Should America leave Iraq right now?

Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Should America leave Iraq right now?

I've recently encountered other atheists, that while I agree with them on practically everything they have to say, I disagree with whether America should unilateraly pull out of Iraq immediately.

I would really apreciate other atheist views on how America should react to our involvement in Iraq as of right now.  This seems to be a stickler in my opinion of what we should do with the current situation we have created in Iraq.

Should America leave Iraq now?

Why?

Short term effects, long term effects, what would best benefit Americans now or in the future?

Let me know, so I can wrap my brain around this issue.  All opinions are gratefully accepted so I can evaluate the ideas presented. 

Thanks. 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    I think they are

    I think they are screwed basically, a 2 front war with really no allies left in Iraq (no one wants this mess and of course no one bothered with history of course surprise surprise) so what are they to do? Pull out and it proves that they cannot handle terrorists regimes, stay in, and basically go bankrupt (hey didn't osama do this to the russians? oh yes). It was a foolish move on the bush goverment, and now the USA is going to pay for this unfortunately, most likely in terms of economic losses, as war ain't cheap, and a war which you cannot win is even worse. However with the bush administration they cannot pullout, it would be a worst stain on their face.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I think that the us should

I think that the us should definitely pull out of iraq immediately and halt the construction of permanent bases there as well as pay reparations to the iraqi people until their country is returned to what was basically first world status before the us destroyed it.

 i believe this is correct because i think it would be best for the us to return to a non-interventionalist policy for the sake of the american people who already find their country collapsing under the weight of debt created by these policies as well as for the general well being of the rest of the world especially the middle east which has suffered greatly at the hands of the us.

i think in the short term the results could be no worse than they are now but in the long term they will be fine for the people of iraq but possibly not so good for the us from an economic standpoint. 

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  War is always complete

  War is always complete failure, the debate of war is stupidity and brainwash, every f ing bit of it,

NO , .... do love bombs, love only, embrace the world with the message of freedom from tyrants of greed, say NO to the rich, Eat them ..... SHARE .... 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: I

latincanuck wrote:
I think they are screwed basically, a 2 front war with really no allies left in Iraq (no one wants this mess and of course no one bothered with history of course surprise surprise) so what are they to do? Pull out and it proves that they cannot handle terrorists regimes

 A quick point Iraq was not a terrorist regime. Its didn't have links to Al_Quada, it was not a threat to America or any other western nation, it was not run by Islamic crazies. Iraq was in fact a laregly secular nation with the religious fucktards kept in check by the dictator Saddam Hussain. Now I would prefer dealing with a dictator than a theocracy. At least you know where you stand with a dictator they will tend to try to cling to power and that means trying not to overly fuck of bigger nations. Heaven knows America likes doing business with dictators they have helped install enough of them in place of other less "acceptable" regimes like democratically elected ones with socialist leanings. 

Quote:
, stay in, and basically go bankrupt (hey didn't osama do this to the russians? oh yes).

Yep 

Quote:
It was a foolish move on the bush goverment, and now the USA is going to pay for this unfortunately, most likely in terms of economic losses, as war ain't cheap, and a war which you cannot win is even worse.

Yep but your forgetting the main point. It allowed Bush to get re-elected and allowed him to give tax breaks to his business buddies for another 4 years. So the war in Iraq has been a resounding success, if you are part of Bushco.

Quote:
However with the bush administration they cannot pullout, it would be a worst stain on their face.

Hey but they have made their cash so what do they care?

The best bit is that the democrats will now get elected and have to carry the can for a totally fucked up economy. Meaning that 4 years after that the republicans will get elected back in!!

The war has been very succesful indeed for Bushco.

Should they pull out now though? They wont. They will leave that for the next administartion  to deal with. Its a wonderful politcial bear trap. If the next adminstration pulls out they will create another islamic fundamentlasist sate who will get busy slaughtering each other fro a while before turning their atention to the cause of all their problems The great Satan so you fucked if you do. If they don't pull out the economic strain will cause huge problems in America more soldiers will die and so they fucked if they don't. Either way the next administration is totally screwed. It might actually be a good thing if the republicans do get a third term, that way at least they will have to deal with the fall out from the mess they created. 


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
The comments so far

The comments so far highlight the fact that there are consequences either way. I think we need to get out ASAP. We are getting into a sunken costs problem in Iraq. We here from the right that we need to finish what we started or all will be for nothing. This is a common fallacy in social psychology and it would be better if we left. Yes, there will be chaos in the region and will the islamic fascists to organize. However, if we move towards an non-interventionist, non-empire policy we will save money to protect ourselves against terrorist attacks at home. We have just created propoganda for the terrorist organizations and caused more people, not just the muslim world, to look at the U.S. as evil and empirialistic. So the damage to our rep is already done. Yes, leaving will allow the Terrorists to re-group, but it will also allow us to begin to repair our relations with Europe and some of the nations in the Arab world that we consider allies. It will allow a quicker economic recovery and save lives. While we are at it we should leave are bases in Europe. No reason for us to be there either.

 Staying will only run us dry and we will continue to fight. We are know talking about starting another war with Iran. I can't believe this. Did we just not learn. We act so self-righteous about Iran having nuclear capabilities. To my knowledge Iran was involved in one war in the last 50 years. A war we started and funded. We have had multiple military operations around the world. Both overt and covert. Who should be afraid of whom?? Who is the real agressor? I can't believe that our politicians and media can't understand that the dictator of Iran talks big against the U.S. for political reasons, not because he really wants to start a war.  If Iran used a Nuke against the U.S. they know they would get demolished. What would be the point??

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    A terrorist state

    A terrorist state does not require to have links to al-quada or to islam, it has to be a sponsor of terrorism, North Korea is part of the axis of evil (terrorists state) and has no links to al-quada (sp?) or islam. Saddam as far as the bush administration was concerned was a threat to the middle east (read israel) with their WMD (or vapor ware as it turns out) and are/where an easier target than hitting iran because it was already defeated once and was not loved by it's arab neighbours as it stood. yes bush and those boys have made money, but it is always possible they could stand trial for it (yes I know the possiblities are so remote that I will win the lottery 3 times before this happens but it is the slightest of chances)


iranu
Posts: 59
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
America has to stay.  It's

America has to stay.  It's as simple as that.  There is no other rational option.  If America pulled out, and don't forget this would be a slow process, it would leave an entire country completely destabilised in what could arguably be called the most important region of the world.  The pull out process would be a very nice incentive for insurgents to target US troops and would certainly make it easier as numbers dropped.

 

If you think the price of a barrel of oil at $100 is high now then you'd squeal at the price if Iraq was left ungovernable and this would have more of an affect on the US economy than funding for the war.

 

  Iraq must be stable with a central government otherwise you'd see the Kurds in the north seriously push for a homeland and compete for control of Mosul and it's oilfields while the Iranians would seek to annex the south.  Massive upheaval and bloodshed would result as various groups would fight for power with the consequences spilling over into other states such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

 

The "surge",  contrary to most predictions, has worked and America must ensure that this breathing space is used by the Iraqi government.  America is in this one for the medium term (10-20 years) it's already crossed the rubicon.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
We need to get out.

We need to get out. "Victory" here is impossible and will never happen. We should have never been there in the first place.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
iranu wrote: America has

iranu wrote:

America has to stay.  It's as simple as that.  There is no other rational option.  If America pulled out, and don't forget this would be a slow process, it would leave an entire country completely destabilised in what could arguably be called the most important region of the world.  The pull out process would be a very nice incentive for insurgents to target US troops and would certainly make it easier as numbers dropped.

Don't they already have incentive?? 

 

 

If you think the price of a barrel of oil at $100 is high now then you'd squeal at the price if Iraq was left ungovernable and this would have more of an affect on the US economy than funding for the war.

Which is why we need to spend our money on developing alternative fuel sources. Amazing that Brazil is energy dependent and we are not. Yes they have more ethanol resources, but we have more technology.

