Iraq

[gwprod12]

We have a broad diversity of opinion, perspective and inherent difference here. What do we all think?

 

I think there are only two viable choices. Either leave immediately, and let the Iraqis figure it out, or bolster the troops in iraq and create a police state. Disarm the population forcibly, create curfews, social restrictions, mass executions, etc. As much as a police state rubs me the wrong way, I dont see any other option if the US is going to stay there for any longer.

 

A proviso. I'm not really asking who's at fault or who's responsible, or the morality of the issue. I'm talking pure pragmatism. What is the best option?

[dark4181]

personally, i say pull out and let them blow each other the f*** up.. they didn't want our help to begin with, they still don't want it, so f*** them. let's bring our troops home and worry about american citizens living in america first.. let the whole middle east slaughter each other to the last man. that's what they seem to want to do, why stop them? we just need to retaliate FULL FORCE if they point a weapon at us... seriously, this {censored} is like going after a neighbor for abusing his wife while someone is in your bedroom raping yours. ridiculous

 

and let's kick out all the god damn illegal immigrants out while we're at it.. f*** a worker program. you want in, get in legally. til then, you're a criminal

 

pardon my language though, i get heated over worry about ungrateful countries

[wildcat69410]

personally, i say pull out and let them blow each other the f*** up.. they didn't want our help to begin with, they still don't want it, so f*** them. let's bring our troops home and worry about american citizens living in america first.. let the whole middle east slaughter each other to the last man. that's what they seem to want to do, why stop them? we just need to retaliate FULL FORCE if they point a weapon at us... seriously, this {censored} is like going after a neighbor for abusing his wife while someone is in your bedroom raping yours. ridiculous

 

and let's kick out all the god damn illegal immigrants out while we're at it.. f*** a worker program. you want in, get in legally. til then, you're a criminal

 

pardon my language though, i get heated over worry about ungrateful countries

gwprod12

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree. If we stepped in and started this conflict, then we have to finish it. Whether the countries want us there or not, we have to establish a new Iraq or we've simply made things much much worse there. Does that mean stay the course? No. However, that certainly doesn't mean pulling out, and leaving the innocent civilians there to be slaughtered by militants either.

 

Whether we should or shouldn't have entered Iraq in the first place is no longer an issue. Rather, we have to finish what we started. To leave now would not only be irresponsible, but also simply another piece of ammunition for the International Community to bash us with. I'm tired of ungrateful countries too, but how many more ungrateful ones would we create if we just pulled out now?

[dark4181]

that's my point actually... no one likes us, why should we bother trying to help them? let's worry about us first and let the rest of the world solve it's own problems

[wildcat69410]

that's my point actually... no one likes us, why should we bother trying to help them? let's worry about us first and let the rest of the world solve it's own problems

 

In actuality, us invading Iraq isn't exactly the world's problem in the first place. The second we made that decision, it became our problem, and it is our responsibility to solve it. Whether the international community hates us or not (I don't particulary care myself), we created the problem in Iraq, and we need to solve it. Just leaving it to the Middle East to solve is irresponsible, and will eventually just create many more problems for ourself in the long run.

[gwprod12]

My original intent was merely to discuss the most pragmatic solution. Morality and responsibility being unimportant. If responsibility is important from the pragmastists perspective, why?

[McSkywalker]

My original intent was merely to discuss the most pragmatic solution. Morality and responsibility being unimportant. If responsibility is important from the pragmastists perspective, why?

Yes, you've stated it clearly before, but the problem is, this thread too will become another discussion of "what has happened" instead of searching for the solution.

 

My opinion in short, the UN should handle it further on. It has comparably more credibility in the area, so the UN could perform more flexible manouvres and provide solutions that could be acceptable by the people of Iraq.

[gwprod12]

So, the solution is to get the United Nations to take control of Iraq. Sounds like an interesting notion. Will the UN do it?

[McSkywalker]

I'm sure the UN will do it when it becomes an option. What's more, if the US pulls back, the UN will have to do it eventually. From what I see, those people really need help for being able to live in peace. I'm not saying it will be easy, the Iraqis don't seem to be eager to trust anyone for the moment. But at least, they won't quite consider the UN's organs as invaders.

