I definitely understand your reasoning for not debating in this forum regularly these days, but I will say it is great to see a fully functional batman jones in here.
We should NOT have started this war. Bush lied to us or was woefully ignorant (both are just as bad) about the justifications. But now that we started it, we need to finish it. I tend to agree that pulling out now creates the worst possible outcome of all scenarios. Worst case: 1. Start a war. 2. Underestimate the resistance so don't send enough resources. 3. Allow political unrest to run rampant for years on end. 4. Pull out before stability restored. W was directly responsible for screwing up 1-3 but that is water on the bridge. What we don't need is another lawless society where terrorists setup training camps only to attack us again later. I hate that I have to side with W on this...it kills me...but it ain't about politics...its about what is best. But, all you Dubya supporters...we liberals "told you so." It's a freakin disaster.
Okay, I'll bite. Let's say it's a huge issue. And then let's start a thread to discuss it. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there are other big issues in the Rich article, none of which has been addressed by a war supporter here (save Svpernaut's valiant but now refuted attempt). Meantime you can't even answer such simple questions as "Since you favor staying the course, do you think the 'course' is working?" or "Are you glad we entered into the war in the first place?" Derail and run away. Same as it ever was.
Overweight is not an excuse. Maybe you should see the movie Full Metal Jacket. Methodically and ruthlessly trained, human beings of any size and shape and gender can be turned into a deadly killing machine.
Since the usuals will just derail and run away as usual, I'll answer. Glad we entered the war? NO Is the course working? Well, lets give it some more time after their constitution goes in...at least another year. If in one year, Iraq still looks as it does today...I'll cut my loses. I think after 3-4 years with no marked improvement, we need to accept defeat. But at this point, thousands of innocent Iraqi's are dying (that would NOT have if we didn't start the war), so we owe it to the innocents to try to see this through. If the innocents feel abandoned, then they'll get pissed and join sides with the insurgents and Iraq will be an absolute nightmere for the next 30+ years. Lets avoid that...if we can. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if we can...be we need to try.
Krosfyah; I'm with you here. That said though I'm keeping my position open and am wondering all the time if our continued presence is making things worse. Right now its damned if we leave and damned if we stay and so far to me it looks like leaving is worse. Unfortunately I got no confidence in our leadership and which is the better position. I would say "I told you so" but we're stuck now.
I think the reason why many people in this forum who support the war are avoiding this thread (and forum, for that matter) are doing so because of what usually happens when they do post. Predictably, they get ridiculed and labeled as war mongers, Bush apologists, chickenhawks, neo-cons, and all the other played out D&D'isms. All for doing nothing more than having an opinion that happens to differ from most other people in this forum. Let's face it, we're all entitled to our opinions on what's happening over there and what will or will not be happening over there 1, 2, 5, 10 years from now. But none of us truly know for sure. Some of us act like we do, but we really don't. So we can all pine away and cut-and-paste as many articles as we can to support our opinions but in the end, they are just that...opinions. None of us really know for sure how this war is going to be judged 20 years from now. That being said, I'll give this a shot and see what happens... Do I support invading Iraq? Yes. I still do. Do I agree with the way the case for invading was presented to us? No. I still think that if the Administration would have just told us that we were invading to get rid of sadaam and try to set up a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, instead of the WMD/911 argument, there would have been just as much support as there originally was. Do I agree with the way the war is currently being fought? No. I'm not over there but it seems to me that if we were fighting the insurgents more aggressively, instead of just waiting for their next attack, we could get out of there a lot faster and bring our boys home. I also have issues with many of the stories I hear about a lack of armor for the humvee's etc. Very disturbing. Am I ready to declare the war "lost"? No. I still think it's way too early to make that judgement. Way too early. Do I think we should pull out? No way. That would be a horrible message to send to our enemies. Regardless of how you feel about the war, I think it's universally accepted that just pulling out would be a major disaster at this point. Like it or not, we've got to stay there and finish the job. Oh hell. Lunch break's over and I forgot to eat lunch! [submit]