 

  Iraq must be stable with a central government otherwise you'd see the Kurds in the north seriously push for a homeland and compete for control of Mosul and it's oilfields while the Iranians would seek to annex the south.  Massive upheaval and bloodshed would result as various groups would fight for power with the consequences spilling over into other states such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

So What? Let them handle it. It is their region, not ours. Can't we admit we were wrong to the world?? Why are we such a narciccistic country??

The "surge",  contrary to most predictions, has worked and America must ensure that this breathing space is used by the Iraqi government.  America is in this one for the medium term (10-20 years) it's already crossed the rubicon.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm...well these are my

Hmmm...well these are my thoughts on the matter.  I definetly don't consider myself an expert or anything but these are my somewhat naive thoughts.

To those that say we should just pull out and we should have never invaded in the first place...well it's a little late to do anything about us invading.

That's history.  We can't change the past.  So let's look at what we can do.  What is our current situation?

We did invade.  We have a country on our hands that is very destabilized and heavily islamic.

We just pull out?

Really?

We can't really compare this situation to any of America's past wars.  Yeah we rebuilt Germany and Japan, but they weren't killing each other within their own countries.  Yeah, we left Vietnam and everything turned out hunky-dory...but they didn't give a shit about America once we left.

Islam is a big difference.  We have to admit that all eyes are on us.  Whether or not we are fighting in the middle east.  We are currently the most powerful country in the world.  We spend the most on defense.  The entire world watches our movies our TV shows.

Think on that for a moment.  I've been to about a dozen countries around the mediterranean and they all have restaurants for McDonalds, Subway, have posters up advertising american movies, etc.

American culture is in your face for most of the people of the Earth.

And we have to admit, muslims do not like our culture.  At all.

Richard Dawkins interviewed a jewish man who had converted to the Muslim faith in Palestine.  He tried to talk with him.  The man started spouting things like, "How dare you dress your women like that!  Get your act together, and when we come..."

Did you hear that?  "When we come..."

Fundamentalist Islam is not content to just let us sit here fat, dumb, and happy. 

They will come.  Any chance they get.

So we have to keep them weak.

Ok, let's think on 9/11.  Where did the power base for the 9/11 operation come from?

Afghanistan.  I know that most of the hijackers were from Saudi, but the actual headquarter of the deed was from Afghanistan.

Ok, let's look at Afghanistan.  Ruled by brutal islamic fundamentalists that actually invited Osama to come over.

How did Afghanistan become like this?  The Soviet Union invaded, mucked everything up, and...they just fucking left.

If we just fucking leave, don't you think that the ultimate victor will be extremely brutal islamic fundamentalists?  People that hate America, want us dead, and will be sitting on top of the third largest reserve of Oil in the world?

So what would we have?

People that don't mind killing people, think it is their holy duty to subjugate us, and have the potential to be extremely well financed.

Doesn't that worry anyone?

Like I said, I'm not an expert by any means.  I just think it would be a very, very bad idea to leave Iraq without getting a stable government in place first. 

 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
There is little long-term

There is little long-term benefit for the United States to stay in Iraq.

 As much as I would like to say we should pull out immediately, I think that's unrealistic. The country is far too unstable. But I do think the next administration (which will hopefully be Democratic) should set a timetable for withdrawal as its first act in office. The withdrawal should be designed to take about 2-3 years. That gives us time to prop up their government and military as much as possible.

We will likely have to leave some kind of small, permanent force there - somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000-15,000 troops and advisors - to help keep an eye on things.

According to the Energy Information Administration, Iraq is in a distant sixth place in terms of being an oil supplier to the United States. (You can see year-to-date 2007 statistics here). Sure, if we can flood the market with Iraqi crude, that might bring the price down. But why bother? We've done fine so far without it. Americans have been bitching for far too long about "high" gasoline prices, when other weathly countries pay twice as much or more than what we pay.

There's a false sense that the health of the American economy is dependent on low gas prices. This is bullshit. Sure airlines can sell more tickets and auto makers can sell more cars when gas prices are low, but what the fuck? The technology for fuel efficiency has been around for years. I don't understand why auto makers in particular are so scared of installing the technology and passing the increased cost on to the customer.

So, yeah, let's get ourselves out of Iraq on a reasonable timetable.

[Edited: fixed link]

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Hmmm...well

Watcher wrote:

Hmmm...well these are my thoughts on the matter.  I definetly don't consider myself an expert or anything but these are my somewhat naive thoughts.

To those that say we should just pull out and we should have never invaded in the first place...well it's a little late to do anything about us invading.

That's history.  We can't change the past.  So let's look at what we can do.  What is our current situation?

We did invade.  We have a country on our hands that is very destabilized and heavily islamic.

We just pull out?

Really?

We can't really compare this situation to any of America's past wars.  Yeah we rebuilt Germany and Japan, but they weren't killing each other within their own countries.  Yeah, we left Vietnam and everything turned out hunky-dory...but they didn't give a shit about America once we left.

Islam is a big difference.  We have to admit that all eyes are on us.  Whether or not we are fighting in the middle east.  We are currently the most powerful country in the world.  We spend the most on defense.  The entire world watches our movies our TV shows.

Think on that for a moment.  I've been to about a dozen countries around the mediterranean and they all have restaurants for McDonalds, Subway, have posters up advertising american movies, etc.

American culture is in your face for most of the people of the Earth.

And we have to admit, muslims do not like our culture.  At all.

Richard Dawkins interviewed a jewish man who had converted to the Muslim faith in Palestine.  He tried to talk with him.  The man started spouting things like, "How dare you dress your women like that!  Get your act together, and when we come..."

Did you hear that?  "When we come..."

Fundamentalist Islam is not content to just let us sit here fat, dumb, and happy. 

They will come.  Any chance they get.

So we have to keep them weak.

Ok, let's think on 9/11.  Where did the power base for the 9/11 operation come from?

Afghanistan.  I know that most of the hijackers were from Saudi, but the actual headquarter of the deed was from Afghanistan.

Ok, let's look at Afghanistan.  Ruled by brutal islamic fundamentalists that actually invited Osama to come over.

How did Afghanistan become like this?  The Soviet Union invaded, mucked everything up, and...they just fucking left.

If we just fucking leave, don't you think that the ultimate victor will be extremely brutal islamic fundamentalists?  People that hate America, want us dead, and will be sitting on top of the third largest reserve of Oil in the world?

So what would we have?

People that don't mind killing people, think it is their holy duty to subjugate us, and have the potential to be extremely well financed.

Doesn't that worry anyone?

Like I said, I'm not an expert by any means.  I just think it would be a very, very bad idea to leave Iraq without getting a stable government in place first. 

 

Your arguement makes sense and I do agree on some of your conclusions. However, if we do stay we will continue to be drained economically, which is why Bin Laden wants us over there. The more we spend and the more thin our forces become the weaker are other powers (economic, social) become. If we can learn from the history of Rome, we will tear ourselves down. Yes, they do want to kills us and want to follow us here. Why not spend our money on protecting ourselves. By staying we increase the rise of fundamentalism. The more we stay the more we reinforce the belief that we are oppressors and are at war with Islam. The more we stay the less trust we have with other nations. We need their support.

We do need to take steps to protect ourselves.  I don't think staying there is a step and actually makes us weaker. Beyond radical Islam wanting to kill Americans they want to kill Jews and European nations. However, the larger war is in the market place of ideas. The more we stay and the more we use military force the less credible our ideas become. The more like hypocrits we become. Not just to the Islamic world but to the rest of the secular world.

Yes, we made a mistake. Why continue to make the same mistakes??

I do agree on a timetable approach. I don't think there will ever be a victory in Iraq. Do you think the terrorists are going to stop just because we are there?? Do you think we will just kill all Islamic fundamentalists?? No way in hell. We need to win this with the war of ideas, like the free world did to end communism, while also protecting ourselves. Sadly we are losing horribly in the war of ideas, especially when nations that think similarly to the way we do don't support our actions.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Here's a question for

Here's a question for everyone here. What is victory?  This seems to be an important part of the opinion on both sides of the issue and without a clear and consise meaning of "victory" then the argument is pointless.

What is victory? Is it defeating terrorists? Securing Iraq? Setting up the Iraqi government? Securing oil?

If you think victory entails defeating terrorists then I agree with you. The war is pointless and won't be won. Ever.

If you think victory entails securing Iraq, then from what? Terrorists? Other countries?

If you think victory entails setting up their government then I'll have to agree that victory is possible.

If you think victory entails securing oil then we're winning and will win, that is, with time. If you think oil prices are bad now, simply imagine what they would be like 10 years after.

If you think victory entails something else then please say what it is and if you think it's a possibility. I'm very curious about this as every argument for the war seems to revolve around the word... so please, enlighten me. 


Zombie
RRS local affiliate
Zombie's picture
Posts: 573
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, since you guys did

Well, since you guys did invade in the first place, you have the moral obligation to try and make sure a stable goverment left behind you when you leave, as if you`ll leave all that oil behind. My two cents anyway.

Morte alla tyrannus et dei


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
For me victory would be

For me victory would be setting up a stable goverment that can withstand any tribal warfare within Iraq. Keep the government out of the hands of radical fundamentalist Islam.

I notice a lot of people fear we are going bankrupt over our little war in Iraq.

Are we really? Think on WWII. We spent a hell of a lot more simply during the war of WWII than we are in Iraq I would expect. On top of that America was the "Arsenal of the freeworld". We gave away billions and billions free of charge in munitions and material. Then, after the war was over, America financed the rebuilding of all of Europe and Japan with money we never expected or asked to be repaid. If you put that into today's price tag, was it more? I'm not sure but I would definetly think so.

So what did doing all that result in to America?

Before WWII. America: big depression.

After WWII. America: no depression.

As long as our economy keeps pumping I wouldn't think it would be possible to go bankrupt. I would think we would just have a higher national debt.

Eh, but maybe somebody can tell me something I'm missing. I'm no historian and no economics major.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
The United States will not

The United States will not go bankrupt because of the war, nor will the war significantly affect the economy.

Money to pay for the war will simply be taken from elsewhere in the federal budget.

I find it funny that Republicans claim to be fiscal conservatives...unless you're talking about spending several hundred billion dollars to invade a foreign country. They're all for that kind of spending!

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Hmmm...well

Watcher wrote:

Hmmm...well these are my thoughts on the matter. I definetly don't consider myself an expert or anything but these are my somewhat naive thoughts.

To those that say we should just pull out and we should have never invaded in the first place...well it's a little late to do anything about us invading.

That's history. We can't change the past. So let's look at what we can do. What is our current situation?

We did invade. We have a country on our hands that is very destabilized and heavily islamic.

We just pull out?

Really?

We can't really compare this situation to any of America's past wars. Yeah we rebuilt Germany and Japan, but they weren't killing each other within their own countries. Yeah, we left Vietnam and everything turned out hunky-dory...but they didn't give a shit about America once we left.

Islam is a big difference. We have to admit that all eyes are on us. Whether or not we are fighting in the middle east. We are currently the most powerful country in the world. We spend the most on defense. The entire world watches our movies our TV shows.

Think on that for a moment. I've been to about a dozen countries around the mediterranean and they all have restaurants for McDonalds, Subway, have posters up advertising american movies, etc.

American culture is in your face for most of the people of the Earth.

And we have to admit, muslims do not like our culture. At all.

Richard Dawkins interviewed a jewish man who had converted to the Muslim faith in Palestine. He tried to talk with him. The man started spouting things like, "How dare you dress your women like that! Get your act together, and when we come..."

Did you hear that? "When we come..."

Fundamentalist Islam is not content to just let us sit here fat, dumb, and happy.

They will come. Any chance they get.

So we have to keep them weak.

Ok, let's think on 9/11. Where did the power base for the 9/11 operation come from?

Afghanistan. I know that most of the hijackers were from Saudi, but the actual headquarter of the deed was from Afghanistan.

Ok, let's look at Afghanistan. Ruled by brutal islamic fundamentalists that actually invited Osama to come over.

How did Afghanistan become like this? The Soviet Union invaded, mucked everything up, and...they just fucking left.

If we just fucking leave, don't you think that the ultimate victor will be extremely brutal islamic fundamentalists? People that hate America, want us dead, and will be sitting on top of the third largest reserve of Oil in the world?

So what would we have?

People that don't mind killing people, think it is their holy duty to subjugate us, and have the potential to be extremely well financed.

Doesn't that worry anyone?

Like I said, I'm not an expert by any means. I just think it would be a very, very bad idea to leave Iraq without getting a stable government in place first.

 

i think that you are making things a little too simple here and that you are missing some facts and most importantly i think you are ignoring that if you propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree that the principle also applies to you.

i mean i don't want to nitpick or anything but aghanistan isn't even in the middle east. it's in central asia. i know that doesn't make a huge difference to you but if you are going to suggest that a country be attacked perpetually you should at least be able to find it on a map. 

if the us had a right to attack afghanistan for harboring bin laden then there is a long, long list of countries that have every right to attack the us for harboring terrorists. do you know who orlando bosch is? 

but that's beside the point, you are basically saying the the us has the right to subjugate the iraqis so that they can't try to subjugate you and you shouldn't leave until they establish a stable government. aside from being blatantly hypocritical that's not even what the us intends to do. they just wanted to break the country up into three smaller countries. that was reported in the asia times 5 years ago.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
You can hardly compare

You can hardly compare Orlando Bosch to Osama bin Laden. Except for the fact that both at one time received support from the U.S government...

Look, the situation in Iraq is bad. The invasion was a terrible idea, and we're stuck with the consequences. And there's no way the U.S. is going to get out of there - whether it's in 3, 5, 10 or 20 years - with the country being squeaky clean.

But you can argue convincingly that the longer we stay, the more we're going to see diminishing marginal returns for our efforts. We won't be able to accomplish much more in 5 years than we can in three. So why stay the extra two years?

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: i think that

Gauche wrote:

i think that you are making things a little too simple here and that you are missing some facts and most importantly i think you are ignoring that if you propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree that the principle also applies to you.

i mean i don't want to nitpick or anything but aghanistan isn't even in the middle east. it's in central asia. i know that doesn't make a huge difference to you but if you are going to suggest that a country be attacked perpetually you should at least be able to find it on a map.

if the us had a right to attack afghanistan for harboring bin laden then there is a long, long list of countries that have every right to attack the us for harboring terrorists. do you know who orlando bosch is?

but that's beside the point, you are basically saying the the us has the right to subjugate the iraqis so that they can't try to subjugate you and you shouldn't leave until they establish a stable government. aside from being blatantly hypocritical that's not even what the us intends to do. they just wanted to break the country up into three smaller countries. that was reported in the asia times 5 years ago.

 

Ahem.  I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT INVADING ANYONE. 

Sorry about that. 

I'm talking about how to best set up Iraq from this day forward to prevent a danger to you and I as we sit in our offices at work. 

We're already there.  Stop and think about our situation with Iraq TODAY.  Not back in 2003 right before we invaded.  It's 2007, dude.  We invaded a long time ago.  Too late to worry about 2003.

And since I was in Afghanistan for 7 months immediately after 9/11 I think I can find it on the map.

And I'm sure radical fudamentalist Islam acts completely different if they are a couple thousand miles apart.  I mean Iraq is on one side of Iran and Afghanistan is on the opposite side of Iran.  Completly different situation with regards to radical islam.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
but you're just arguing for

but you're just arguing for US hegemony. first you used trumped up charges to attack a weaker nation claiming that they were a threat to you, now you're using the same excuse to justify an indefinite occupation when you are the one's that are a threat to them not the other way around. and if you're in the military don't you at least care that more than 100 of your friends and coworkers commit suicide every week from ptsd?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote: You can

geirj wrote:

You can hardly compare Orlando Bosch to Osama bin Laden. Except for the fact that both at one time received support from the U.S government...

Look, the situation in Iraq is bad. The invasion was a terrible idea, and we're stuck with the consequences. And there's no way the U.S. is going to get out of there - whether it's in 3, 5, 10 or 20 years - with the country being squeaky clean.

But you can argue convincingly that the longer we stay, the more we're going to see diminishing marginal returns for our efforts. We won't be able to accomplish much more in 5 years than we can in three. So why stay the extra two years?

the point was that the us harbors orlando bosch while he's wanted for terrorism in nicaragua. but at the same time they use afghanistan's harboring bin laden as an excuse for war.  it's the most basic moral principle that the standards you insist for others you also apply to yourself. this is why the us has no credibility throughout the world because it's blatant hypocrisy bordering on moral depravity. 

it sucks that the us is in a no win situation but there are always solutions. and the first thing that the us should do is stop attacking and occupying other countries and start trying to resolve matters with diplomacy. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:

Gauche wrote:
but you're just arguing for US hegemony. first you used trumped up charges to attack a weaker nation claiming that they were a threat to you, now you're using the same excuse to justify an indefinite occupation when you are the one's that are a threat to them not the other way around. and if you're in the military don't you at least care that more than 100 of your friends and coworkers commit suicide every week from ptsd?

I'm using trumped up charges to attack a weaker nation? Hello?

I'm not talking about attacking anyone. I'm talking about the current world situation.

*sigh*

Ok, I'm not talking about whether we should invade Afghanistan or Iraq. In case you didn't notice we already have.

Are you going to start claiming that I'm proposing that we should attack Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor back in 1941? WE'VE ALREADY ATTACKED THEM! We are ALREADY in Iraq. We are ALREADY in Afghanistan.

I'm NOT asking whether those attacks were right or wrong.

...

Ok, let's play a little game. Bush leaves office, you become the new president of America.

What do you have to deal with?

The previous presidency DID invade Iraq and you have to deal with it. You can't undo what happened years before. Your country is ALREADY occupying another country.

How do you best handle the current situation?

Current means now. Not a year ago, not 5 years ago, not 66 years ago.

Hello? AM I TALKING ABOUT HOW AMERICA SHOULD INITIALLY RESPOND TO 9/11?

We have already responded to it! I'm not talking about attacking anyone! I'm asking you what is the best thing to do starting now (Nov 30, 2007).

And who the fuck is arguing for an "indefinite" occupation? What?

I don't want us to indefinitely occupy anyone.

Where the fuck do you get that implication from?

I'm talking about setting up an Iraqi government FOR Iraq that is not radical, fundamental islam, and then stop occupying them.

And do I care if service members are commiting suicide? Ok, first can you explain what difference does this make?

Yeah, it sucks that some people get so fucked up that they commit suicide. What the fuck does that have to do about what we should do about current day Iraq?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I'm just wondering does

I'm just wondering does anybody else here actually read the comments and reports that are made by the normal everyday Iraqi people? I do, and from what I have been reading the situation for them has been improving all the time since Saddam was ousted. They have access to things now that they never had under Saddam's rule.

 

Do you also read the reactions of the normal everyday people that live in the countries surrounding Iraq? Especially the social stuff. Those people are looking at Iraq and are now asking themselves why they also can't have the freedoms the Iraqi people now have.

 

And from what I see, it isn't the coalition forces that are holding Iraq back, it is the people strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up amongst the normal everyday Iraqi people.

 

The coalition would have probably been out of there by now if it wasn't for the terrorists.

 

 

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.

 


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: the point was

Gauche wrote:
the point was that the us harbors orlando bosch while he's wanted for terrorism in nicaragua. but at the same time they use afghanistan's harboring bin laden as an excuse for war.  it's the most basic moral principle that the standards you insist for others you also apply to yourself. this is why the us has no credibility throughout the world because it's blatant hypocrisy bordering on moral depravity. 

it sucks that the us is in a no win situation but there are always solutions. and the first thing that the us should do is stop attacking and occupying other countries and start trying to resolve matters with diplomacy. 

You're still comparing apples to oranges with Bosch and bin Laden, particularly when it comes to death toll. Bosch was responsible for, what, something like 70 deaths? Bin Laden was responsible for 3,000.

The United States would have gone after bin Laden wherever he was hiding. It happened to be Afghanistan. We gave the ruling regime in Afghanistan the opportunity to cooperate, and they chose not to.

Look - I think most people here are clever enough to understand why the United States was attacked on September 11th, 2001. U.S. foreign policy in the middle east was shit for a long time before then. Our unconditional support of Israel has driven Arab countries absolutely nuts for decades. It was only a matter of time before someone with some resources mounted an attack on the United States.

The invasion of Iraq was completely and utterly unjustified. We know that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence they had to justify the invasion. We may never know what they were thinking. Maybe it's oil, maybe it's something else. But as an American citizen, I hope it's a very, very long time before we invade another country. As in never.

 

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   just some copy paste,

   just some copy paste, I have 100s of folders on this,

- New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
By Chris Floyd , t r u t h o u t | UK Correspondent http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807A.shtml

Surging Toward the Ultimate Prize

- So Bush's confident strut, his incessant upbeat pronouncements about the war, his complacent smirks, his callous indifference to the unspeakable horror he has unleashed in Iraq - these are not the hallmarks of self-delusion, or willful ignorance, or a disassociation from reality. He and his accomplices know full well what the reality is - and they like it.

VICTORY! - Mission (nearly) Accomplished 1 min. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt1LtXSAvL8 "How Did Our Oil Get Under Their Soil" - The Iraqi Oil Theft Law ready to be passed by the Iraqi Parliament will hand over the loot to the international Oil Companies. Come celebrate with us. WE'VE WON!

Iraq oil law, NOW BEING PUSHED Randi Rhodes talks to Antonia Juhasz part 1 ( 6 MIN ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lrMVJFHf30 Antonia Juhasz, an analyst with Oil Change International and the author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time.

MASS MURDER, DISFIGURED CHILDREN, WEEPING GRANDMAS, and the War makers call themselves religious ?

eat the rich .....


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
geirj wrote: You're still

geirj wrote:

You're still comparing apples to oranges with Bosch and bin Laden, particularly when it comes to death toll. Bosch was responsible for, what, something like 70 deaths? Bin Laden was responsible for 3,000.

The United States would have gone after bin Laden wherever he was hiding. It happened to be Afghanistan. We gave the ruling regime in Afghanistan the opportunity to cooperate, and they chose not to.

Look - I think most people here are clever enough to understand why the United States was attacked on September 11th, 2001. U.S. foreign policy in the middle east was shit for a long time before then. Our unconditional support of Israel has driven Arab countries absolutely nuts for decades. It was only a matter of time before someone with some resources mounted an attack on the United States.

The invasion of Iraq was completely and utterly unjustified. We know that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence they had to justify the invasion. We may never know what they were thinking. Maybe it's oil, maybe it's something else. But as an American citizen, I hope it's a very, very long time before we invade another country. As in never.

you're talking about the number of people who died that's just moral calculus. i'm talking about a principle that the us would apply to other nations but not to itself.

but even if that was a good reason to apply the doubole standard, bin laden has never been indicted for that bombing. the fbi said that they don't have evidence he was even responsible. and i could just as easily say orlando bosch is suspect in more than 30 acts of terrorism and bin laden is suspected of less than that so the us should not have been able to attack afghanistan but cuba should be able to attack the us. you should go by the principle not by numbers.

you say that you gave afghanistan "the opportunity to cooperate" but the us does not cooperate with other nations who try to apprehend terrorists. the us has a ruling against it in the international court for engaging in terrorism. then they attack another country for not even engaging in terrorism but just harboring a person who hasn't even been indicted to this day and kill tens of thousands more people in the process.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
UltraMonk wrote: I'm just

UltraMonk wrote:

I'm just wondering does anybody else here actually read the comments and reports that are made by the normal everyday Iraqi people? I do, and from what I have been reading the situation for them has been improving all the time since Saddam was ousted. They have access to things now that they never had under Saddam's rule.

