saddam would not have been able to move an inch without you guys knowing it.

There was a multitude of reasons for the US to go into Iraq, but fear of an attack by that country sure wasn't one of them.

Personally, I think it was a strategical decision influenced by 09/11. But that's just me.
If you took the time to actually read my post you would see why/how Iraq posed a threat.  But since you didn't here we go again:

Many of the major intelligence agencies in the world agreed that Iraq had WMD or the capability to produce.  FACT
Saddam didn't like us much.  FACT
This one is a bit murky:  He didn't like us but also didn't have the means to attack us directly, but hmmmm who else doesn't like us and was able to attack our country?  The evidence of a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is contradictory but either way.  If Al Qaeda came to Iraq and wanted the weapons don't you think Saddam would give them up if it were to attack us?  Not a fear of a direct attack but of Iraq helping someone attack us. 

Of course it was strategical...all war is.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard