Why we are losing the war in Iraq...

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Interesting... your words spark emotion yet lack any basis in fact or logic. How about the words of an American General stating that we are losing this war...
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met...z.3538bac.html
How about the voices of thousands of troops in theatre who say we are winning?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Let me just ask this of the pro-war people... honestly because I don't understand the support... what is so good about this war? what will it accomplish? where will we be when it's over? when will you say "enough is enough" and support bringing home our troops?
I believe that people are endowed by their creator with certain, unalienable rights. To life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These beliefs aren't just American. These are universal truths. That is what hopefully we will accomplish.
We are watching a democracy being established. Do you realize that it took over a decade after the war ended for our country to establish the democracy we currently enjoy. We have been in this country for half that time.
So this enough is enough argument really doesn't hold water, we didn't do it in 5 years. How can we espect other countries too?
As for what it will accomplish In my mind I would hope that a peaceful and stable Iraq will be a seed of democracy to the rest of the Middle East.
If you really think about it, the place of religion in these peoples are not unlike what we had in colonial america. The moral structure, although a little off kilter, is not that far off of what made colonial america ripe for establishing the premere form of self-government. That and we really needed for that moron to stop using WMDs on his own people.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
The best thing about the war is that we're using our military to fight Al Qeada instead of pilots, flight attendants and air marshalls. And we're fighting in the streets and deserts of Iraq. By your own admission we're fighting Al Qeada over there.
It will accomplish several things (if we stay the course): another Democracy in the Middle East, the removal of an unstable dictator who at one time had the 4th largest military in the world, the removal of a government that used WMD's, and most importantly it puts countries like N Korea on notice that we can/will take them out if they attack our allies or refuse weapons inspectors.
I'll never say "enough is enough". When will Al Qaeda you think?
I think it's clear that none of us will convince one another. I think your goals will not be reached and that your hopes are extremely idealistic/naive. Not to cut down you or your opinions but I just don't see any way these goals are actually going to be accomplished.
I know that I've posted a few too many reading sources that may seem tedious, but if anyone is interested, take a look at this timeline from the war:
http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
For every positive step thus far in the war, we have had 4 or 5 failures. I don't expect anybody to be convinced. But history will give all of us a greater understanding of this war than we have now. Just like in Vietnam.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Interesting... your words spark emotion yet lack any basis in fact or logic. How about the words of an American General stating that we are losing this war...
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met...z.3538bac.html
It is an emotional argument.
On another note, I do think it is funny we can quote one general. (I've read the article) But what about the rest of the generals who do support the work they are doing. (I do know you are going to argue that yeah they can't say anything bad because they are in the military) But my Cousins, really weren't saying the military line, truely do believe in what they are doing over there. And they aren't your front line grunts. They are bright brilliant individuals. One is in the special forces, a sniper. The other a flies.

 

[crimzy]

Help me understand your thinking... how long will we be in Iraq? and how many American deaths are worth the effort?

 

[stdreb27]

I think it's clear that none of us will convince one another. I think your goals will not be reached and that your hopes are extremely idealistic/naive. Not to cut down you or your opinions but I just don't see any way these goals are actually going to be accomplished.
QUOTE]
They are idealistic, naive, not so much. I'm a second generation american. My grandparent literally had to run for their lives from the likes of pancho villa, to avoid being raped or dragged unwillingly from their ranches. They raised 4 kids who all have college degrees, without a penny of federal aid. Today, our family is very successful. We didn't get stuck in the slums. We didn't get welfare. My grandparents took the American Dream to heart and I'm living in it.
So yes I am idealistic. But we aren't fighting the greatest military of the planet. Our troops aren't freezing and starving to death in valley forge.
You are arguing that the greatest country on the planet with the most powerful advanced military would be brought to its knees by a handful of terrorists. Because we simply have had enough.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Help me understand your thinking... how long will we be in Iraq? and how many American deaths are worth the effort?
Whatever it takes. that is a Bush-esque answer for you.