 

Do you also read the reactions of the normal everyday people that live in the countries surrounding Iraq? Especially the social stuff. Those people are looking at Iraq and are now asking themselves why they also can't have the freedoms the Iraqi people now have.

 

And from what I see, it isn't the coalition forces that are holding Iraq back, it is the people strapping bombs to their bodies and blowing themselves up amongst the normal everyday Iraqi people.

 

The coalition would have probably been out of there by now if it wasn't for the terrorists.

 

 

 

yes i'm sure many countries are just itching to have a prolonged military occupation, more than a million of their citizens dead and widespread sectarian violence. they'll have to wait in line though because the us only has so many high school dropouts to put into their preemptive-strike policy war machine meat grinder. 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: yes i'm sure

Gauche wrote:

yes i'm sure many countries are just itching to have a prolonged military occupation

I don't understand where you are coming from for that statement. 

Gauche wrote:
 more than a million of their citizens dead and widespread sectarian violence.

 

The so called million citizens dead is very debatable. I have read the claims by many stating the deaths are caused by the US. After digging deeper however I found information that indicated otherwise.

As for the sectarian violence, that was there even before the US went in. People seem to forget what was actually going on in the country before the US occupation. So they look at the stuff since and say 'Yeah the US caused that!' completely missing the fact that it was already there!

Gauche wrote:

 they'll have to wait in line though because the us only has so many high school dropouts to put into their preemptive-strike policy war machine meat grinder. 

 

Well I am one of the few that agreed with the coalition forces going in. Saddam was thumbing his nose at everybody, did it for many years. The UN sanctions weren't working, the UN Oil-for-Food program was corrupt, etc.

Just like you have a responsibility to your neighbours in behaving yourself, so do countries have the same responsibility to their neighbours (ie the world). It's just America is one of the few countries in the world that has the power to be able to step in and do something when it needs to be done.

If America hadn't done something when they did, I bet you even today Saddam would still be in power, still be thumbing his nose at everybody, and still not complying with the UN requirements. So how long was the world meant to give him to behave? 20 years? 50 years? 100 years?

 Enough was enough.

 

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
the us has done more nose

the us has done more nose thumbing at the international community than saddam ever did. the us put him in power in the first place and supported the baath party. if saddam was still in power today that wouldn't change the fact that the us is the biggest violator of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on the planet. but you must think that everyone should "behave" except the us. face it, america is a rouge state that uses the only area in which it is still dominant (military force) to dictate rules to the rest of the world that it refuses to follow itself.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: the us has

Gauche wrote:
the us has done more nose thumbing at the international community than saddam ever did. the us put him in power in the first place and supported the baath party. if saddam was still in power today that wouldn't change the fact that the us is the biggest violator of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty on the planet. but you must think that everyone should "behave" except the us. face it, america is a rouge state that uses the only area in which it is still dominant (military force) to dictate rules to the rest of the world that it refuses to follow itself.

And the problem is? Someone is going to be the most powerful and will have to prevent insane dictators from creating WMD's. Granted, Saddam was only slightly insane compared to say Kim Jong-il. I doubt that Saddam would actually have used a Nuke if he created one. Although I believe he certainly would have been willing to sell it. I would just as soon it be America. The Brits seem to have really lost interest in controlling the world and seem fixated with controlling the EU, the French can't even control their own country and might be heading for yet another revolution, the Germans recently tried to conquer the world, and don't mention the Russians and Chinese. Who else if not America?

The US will never leave Iraq and I will argue that it shouldn't leave. The US has a habit of leaving military bases in every country that has the unfortunate experience of being on the wrong side of our military. Note, we still have military bases in Germany and Japan. Granted, at some point the bases ceased to be occupying forces and became friendly but we are still there. Similarly I expect the US will establish at least one permanent base in Iraq.

Half of what I expect is the real reason we invaded Iraq is its proximity to Iran. Already rumblings have been heard of an assault on Iran on both Republican and Democratic sides of the ticket. If I was a betting man (which I am) I would put my money on the US invading Iran within the next 10 years. While it is difficult to prove that the Iranian government has been directly involved with terrorism it is clear that they are willingly turned a blind eye to terrorism. We know a good portion of the terrorists in Iraq have come from Iran.

As for America being a hegemony I don't see the problem. We have the most advanced and skilled military in the world. Our military is utterly terrifying if you are on the wrong side of it. Living in a democracy we get spoiled and start thinking that all problems can be solved with talk and negotiations. Talk and negotiations work great when both sides are willing to compromise. When one side is religious fanatics or insane dictators negotiations are a waste of time. How do you come to a rational agreement with someone who is irrational? Or someone who agrees then proceeds to do the opposite of what was agreed on. Sometimes war is the only option and I'm damn glad I live in the country with the best military.

So now that we are in Iraq I think we should stay there. As someone pointed out we have a bit of a moral obligation to make sure we don't leave a mess behind. Also, it is a useful place to have a military base should we need it for Iran.

I just wish that we Bush would set his damn morals aside long enough to take a few trillion dollars worth of oil. After all, if we just went there for the oil why the hell did we let them join OPEC?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
i'm sorry i can't tell if

i'm sorry i can't tell if you are serious or not. if you are not joking then i will try to write a serious response i guess.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm about as serious as I

I'm about as serious as I ever am. Aside from the fact that a large part of me considers life to be little more than a high stakes game I am very serious. The US is currenly the strongest country militarily and we should use that when we are threatened by other countries.  If religious fundys get out of hand and start blowing us up we should go take care of them regardless of what other countries think. Expecting terrorists to leave us alone just because we say we are going to be nice to them is idiotic.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:

Gauche wrote:

yes i'm sure many countries are just itching to have a prolonged military occupation, more than a million of their citizens dead and widespread sectarian violence. they'll have to wait in line though because the us only has so many high school dropouts to put into their preemptive-strike policy war machine meat grinder.

The United States military does not accept people who have not completed High School level education. Your derisive sneer to the serving personnel in the military is quite telling.

I met many people in the military that were stunningly brilliant.

I also met many arrogant and condescending individuals. Actually you sound just like them.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
i'm certain that there are

i'm certain that there are plenty of intelligent people in the military who have integrity...and they're all awol hahaha.  anyway the war on terrorism is bogus. it's just an excuse to clamp down on democracy. you might think it's good that the us can project military dominance but if america no longer represents the ideas that made it great in the first place, freedom, democracy, individual liberty and justice then other people actually have a right to fight it by hook or by crook.

america is an over-bloated debtor nation with a failed democracy and a military so large that it can only be maintained by putting the country futher into debt. instead of worrying about full spectrum dominance (that's the dod's term not mine) you should be thinking about why other countries are lining up to dump your currency and the value of the dollar is plunging, and you have a government that sets up prison systems and police forces that are not accountable to the people, and a surveillance apparatus directed at ordinary citizens.  

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
While there are a lot of

While there are a lot of good points being made in this thread I must interject something, no matter how many air strikes, tanks, enlisted personnel, generals, acts of good will, acts of suppression (insurgents), Blackwater private militia, or whatever you want to throw at the situation, you cannot bring nor foist 'freedom' and democracy upon people who do not truly desire it. In order for Iraq to sustain democracy the citizens must truly want it, fight for it, and be willing to die for it. Until that happens, all of efforts to secure and stabilize the country will be in vain.

This is not the U.S.'s fight, this needs to be the people's fight....