Nice post, ima. I think you represent a large number of war supporters in your thinking. I disagree with it, but I respect you for actually defending your stand on the issues regarding the war. I don't use the "isms" you mentioned, in the main, because I dislike all the labels thrown at me without merit. That's not to say I don't get into heated discussions, obviously... I'm just not wild about most of the labels. They're too frequently over-broad and misused. The sad truth, as I have seen it since before the idiotic invasion began, is that it was the wrong conflict, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and based on lies and fabrications actively promoted by the Administration. Those who disagreed were forced out of their positions and/or ignored, and those who lied and misrepresented the facts the most, and displayed, in my opinion, the most incompetence, were praised and promoted by President Bush. In fact, he has tightened his small group of advisors ever closer around him, and appears to listen to them exclusively, shutting out input from those presenting a differing opinion. The war was never about what it's being portrayed as being about today. The facts have been twisted to fit the latest litany of disasters from the occupation of Iraq. Iran is exerting it's influence more and more everyday in Iraq, and when we leave, which we will, sooner or later, Iran, left unfettered, will have it's way with Iraq, and that is recipe for an even worse disaster... more influence by radical Iranian mullahs, and their Iraqi clones, more suppression of the civil liberties that existed before Bush made his voluntary war, and some did, even in Iraq's vicious Saddam dictatorship (ask the women of Iraq), and those promoted by the US under the occupation appear to be getting short shrift. It's a chaotic, unnecessary mess. It's been repeated a zillion times, but it's true... Saddam was in a box. He was not a clear and present danger to the United States. He was a secular dictator, of the type we've supported over and over again when it was in our national interest to do so. He needed to be dealt with someday, but not when we had unfinished business with those who had attacked us, and their supporters, which did not include Saddam's Iraq. And not when we didn't have the support of our allies and the international community... support George W. Bush threw away, with a few exceptions, with his Iraq War. We had that support in Afghanistan. We had worldwide support from all parts of the globe. He threw it away, and the lives of countless Iraqis, and all too many brave American service men and women. Not only those who have been killed, but those much less noticed, who come back maimed to their families. For what? For the ego of a failed President who's admission of making a mistake, of any kind worth mentioning, will be his first. Ima, you should be trying to take back your party, not support the incompetent fool your party has in the White House. In my opinion. Keep D&D Civil!!
THIS is ridiculous. You think the Al Queda and other foreign insurgents aren't terrorists? You laughably make the same mistake you call out - lumping all insurgents into one group. Strange, where are all the PC'ers and Muslims who jump everytime someone is critical of a Muslim or Islam? I think this is a oft repeated and mistaken claim. That 'box' you refer to led DIRECTLY to 9/11. Removing the cost of 'containment' from the equation certainly makes it easier to make a claim like this, but its hardly giving the full picture.
I would guess that because we expelled Saddam from Kuwait and based our troops in Saudi Arabia. It is because of the troops in Saudi Arabia that Osama used as a reason for 9/11.
Osama has always listed the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (as the major component of containment) as his number one reason for 9/11.
oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil natural gas, natural gas, natural gas, natural gas, natural gas, natural gas KBR,KBR,KBR,KBR,KBR,KBR,KBR,KBR Now I feel better, whew! Our troops aren't going anywhere, Iran and Saudi Arabia are on the bubble and you all are arguing the wrong points for the wrong reasons. I think it was last fall (When gasoline was around $1.39 and everyone was upset w/ the prices) I posted gas would be $2.50/ gal. this summer not because I know anything (and I don't!) but because there are people out there trying to communicate what is going on in reality if you would just turn the media puppets off for a while and research. So read, read, read, while the internet is still open for business. $5.00 gasoline is coming, but the possibility it will come sooner than expected is out there. I have read it would take -couple years but the global-instability issues can change things quick. Forget Rep/Dem, Consv/Lib, Bush/???? Forget WMD, Insurgents, Democracy, Mission Complete and 9/11 What part of money and oil do we not understand?
No problem. The part where 'neocons' are running the government, not realists. Realists might have intervened for oil/money, but neocons would not - there is a little more to the ideology than that. Too many people seem to be confused about the major differences between the 'self interest/national interest' philosophy of real politiks/realism (think Kissinger) with the 'hard Wilsonianism' of the current administration. I believe this is mainly (aside from those who just pick up catchwords from the media and regurgitate them later) because Bush was definitely NOT a Wilsonian before 9/11 - see his anti-nationbuilding ect, and because SOME of the administration like Cheney are not neoconservatives. However, it should be READILY apparent to anyone paying attention that 9/11 CHANGED Bush's perception of the world. He moved from from a strict national interest stance to a hard wilsonian (we must be involved out there to solve problems, we should spread democracy to fight facism, fundamentalism, whatever) stance. And also its kind of funny how the critics of the intervention bray so loudly about how wrong the neocon's were in their vision of a democratic Iraq (people will throw flowers and meet with open arms) while simultaneously claiming the neocons NEVER had that as a vision for Iraq, only the annexation of oil control. You can't have it both ways, people.
He didn't say anything anti-Islamic, or Anti-Muslim. Why should anyone be bothered. He talked about radical islamic mullahs and the like. I have never seen a person oppose efforts to halt radical islamic practices that oppress civil liberties and foster terrorism.