You really never answered my question about what you would do. What would you do if you saw that person being raped and you had the resources to do something about it.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
What would you do if you saw that person being raped and you had the resources to do something about it.
With all due respect, the question is silly, nonsensical and has nothing to do with the issue in Iraq. No different than if I asked you, if you would PULL a child OUT of a burning building.
I think that we differ on 3 fundamental issues:
1) Whether we can achieve utopia in Iraq.
I'd say no, you'd say yes.
2) Whether we will defeat or even decrease terrorism by this war.
I'd say no, you'd say yes.
3) Does Bush deserves our unquestioned and absolute support.
You'd say yes, I'd say hell no, he's a lying, ego-maniacal, incompetent
idiot.
No matter how much talking we do, we'll probably never convince each other. So like I said earlier, history will define success or failure here. But I have no doubt that my answers to the above questions will be proven correct. JMO

 

[1journeyman]

I've answered your questions Crimzy, and even provided facts to disprove some of your and others' statements when neccessary. How about answering some of mine?
1. Where would the thousands of Al Qeada be if not in Iraq?
2. Why do you ignore the progress made in much of Iraq?
3. Did Clinton lie when he bombed the "chemical, biological and nuclear" facilities in Iraq in 98?
4. Why is it that President Bush is accused of lying about the war, yet Pres. Clinton, Senator Hillary, Kerry, Gore, etc. all said the same thing?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by crimzy
With all due respect, the question is silly, nonsensical and has nothing to do with the issue in Iraq. No different than if I asked you, if you would PULL a child OUT of a burning building.
I think that we differ on 3 fundamental issues:
1) Whether we can achieve utopia in Iraq.
I'd say no, you'd say yes.
2) Whether we will defeat or even decrease terrorism by this war.
I'd say no, you'd say yes.
3) Does Bush deserves our unquestioned and absolute support.
You'd say yes, I'd say hell no, he's a lying, ego-maniacal, incompetent
idiot.
No matter how much talking we do, we'll probably never convince each other. So like I said earlier, history will define success or failure here. But I have no doubt that my answers to the above questions will be proven correct. JMO
The question makes perfect sense, ignoring the arguments on WMD's, ignoring the legal questions with Iraq violating the cease fire agreement after the first war, forgeting about terrorist or whatever else. Saddam was murdering and raping his own people comming genocide. How can we just sit by and let it happen?
As for the other stuff, you did outline our differences quite well.
But how did bush lie again?
About WMDs? Or what?

 

[triviachamp]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
You really never answered my question about what you would do. What would you do if you saw that person being raped and you had the resources to do something about it.
That is an absolute microcosm of the situation, and ultimately unrealistic in terms of what we're dealing with in Iraq.
It's not so much seeing someone getting raped as it is seeing them submit to it, in a kinky sort of way. Iraq is incapable of functioning as a democracy because of the will of so many Iraqis opposed to it. Once again, if theocracy is what they want, then it is theocracy they will impose. Look what happened to Iran. 30 years ago it was a relatively democratic country, now under the rule of a select few Islamic leaders in the country. That was what the Iranian people wanted, and that was what they ended up imposing. There's nothing we can do to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis if our very presence is what angers them in the first place.
And this idea that "we're fighting them over here so we don't have to fight them here" is absolutely ridiculous. Wasting our efforts in Iraq will not somehow prevent Islamic radicals from entering our country. Not to mention that al-Qaeda operates in over 60 countries, so in the grand scheme of things Iraq is meaningless to them. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain, and all in the while we are supplying them with another generation of bloodthirsty extremists.

 

[stdreb27]

The deception that the media is making is that it is taking an isolated incidences and advertising them as it is happening everywhere. According to my roommate who worked for in terrorism research at sam. About half of Iraq is stable, I just don't see that in the news, or in your argument. And I really don't see that as failure.

 

[stdreb27]

It's not so much seeing someone getting raped as it is seeing them submit to it. Iraq is incapable of functioning as a democracy because of the will of so many Iraqis opposed to it. Once again, if theocracy is what they want, then it is theocracy they will impose. Look what happened to Iran. 30 years ago it was a relatively democratic country, now under the rule of a select few Islamic leaders in the country. That was what the Iranian people wanted, and that was what they ended up imposing. There's nothing we can do to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis if our very presence is what angers them in the first place.

If they don't want a democracy then why did so many of them vote? What was it over 80% of voters voted? I wonder when that many Americans ever voted?