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: i'm certain

Gauche wrote:

i'm certain that there are plenty of intelligent people in the military who have integrity...and they're all awol hahaha.  anyway the war on terrorism is bogus. it's just an excuse to clamp down on democracy. you might think it's good that the us can project military dominance but if america no longer represents the ideas that made it great in the first place, freedom, democracy, individual liberty and justice then other people actually have a right to fight it by hook or by crook.

america is an over-bloated debtor nation with a failed democracy and a military so large that it can only be maintained by putting the country futher into debt. instead of worrying about full spectrum dominance (that's the dod's term not mine) you should be thinking about why other countries are lining up to dump your currency and the value of the dollar is plunging, and you have a government that sets up prison systems and police forces that are not accountable to the people, and a surveillance apparatus directed at ordinary citizens.  

Ummmmm, would you rather live in Iraq under Saddam or now? Afghanistan under the Taliban or now? Sure they are not perfect but there is certainly more freedom now than before. Even though the modern US has certainly thrown out a lot of our freedoms in the last 100 years we are still one of the most free nations in the world.

Regardless of what you think of the war on terror, the US has improved the lives of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and has helped spread its ideals of democracy and freedom.

And say one more derogatory thing about the troops and I will cease being nice. I found the average soldier to be quite a bit more intelligent than the average american and at least 10 times more intelligent than your average college student. I went through boot camp and college. Boot camp was much harder.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Sometimes when you give

Sometimes when you give someone a taste of something they develop an appetite for it.

Maybe they don't know what they are missing.

Should we wait for each country to proverbially invent the wheel? Or should we promote good ideas? If we think freedom is so great, why should we think others might crave to be suppressed?

I think this idea of waiting for each country to forge it's own destiny like America's founding fathers did is simply a return to isolationism. That didn't work for us in the past. We didn't rise to superpower status until we abandoned it.

Maybe isolationism is the correct action. Maybe so. I will honestly tell you that it may very well be. However, I think it very well might not be.

If isolationism is the correct form of action, it would mean that we don't mess with anyone and they leave us alone(yeah, right) because of it.  Eventually they will all get liberal and fat enough to chill out and live and let live.

If it isn't it means we need to get involved.  How?  Well definetly not by invading country after country.  Hell, fucking no.  I will tell you quite truthfully that I refuse to give a detailed opinion on how we should go about getting involved.  I'm not intelligent enough nor in possession of the facts needed to do such a thing.

But getting involved rather than sticking our heads in the sand?  I will at least propose that we need to take a place on the world stage in some manner. 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   gezz, WAR IS A

   gezz,

WAR IS A RACKET

google Major General Smedley D. Butler, for more,

http://www.warisaracket.com/ Linked from, http://www.nmmng.co.uk/links.html , from, http://www.nmmng.co.uk/ from, http://physicshead.blogspot.com/search/label/Carl%20Sagan , all from The giant list of atheist blogs (Mojoey's Atheist Blogroll) http://www.neuralgourmet.com/2007/09/26/the_giant_list_of_atheist_blog

a bonus: What's good about religion? patcondell video, http://atheistube.blogspot.com/

You Are Going To Die, be happy, everything is pointless .... Atheist. Nihilist. Anarchist. Pessimist. Misanthrope. FAQ http://www.everythingispointless.com/2007/02/faq.html

You exist. Get over it. Get on to living. Be happy. War is stupidity, the wrong method .... help them better ....


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I think

Watcher wrote:

I think this idea of waiting for each country to forge it's own destiny like America's founding fathers did is simply a return to isolationism. That didn't work for us in the past. We didn't rise to superpower status until we abandoned it.

Maybe isolationism is the correct action. Maybe so. I will honestly tell you that it may very well be. However, I think it very well might not be.

If isolationism is the correct form of action, it would mean that we don't mess with anyone and they leave us alone(yeah, right) because of it. Eventually they will all get liberal and fat enough to chill out and live and let live.

While I always appreciate a good strawman argument, I must point out, I said nothing of isolationism. Though I think we meddle too much in other nation's affairs, that was not the argument I was making. I also did not argue that they crave to be surpressed, a lack of will to stand up is not the same as craving.

The point I was making is that democracy cannot be FORCED upon a nation of people who appear unwilling to stand up and fight for it. The particular nation we are discussing has had a taste of democracy, they have knowledge of freedom. My impression of the situation, wrong as it may be, is that the pure desire to fight and die for freedom does not exist in the nation's people. 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Sometimes when you give someone a taste of something they develop an appetite for it.

You're serious right? Right. I think it's more reasonable to assume that people the world over would rather have food, shelter and a stable life before they care about who rules over them. I somehow don't think that a war environment is the exact place a civilian person wants to live in, especially considering the civilian casualties that America's responsible for.

Quote:

Maybe they don't know what they are missing.

They sure don't. I bet they don't care either. Do you know what you're missing, living in the United States? Of course not. Dripping with sarcasm, the United States is obviously the best nation in the world.

Quote:

Should we wait for each country to proverbially invent the wheel? Or should we promote good ideas? If we think freedom is so great, why should we think others might crave to be suppressed?

Let me get this straight. It's America's duty to promote its superior ideals of 'democracy' and 'freedom' by invading countries and committing government coups, for the good of the sovereign citizens of sovereign nations?

Quote:

I think this idea of waiting for each country to forge it's own destiny like America's founding fathers did is simply a return to isolationism. That didn't work for us in the past. We didn't rise to superpower status until we abandoned it.

And the world wants the United States as a 'super power'? Invading other countries and committing government coups for the 'good of the sovereign citizens of sovereign nations'?

Just how many other nations practise a democratic form of government and managed to forge their own destinies without the help of the United States? Your argument is dead in the water. No one gave the United States permission or the choice to 'help out' or to 'not help out' and frankly this altered version of manifest destiny would be better off culled from the thoughts of Americans. I fail to see at what point America's interventionism has actually helped the world.

Quote:

Maybe isolationism is the correct action. Maybe so. I will honestly tell you that it may very well be. However, I think it very well might not be.

If isolationism is the correct form of action, it would mean that we don't mess with anyone and they leave us alone(yeah, right) because of it. Eventually they will all get liberal and fat enough to chill out and live and let live.

If it isn't it means we need to get involved. How? Well definetly not by invading country after country. Hell, fucking no. I will tell you quite truthfully that I refuse to give a detailed opinion on how we should go about getting involved. I'm not intelligent enough nor in possession of the facts needed to do such a thing.

But getting involved rather than sticking our heads in the sand? I will at least propose that we need to take a place on the world stage in some manner.

The United States hasn't got a choice but to be involved in the world. After 50 years of near constant military action in various nations around the world, I think the United States has earned a place being involved. An isolationist policy is simply a silly notion. It's not even possible for any country to consider such a thing anymore, nor actually practise it. The world is far to global for that and to make a point, America is far to dependant on everybody else for pretty much everything it needs. Not an odd situation for any nation to be in. I really hold issue with the United States for a great many reasons, most of which aren't even relevant to the fact that it's been a warmongering nation for the last 50 years.

Do I think America should get out of Iraq right now? Yes.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: You're

Thomathy wrote:

You're serious right? Right. I think it's more reasonable to assume that people the world over would rather have food, shelter and a stable life before they care about who rules over them. I somehow don't think that a war environment is the exact place a civilian person wants to live in, especially considering the civilian casualties that America's responsible for.

Of course the basic necessities exist first.  The foremost of concerns in life is food, shelter, stability, etc.  Then the right to not get killed for no reason if at all possible.  Then, after the previous needs are gained, right to live how you want to live.  If we come down to scraping for a minimual survival ANYONE almost would live in any environment that provided the basics of food, water, and shelter. 

Thomathy wrote:

They sure don't. I bet they don't care either. Do you know what you're missing, living in the United States? Of course not. Dripping with sarcasm, the United States is obviously the best nation in the world.

Agreed.  Please inform me of what I am missing.  I would LOVE for you to enrich my life. 


Thomathy wrote:

Let me get this straight. It's America's duty to promote its superior ideals of 'democracy' and 'freedom' by invading countries and committing government coups, for the good of the sovereign citizens of sovereign nations?