 

However, it is very unlikely for the US to pull back, because the reconstruction of Iraq hasn't finished yet. And from what I know, that is mostly handled by US oriented construction companies. So, there's also a commercial aspect of the issue, which makes the situation appear even more chaotic.

[wildcat69410]

Using the UN isn't the best idea here. Although it would allow the input of the International Community to form a "better Iraq", nothing would really get done. It has such little power anymore, that the majority of its sanctions would be simply ignored, and I don't believe that the UN is ready to actually handle Iraq. It's one thing to have a singular Nation with a singular goal, with a strong armed forces to try to hold onto Iraq. However, it's a different thing however to have a multitude of Nations, with differing goals, with a relatively weak military force.

 

Asking the UN to intervene would be a disastrous idea, causing simply more problems. Although I agree that more Nations should get involved with Iraq, I think the best solution is to still allow the United States to remain in control of Iraq, with the assistance of other nations.

[McSkywalker]

I believe the definition of a ¨better Iraq¨ would include people living in peace, side by side. In order to achieve that, you would have to convince people that you're there for their own sake. In this case, it is probably hard to do so for the US. And if you can't convince people, the peace is not likely to last long, it'll be temporary, forced and artificial.

 

It is true that the UN sometimes can't make real quick decisions, but there's collective mind involved. That means different points of view and more comprehensive solutions are likely to be provided.

 

Of course, the US has a strong army there and could force peace as long as they stay there but in my opinion, the key point is persuasiveness. You can ensure permanent peace only if the Iraqis believe in it. Otherwise, they would start killing each other again. Iraq shouldn't become a cradle of terrorism because of the chaos in there.

 

I think the worst scenario would be shortly like this:

 

US pulls out, UN does nothing, and eventually Iraq becomes a training base for all kinds of terrorism. I hope that never happens.

[dark4181]

it's already a training base for all kinds of terrorism.. just like it was before we moved in

[killbot1000]

it's already a training base for all kinds of terrorism.. just like it was before we moved in

 

 

Play a different card besides the terrorist card please, that line has been overused and under-delivered.

 

Iraq was never a terrorist training wonderland that everybody makes it out to be. That was places like Afghanistan, and whats going on there now? Nothing, Afghanistan is one of the most f***ed up countries today because we decided to have a little fun in Iraq and forget about what really matters. However most of us here in the states are too ignorant to understand the difference between terrorism and middle east and dictator. They are all completely different, and quite frankly, the terrorism card is overused way too much, to the point where its used as an excuse to do pretty much anything....

 

We've only had one major terrorist attack involving muslim terrorists on our soil, tough {censored}, life happens, and it sucks, but building a huge wall around our country and racially profiling people isn't going to make the terrorism problem better, its going to make it worse.

[wildcat69410]

We've only had one major terrorist attack involving muslim terrorists on our soil, tough {censored}, life happens, and it sucks, but building a huge wall around our country and racially profiling people isn't going to make the terrorism problem better, its going to make it worse.

 

Sure, but sitting by and doing nothing helps how? 9/11 justified a response of some kind, whether it be simply to up security, or whether it be to invade a country. Yes, some obvious mistakes were made, such as the absolute lack of care focused towards attaining Osama Bin Laden, or the racial profiling. However, the response to tighten immigration, and to build a "wall" around our country was in no way a bad idea. The majority of terrorist attacks against America, for the most part, were carried out by people with a work visa, or some other legal or illegal means of crossing the border. Therefore, our response was to tighten our security, and prevent such mistakes from being made again.

 

To say that upping the security in America is causing more terrorism problems is insane! By tightning the security, we've actually stopped planned terrorist attacks, that would have taken place whether we'd increased homeland security or not, and in the end potentially saved thousands of lives. What's wrong with that?

[gwprod12]

No one sane believes that 9/11 justified attacking Iraq. Just as no one sane believes that Pearl Harbor would have justified attacking Australia.

[killbot1000]

Sure, but sitting by and doing nothing helps how? 9/11 justified a response of some kind, whether it be simply to up security, or whether it be to invade a country. Yes, some obvious mistakes were made, such as the absolute lack of care focused towards attaining Osama Bin Laden, or the racial profiling. However, the response to tighten immigration, and to build a "wall" around our country was in no way a bad idea. The majority of terrorist attacks against America, for the most part, were carried out by people with a work visa, or some other legal or illegal means of crossing the border. Therefore, our response was to tighten our security, and prevent such mistakes from being made again.

 

To say that upping the security in America is causing more terrorism problems is insane! By tightning the security, we've actually stopped planned terrorist attacks, that would have taken place whether we'd increased homeland security or not, and in the end potentially saved thousands of lives. What's wrong with that?

 

I respectfully disagree, acting paranoid toward other people is only going to {censored} them off. If we treated other countries seriously, there wouldn't be much of a need for heightened security. Just my take on it anyway.

[dark4181]

so what if heightening our own security pisses off other countries? honestly, who cares? they're already pissed off. it doesn't matter why they hate us, they're going to find a reason to hate us regardless of what we do. so they might as well hate us becuz we won't let them in to rape and kill us. the responsibility of the United States government is to protect American citizens

 

as for treating them seriously.. heightening security is a pretty serious way to react to threats... i'm just of the belief that security should be heightened at home first.. then deal with the neighbors afterwards

[wildcat69410]

No one sane believes that 9/11 justified attacking Iraq. Just as no one sane believes that Pearl Harbor would have justified attacking Australia.

 

I never said that it necessarily justified the invasion of Iraq, I just said that it justified a response. The debate over what response should have been enacted is another topic entirely.

 

I respectfully disagree, acting paranoid toward other people is only going to {censored} them off. If we treated other countries seriously, there wouldn't be much of a need for heightened security. Just my take on it anyway.

 

Countries yes, terrorists no. The attacks against America weren't committed by other countries, but terrorist groups. Giving terrorists the respect we give to other countries gives them what they want, the power to negotiate. Once we give them that kind of respect, they'll just continue their attacks, and continue to threaten us with increased fervor. We treat them seriously by heightening security on the simple notion that there could be a possible planned attack. In my opinion, they don't really deserve that kind of respect.

 

I do agree with you though that acting paranoid accomplishes nothing, as does diplomatically patronizing other countries. Those same rules though don't really apply to terrorists though.

 

 

 

.

[killbot1000]

I never said that it necessarily justified the invasion of Iraq, I just said that it justified a response. The debate over what response should have been enacted is another topic entirely.

Countries yes, terrorists no. The attacks against America weren't committed by other countries, but terrorist groups. Giving terrorists the respect we give to other countries gives them what they want, the power to negotiate. Once we give them that kind of respect, they'll just continue their attacks, and continue to threaten us with increased fervor. We treat them seriously by heightening security on the simple notion that there could be a possible planned attack. In my opinion, they don't really deserve that kind of respect.

 

I do agree with you though that acting paranoid accomplishes nothing, as does diplomatically patronizing other countries. Those same rules though don't really apply to terrorists though.

.

 

 

Yes, but why is there terrorists? Because "somebody" messed with somebody else, simple. Leave people alone and they will leave you alone, its simple, it goes down to the basic level of one person and another, if you see something you want from a stranger, hit them in the face, and take it from them...eventually they are going to find you and get revenge, the same applies to the world, only it gets much more complicated, all I'm saying is that we kinda got what was coming to us, because of our country's policies overseas, and pushing people even more is only going to make the situation worse.

[wildcat69410]

Yes, but why is there terrorists? Because "somebody" messed with somebody else, simple. Leave people alone and they will leave you alone, its simple, it goes down to the basic level of one person and another, if you see something you want from a stranger, hit them in the face, and take it from them...eventually they are going to find you and get revenge, the same applies to the world, only it gets much more complicated, all I'm saying is that we kinda got what was coming to us, because of our country's policies overseas, and pushing people even more is only going to make the situation worse.

wildcat69410

 

While your policy of isolationism could have worked well in early American policy, in today's world, it's virtually impossible to be an isolationist nation towards the world. Whatever we do, and whatever decisions we make are broadcast not only throughout our nation instantaneously, but across the world. Sitting back and doing nothing about terrorism solves absolutely nothing.