 

[triviachamp]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
If they don't want a democracy then why did so many of them vote? What was it over 80% of voters voted? I wonder when that many Americans ever voted?
I wonder how many actually bothered to register to vote. Sure, you might have have 80% turnout of voters, but not 80% of the eligible population.
I don't doubt that the few sane Iraqis are strongly in favor of democracy, but unfortunately they are too few a minority to overcome the prevalent attitude that favors Islamic law in the country.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by triviachamp
.... Iraq is incapable of functioning as a democracy because of the will of so many Iraqis opposed to it.
And this idea that "we're fighting them over here so we don't have to fight them here" is absolutely ridiculous. Wasting our efforts in Iraq will not somehow prevent Islamic radicals from entering our country. ....
Again... Democracy is working quite well in much of the country. http://www.theotheriraq.com
Al Qeada has limited resources and manpower. As Iraq, by there own admission, is the primary battlefield right now, it seems to be fairly clear that fighting them there is preventing them from attacking us here.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by triviachamp
I wonder how many actually bothered to register to vote. Sure, you might have have 80% turnout of voters, but not 80% of the eligible population.
...
No, those high turn out numbers were eligible voters. Remember the purple fingers? They didn't have "voter" registration.

 

[triviachamp]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Again... Democracy is working quite well in much of the country. http://www.theotheriraq.com
Al Qeada has limited resources and manpower. As Iraq, by there own admission, is the primary battlefield right now, it seems to be fairly clear that fighting them there is preventing them from attacking us here.
Nice propaganda piece to start off with. A child high-fiving his father? It's spectacular! It's peaceful! It's joyful!
Iraq is the primary battlefield because of two reasons:
1. We are there.
2. They are not here.
Despite my greater wishes, the two are not interconnected. Correlation does not equal causation, and that you have confused fighting in Iraq with safety here is based on nothing other than a hunch.
Tell me, what is it exactly that prevents another group of terrorists from entering the country? They aren't going to throw their arms up in the air in hopelessness because we are in Iraq. That is nonsense.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
No, those high turn out numbers were eligible voters. Remember the purple fingers? They didn't have "voter" registration.
I'm glad I'm wrong. And look, as far as I know, they have a democratically-elected government.
So why are we there again? It appears we've won, right?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by triviachamp
Nice propaganda piece to start off with. A child high-fiving his father? It's spectacular! It's peaceful! It's joyful!
Iraq is the primary battlefield because of two reasons:
1. We are there.
2. They are not here.
Despite my greater wishes, the two are not interconnected. Correlation does not equal causation, and that you have confused fighting in Iraq with safety here is based on nothing other than a hunch.
Tell me, what is it exactly that prevents another group of terrorists from entering the country? They aren't going to throw their arms up in the air in hopelessness because we are in Iraq. That is nonsense.
I'm glad I'm wrong. And look, as far as I know, they have a democratically-elected government.
So why are we there again? It appears we've won, right?
It is propaganda.. it also shows that giant chunks of Iraq are functioning Democracies, despite what you've said. Not all of the country, but certainly large areas.
You all want it both ways.. we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but you think that is a bad idea. Yet, you want us to believe if we weren't in Iraq we wouldn't be fighting them here. How does that work?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by triviachamp
..
I'm glad I'm wrong. And look, as far as I know, they have a democratically-elected government.
So why are we there again? It appears we've won, right?
We haven't won. Never said that. We certanly haven't lost though. We're there because a lot of crazy radicals want to turn Iraq into a safe haven.

 

[triviachamp]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
It is propaganda..
I'm glad you caught this.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
It is propaganda.. it also shows that giant chunks of Iraq are functioning Democracies, despite what you've said. Not all of the country, but certainly large areas.
I have said the country as a whole cannot function as a democracy, because the will of the people is not there, and that is because of the resistance towards any sort of democratic movement. Pulling out slivers of happy, cheery Iraqis won't change that reality.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You all want it both ways.. we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, but you think that is a bad idea. Yet, you want us to believe if we weren't in Iraq we wouldn't be fighting them here. How does that work?
First, don't put words in my mouth. Second, none of what you said makes sense.
Fighting in Iraq will not prevent Al Qaeda from coming here, and it is that waste of resources that makes it a bad idea. There is no contradiction in what I've said.
You still have not answered my question; what is it that is preventing Al Qaeda from attacking us again? I also did a quick bit of fact checking, and your claim that there was 80% turnout in the Iraqi election is a complete lie. Try 58%. In any case, foreign intervention is none of our business, and we have nothing to gain by allowing the Iraqi government to use us as a crutch. There is no justification for wasting the $500 billion in tax dollars we've spending on Iraq.
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
We haven't won. Never said that. We certanly haven't lost though. We're there because a lot of crazy radicals want to turn Iraq into a safe haven.
Of course we haven't won. We don't know what victory is. We haven't won a war since WWII.
But I thought were were there because we wanted to help the Iraqis? Or because the evildoers will follow us home if we leave? It appears you don't even know either.