I have already emphatically stated that I do NOT condone invading country after country.  Why are you implying that I do condone such a thing? 

Thomathy wrote:

And the world wants the United States as a 'super power'? Invading other countries and committing government coups for the 'good of the sovereign citizens of sovereign nations'?

Just how many other nations practise a democratic form of government and managed to forge their own destinies without the help of the United States? Your argument is dead in the water. No one gave the United States permission or the choice to 'help out' or to 'not help out' and frankly this altered version of manifest destiny would be better off culled from the thoughts of Americans. I fail to see at what point America's interventionism has actually helped the world.

I have never stated that the world wanted anything from america.  The simple fact is that America DID become a superpower after WWII.  I think that we should try to influence what we believe to be best in life rather than squander that influence.

How has America helped "the world"?  I can't say we have.  We obviously helped western Europe in WWII.  Both during and after.  We obviously help Israel even today. 

In a lot of ways any penny America spends on Science helps all of humanity.  America doesn't have the complete corner marketed on science by any means, but you have to admit that america has come up with a few scientific improvements for humanity. 

Thomathy wrote:

Do I think America should get out of Iraq right now? Yes.

Awesome!  Why do you think this would be the best direction to go? 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: While I always

BGH wrote:

While I always appreciate a good strawman argument, I must point out, I said nothing of isolationism. Though I think we meddle too much in other nation's affairs, that was not the argument I was making. I also did not argue that they crave to be surpressed, a lack of will to stand up is not the same as craving.

I'm still rather weak on the strawman thing.  Will you please point out how I did such a thing?  Honestly, I'm not being a turd here.  Help me learn, BGH.  Thanks. 

BGH wrote:

The point I was making is that democracy cannot be FORCED upon a nation of people who appear unwilling to stand up and fight for it. The particular nation we are discussing has had a taste of democracy, they have knowledge of freedom. My impression of the situation, wrong as it may be, is that the pure desire to fight and die for freedom does not exist in the nation's people.

Have they really gotten a taste of freedom?  They seem to think freedom is the freedom to kill people that don't agree with you.  At least here in america we are at a level where baptists aren't blowing themselves up inside catholic churches.  The Sunnis and Shiites seem to blow each other up daily.  And their differences seem to amount to the same between a lutheran and a mormon, actually quite less in a lot of ways.  Really, have they attained a taste of what freedom really means as us americans perceive it? 

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Ummmmm, would you rather live in Iraq under Saddam or now? Afghanistan under the Taliban or now? Sure they are not perfect but there is certainly more freedom now than before. Even though the modern US has certainly thrown out a lot of our freedoms in the last 100 years we are still one of the most free nations in the world.

Regardless of what you think of the war on terror, the US has improved the lives of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and has helped spread its ideals of democracy and freedom.

And say one more derogatory thing about the troops and I will cease being nice. I found the average soldier to be quite a bit more intelligent than the average american and at least 10 times more intelligent than your average college student. I went through boot camp and college. Boot camp was much harder.

being a bit more intelligent than the average american isn't really saying much though is it?  the average american can't find their own country on a map, doesn't even know what year it is or who their own president is, much less anything about iraq or afghanistan.

if everyone on the receiving end of your great gift of invasion wants to get down on their knees and kiss your asses in gratitude then why would you think you have to worry about terrorism in the first place? the us has bombed 21 countries since wwii and none of them have formed a democratic government as a result of the military action.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Of course

Watcher wrote:

Of course the basic necessities exist first. The foremost of concerns in life is food, shelter, stability, etc. Then the right to not get killed for no reason if at all possible. Then, after the previous needs are gained, right to live how you want to live. If we come down to scraping for a minimual survival ANYONE almost would live in any environment that provided the basics of food, water, and shelter.

Rights are fundamental, they don't come in progressive steps.  I think you mean to use the word 'concern' or 'ability' instead of 'right'.  Otherwise, you're not being totally coherent here.  Nevertheless, I understand what you mean.  Yes, the basic necessities are premier, then come other concerns. 

Quote:
 

Agreed. Please inform me of what I am missing. I would LOVE for you to enrich my life.

I didn't ask the question so that I could later explain to you what you are missing.  There are numerous things you could be as an American.  Do some searching yourself and discover what other nations have that yours doesn't that you'd like to have.  The question was really rhetorical.  I asked it to point out to you the absurdity of your own question.  You can't know what you're missing if you haven't experienced it or if you aren't aware of it's absence.  Maybe you really feel that America is the best country in the world and that there's nothing else you'd desire that you haven't got.  I don't really know.  From my perspective I can see what America's lacking.


Quote:

I have already emphatically stated that I do NOT condone invading country after country. Why are you implying that I do condone such a thing?

I'm not implying that at all.  That's just the reality of America's involvement in the world.  So, you don't support it?  That doesn't change the reality and you haven't proposed an alternative option other than isolationism.  Perhaps if you advocated a political and diplomatic type of involvement... but you're posts indicate that you don't feel those are good options either.  (Would you rather America just didn't exist?  You wouldn't be alone.) 

Quote:
 


I have never stated that the world wanted anything from america. The simple fact is that America DID become a superpower after WWII. I think that we should try to influence what we believe to be best in life rather than squander that influence.

I'll be crystal clear here.  I don't think the any nation wants any other country's ideologies forced upon them in any way.  Simply because the United States is a 'super power' doesn't mean it has to have 'influence' at least not the sort you're talking about.

Quote:
 

How has America helped "the world"? I can't say we have. We obviously helped western Europe in WWII. Both during and after. We obviously help Israel even today.

That's funny.  Okay, the United States did something for Europe some 50 years ago and it's 'helping' Israel.  I don't know where you're going here.  I also think you're overstating America's involvement in a war that was half over by the time America joined in and the victory of which wasn't the result of American military aide.  Of course, I've known Americans to have a bizarre knowledge of World War II history that just doesn't jive with history books printed in the rest of the world.

Quote:
 

In a lot of ways any penny America spends on Science helps all of humanity. America doesn't have the complete corner marketed on science by any means, but you have to admit that america has come up with a few scientific improvements for humanity.

Okay.

Quote:
 

Awesome! Why do you think this would be the best direction to go?

I don't recall a war in recent times that America's been involved in where the war was actually won and justice was actually done to the people in the nation where the war was fought.  I don't see how Iraq should be any different.  I don't see how further American involvement would be beneficial to the now war ravaged nation of Iraq which was invaded under blatantly false circumstances for purely American interests without the approval of international bodies and the disapproval of many of the worlds nations.  America has no right to be in Iraq, let alone to stay and... and what... try to make up for the fact that they virtually destroyed the entire country?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: I'm still

Watcher wrote:

I'm still rather weak on the strawman thing. Will you please point out how I did such a thing? Honestly, I'm not being a turd here. Help me learn, BGH. Thanks.

Understandable. I do not mind the inquiry.

A strawman argument is one that argues against something that was not said in the original statement. I said nothing about isolationism or the Iraqi people "craving supression", though you argued against that as if I implied it.  

Watcher wrote:

Have they really gotten a taste of freedom? They seem to think freedom is the freedom to kill people that don't agree with you. At least here in america we are at a level where baptists aren't blowing themselves up inside catholic churches. The Sunnis and Shiites seem to blow each other up daily. And their differences seem to amount to the same between a lutheran and a mormon, actually quite less in a lot of ways. Really, have they attained a taste of what freedom really means as us americans perceive it?

Then, I will ask this question. How should it be determined when enough of the Iraqis have had sufficient tasting of freedom? How will it be surmised that they have known the 'good' kind of freedom?

I would think any taste of freedom to a oppressed people such as those in Iraq would be adequate enough to inspire someone who really wants it. If these things take time to develop, how long do we remain there 'showing'  them freedom by occupying them? 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: Beyond

Gauche wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

Ummmmm, would you rather live in Iraq under Saddam or now? Afghanistan under the Taliban or now? Sure they are not perfect but there is certainly more freedom now than before. Even though the modern US has certainly thrown out a lot of our freedoms in the last 100 years we are still one of the most free nations in the world.