 

Plus, what in our foreign policy justifies an attack on innocent civilians? 9/11 had no true point, they weren't "pushing back". They just simply wanted to destroy lives. To frame the United States as the true cause of 9/11 is absolutely, with no disrespect to you, ludicrous. The terrorists aren't these innocent people who are just fighting because the United States interfered first, they have a predestined goal of killing Americans. Doing nothing, and leaving them alone only encourages them to increase these attacks.

 

The second we choose to leave Iraq, or change our foreign policy due to terrorist threats is the day that America has truly lost its power in the world. We'd let the terrorists win. The big thing here is that we have a much larger responsibility to the protection of ourselves than to the feelings of terrorists. Whether we attack them, leave them alone, or send Jane Fonda to calm them, they're still going to want to attack us.

[killbot1000]

First of all, please don't put words in my mouth, I never said we should be isolationist, I think thats the worst thing we can do. But theres quite a bit of difference between being paranoid as a nation, and being assertive.

 

All I'm saying is that if we treated other people around the world as equals rather than inferiors that we'd have far less problems than we do now (not that problems would disappear). Yes, we are powerful, but that doesn't mean that American lives matter more than Iraqi lives, or Chinese lives for that matter, were all the f***ing same.

 

And thirdly, nobody attacks somebody else for no reason, theres a reason, you just don't feel like digging hard enough to find the answer. Nobody kills themselves to destroy another nation for the hell of destroying another nation, THAT my good friend is ludicrous to propose.

 

All I'm saying is that this increased "safety" isn't worth it at all...considering that were trading the illusion of security for our freedoms, its just sick, I can see our nation beginning its downward spiral as all great empires do...

[mac fly]

Hahaha ! Kernel panic at the white house !

 

- A french guy -

[gwprod12]

The finest mind (in public) on foreign policy is Pat Buchanan. Read what he's wrote. Except on social issues, where I totally disagree with him.

[dark4181]

1) the foremost goal of terrorism is NOT to kill people... the foremost goal of terrorism is TO CREATE TERROR.. all other effects are secondary or tertiary results... people dying, the terrorists getting attention, everything like that is all secondary

 

2) terrorism succeeds when we give them attention... specifically, media attention. "200 killed in suicide bombing" etc etc etc. american media actually furthers terrorist efforts. if you never heard about these attacks, would you care?

 

3) i'm not suggesting complete isolationism. i'm all for trading with other countries. buying their products and selling them ours is all good. but immigration needs to be tightened, and we shouldn't sell them our best stuff.. loose immigration standards have already lead to a porous southern border, with criminals and possibly terrorists simply walking into our country.. and selling all of our best products to other countries means that we aren't helping our own

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, please don't put words in my mouth, I never said we should be isolationist, I think thats the worst thing we can do. But theres quite a bit of difference between being paranoid as a nation, and being assertive.

 

All I'm saying is that if we treated other people around the world as equals rather than inferiors that we'd have far less problems than we do now (not that problems would disappear). Yes, we are powerful, but that doesn't mean that American lives matter more than Iraqi lives, or Chinese lives for that matter, were all the f***ing same.

 

And thirdly, nobody attacks somebody else for no reason, theres a reason, you just don't feel like digging hard enough to find the answer. Nobody kills themselves to destroy another nation for the hell of destroying another nation, THAT my good friend is ludicrous to propose.

 

All I'm saying is that this increased "safety" isn't worth it at all...considering that were trading the illusion of security for our freedoms, its just sick, I can see our nation beginning its downward spiral as all great empires do...

 

 

for some people, HATE is enough reason to justify any attack... all we need to know is that they hate us. that's all the reason they need

[killbot1000]

for some people, HATE is enough reason to justify any attack... all we need to know is that they hate us. that's all the reason they need

 

Yes, but why is the hate there? Thats my point, nobody seems to be asking that question...