Regardless of what you think of the war on terror, the US has improved the lives of people in Afghanistan and Iraq and has helped spread its ideals of democracy and freedom.

And say one more derogatory thing about the troops and I will cease being nice. I found the average soldier to be quite a bit more intelligent than the average american and at least 10 times more intelligent than your average college student. I went through boot camp and college. Boot camp was much harder.

being a bit more intelligent than the average american isn't really saying much though is it? the average american can't find their own country on a map, doesn't even know what year it is or who their own president is, much less anything about iraq or afghanistan.

if everyone on the receiving end of your great gift of invasion wants to get down on their knees and kiss your asses in gratitude then why would you think you have to worry about terrorism in the first place? the us has bombed 21 countries since wwii and none of them have formed a democratic government as a result of the military action.

I'd like to say, Gauche, that I'm glad you've posted in this topic.  I had considered not posting at all and have avoided until most recently, only because you said absolutely everything I would have said.  I believe it's important to dispell the myths surrounding American military action around the world and the warped idea that it somehow promotes democracy and freedom and makes lives better for people. 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: the us has

Gauche wrote:
the us has bombed 21 countries since wwii and none of them have formed a democratic government as a result of the military action.

 

Which countries make up the 21 countries?

Do you regard a Republic as a democracy or are you just referring to a plain old Democratic country?

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: being a bit

Gauche wrote:

being a bit more intelligent than the average american isn't really saying much though is it?  the average american can't find their own country on a map, doesn't even know what year it is or who their own president is, much less anything about iraq or afghanistan.

if everyone on the receiving end of your great gift of invasion wants to get down on their knees and kiss your asses in gratitude then why would you think you have to worry about terrorism in the first place? the us has bombed 21 countries since wwii and none of them have formed a democratic government as a result of the military action.

Other than Germany and Japan the US has not taken the time to help establish democracies in the countries we have been involved in. I believe this was a mistake although since during that time we were in the middle of an arms race with the USSR I can understand why it wasn't at the top of our list. In fact, the US often supported dictators who were willing to support America out of expediency. That is how we ended up supporting Baptista, Saddam, Osama et al. Yes, we made a big cluster fuck mess of a lot of countries because we went in with one purpose and left without offering any further support and that might very well be partially responsible for the hatred of America that helps perpetuate terrorism.

In Afghanistan we tried something different. We stayed just like we did in Germany and Japan. We established a democracy, helped rebuild the infrastructure and improved the country, just like we did in Germany and Japan.

Now explain to me, how leaving Iraq like we left Panama, Cuba, Korea and Vietnam is going to help reduce hatred of America? All those countries we left like some are proposing we leave Iraq are royally pissed off at us.

Or we can stay in Iraq like we did in Germany, Japan and Afghanistan and help them improve their lives. The result will be a country that will be a lot friendlier in the long run.

You are right, bombing does not establish a democracy. We've already bombed Iraq and demolished the enemy militarily so they are reduced to guerilla tactics. Establishing a democracy requires time, security and boots on the ground for a much longer time. If our only goal is to kill all the bad guys, a nuke would have been far more efficient. This might surprise you, but the groups that were in power don't really like democracy and will do anything to prevent it so they can rule again. The Brits weren't too hot about democracy when America revolted. Actually, I'm not too crazy about democracy if the choice is me being dictator or having a democracy. Democracy is such an inefficient form of government and gives the majority too much power but that is another thread. 

To those who say you can't force democracy. What is Japan? And Afghanistan is coming along quite nicely.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: You're

Thomathy wrote:
You're serious right? Right. I think it's more reasonable to assume that people the world over would rather have food, shelter and a stable life before they care about who rules over them. I somehow don't think that a war environment is the exact place a civilian person wants to live in, especially considering the civilian casualties that America's responsible for.

Yeah, war is hell we know that. Although the US is quite good at avoiding civilian casualties. Although, very few countries are ever able to become democracies, republics or have substantial freedoms without war. Dictators tend to try to hold onto their power with force.

Thomathy wrote:
  

Quote:

Maybe they don't know what they are missing.

They sure don't. I bet they don't care either. Do you know what you're missing, living in the United States? Of course not. Dripping with sarcasm, the United States is obviously the best nation in the world.

I haven't been everywhere but America is certainly better than the places I have been. Now if you want to compare America to other democractic industrialized nations I suppose you could argue the merits of one over the other but do you seriously believe that Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran were great places to live if you were not in the ruling group?

Thomathy wrote:
  

Let me get this straight. It's America's duty to promote its superior ideals of 'democracy' and 'freedom' by invading countries and committing government coups, for the good of the sovereign citizens of sovereign nations?

I for one believe that it is a good thing as long as we follow through (which in most of recent history we have not.) Note, the citizens are not sovereign. The countries we are discussing are not democracies. They do not have a choice. Invading every country isn't practical but if we need to invade a country for other reasons we might as well establish a democracy. 

Thomathy wrote:
  

And the world wants the United States as a 'super power'? Invading other countries and committing government coups for the 'good of the sovereign citizens of sovereign nations'?

Well, I'm sure there are many countries that want to be the super power. Sorry Brits, even though your SAS is pretty good your island is too small. As an American I prefer to be the super power and since no other country is currently capable of taking the title away I think we are secure with it at least in the immediate future. 

Thomathy wrote:
Just how many other nations practise a democratic form of government and managed to forge their own destinies without the help of the United States?

Not the French, Germans, Japanese, Russians or Afghans. Granted, the Brits played a much larger role in India, Australia and Canada.

Thomathy wrote:
  

Your argument is dead in the water. No one gave the United States permission or the choice to 'help out' or to 'not help out' and frankly this altered version of manifest destiny would be better off culled from the thoughts of Americans. I fail to see at what point America's interventionism has actually helped the world.

I don't think a dictator is going to give us permission. Hmmm... I think we helped in WWI, WWII, bringing down the USSR, Afghanistan and Israel.

Thomathy wrote:
I really hold issue with the United States for a great many reasons, most of which aren't even relevant to the fact that it's been a warmongering nation for the last 50 years.

Your just jealous.

As for your other post WWI the US was a little late in joining and MAYBE the Alliance might have won without our soldiers but back then we were a relatively unimportant nation with a really small army. We only drafted a mere 4 million soldiers. Pathetic. Almost as worthless as Canada.

In WWII the French had already lost and the only significant power remaining in Europe was the Brits. Which, I love you but your little island was being bombed and you didn't really stand a chance without aid. We lost over 400,000 men.

Although, ironically in both wars the US was reluctant to get involved. Both would have been far less severe if the US had gotten involved earlier, especially WWII. If only the US hadn't been so isolationist...

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote: Should

Watcher wrote:

Should America leave Iraq now?

Why?

Short term effects, long term effects, what would best benefit Americans now or in the future?

I think America should leave Iraq now. I don't believe this will improve the situation in Iraq, and neither will staying.

As to why, the value of the American dollar is plummeting, as is our international standing, our national morale, our confidence in our own government, and our sense or security. I think our troops should be providing a line of defense here at our borders, sea ports, airports, etc. I'm sure some would call it selfish, but our national finances should be spent here at home, developing a means to end our oil dependence on other countries and toughening up our infrastructure. We can't really claim to be a "superpower" if our entire military is sitting in the middle east, China financially owns us, and local news reporters can walk fake "bombs" right through airport security. I truly believe radical Islam is a serious threat that must be dealt with, but right now I think their bitch slapping America by sucking it dry of it's every resource. 

In the short term, I think we'll get an even share of criticism and praise. In the long term, I think we'll build a more independent and strong US. An America that can stand on it's own and is no longer meddling indefinitely in other countries affairs will be a better, and more respected, America.

but i'm just a guy making an observation from my keyboard. these opinions aren't an absolute for me. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens