Obama to tear apart the country

[tony]

so just because there are alot of foreign fighters attacking US tropps we should give up and go home?

A fact that most people forget about is that most of the people attacking US troops are foreign. They flow into the country through Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to fight. They also bring in the money and weapons needed to continue the fight.

No, because there is no clear objective and nothing to be gained in occupying Iraq, that makes it a waste of time. The real threat was in Afghanistan and Pakistan.. not Iraq. Give one GOOD reason why we should stay? From what you've stated here all the surrounding countries are fueling the war so really.. whats the point?

Knowing when to quit is not the same thing as surrender.

[BanginJimmy]

No, because there is no clear objective and nothing to be gained in occupying Iraq, that makes it a waste of time. The real threat was in Afghanistan and Pakistan.. not Iraq. Give one GOOD reason why we should stay? From what you've stated here all the surrounding countries are fueling the war so really.. whats the point?

Knowing when to quit is not the same thing as surrender.

1 good reason is all you want?

Here you go


We went in there and dismantled an oppressive govt. Now the country is in shambles and unless we stick around to get it back on its collective feet it will be nothing more than a rich breading ground for future terrorists.

Heres a bonus for you:
If were were to leave on Jan 1 2009 with the country in its current state who do you think we come in to fill the void? Do you think its going to be a level headed Iraqi looking to make Iraq a positive member of the international Community? Or do you think its going to be another militant radical thats being backed by Iran? Who do you think we are safer with?

[tony]

1 good reason is all you want?

Here you go


We went in there and dismantled an oppressive govt. Now the country is in shambles and unless we stick around to get it back on its collective feet it will be nothing more than a rich breading ground for future terrorists.

Heres a bonus for you:
If were were to leave on Jan 1 2009 with the country in its current state who do you think we come in to fill the void? Do you think its going to be a level headed Iraqi looking to make Iraq a positive member of the international Community? Or do you think its going to be another militant radical thats being backed by Iran? Who do you think we are safer with?

lol You guys make this so easy.

Two names, Ibn Sheikh al-Libby and "CurveBall" You can look them both up and double check my knowledge. These are two seperate individuals who provided intelligence to the U.S tying Iraq to Al Qaeda. al-Libby (though it cannot be confirmed 100%) gave his statement under torture, "Curveball" never actually dealt directly with the United States and was a German informant.. problem was the intelligence was false. So the whole "Evil Dictator" thing.. yeah, okay. Seems like Iraq was pretty stable to me and once the U.N sanctions were lifted it seems like Iraq was on its way to economic prosperity.. they had nothing to do with 9/11.

On the second statement. We tried instilling a "level headed" (aka U.S friendly) leader in Ahmad Chalabi and guess what? The Iraqi people did not want him. If we are to stay it needs to be a joint effort with the United Nations.. if its only us then we are doing more harm staying there then if we left. What you've stated here is the politics of fear, "If we leave this and that will happen." Fear doesn't motivate me and I'm sorry to say for conservatives but those who are looking for change don't get motivated by fear either. Solutions motivate, bring the troops home, work on domestic security and building our military and it doesn't matter what Iraq does.

[Total_Blender]

What you've stated here is the politics of fear, "If we leave this and that will happen." Fear doesn't motivate me and I'm sorry to say for conservatives but those who are looking for change don't get motivated by fear either. Solutions motivate, bring the troops home, work on domestic security and building our military and it doesn't matter what Iraq does.

QFT it was fear that was used to sell the war to the American people and the American people are only now seeing past it. Iraq was not a threat in 2002.The truth is that since Saddam's Baath party was actually a mutual enemy of Al Qaeda we could have probably used Iraq in some capacity as an ally in the war on terror.

Eventually Iraqis will have to take their country for themselves. A continued US presence will eventually just be a crutch for them. They can blame their problems on the US instead of actually taking initiative to do anything about them. Maybe Iran will have some influence, but whats best for Iraq to have long term stability is probably the support of it's neighbors in the region.

[The12lber]

Heres a bonus for you:
If were were to leave on Jan 1 2009 with the country in its current state who do you think we come in to fill the void? Do you think its going to be a level headed Iraqi looking to make Iraq a positive member of the international Community? Or do you think its going to be another militant radical thats being backed by Iran? Who do you think we are safer with?

I'm pretty sure that between Gulf War #2 and Gulf War #3 (Yes, there were three) approximately 0 Americans died at the hands of Iraqis. Shockingly enough, the same thing goes for Iran. Since the war began over 3,000 Americans have died there "defending freedom". We and our troops, who shockingly enough are Americans too, are safer here.

Iraq was about oil, empire and valuable defense/munitions contracts and it always was.

Accept it and move on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html

[BanginJimmy]

I'm pretty sure that between Gulf War #2 and Gulf War #3 (Yes, there were three) approximately 0 Americans died at the hands of Iraqis. Shockingly enough, the same thing goes for Iran. Since the war began over 3,000 Americans have died there "defending freedom". We and our troops, who shockingly enough are Americans too, are safer here.

Iraq was about oil, empire and valuable defense/munitions contracts and it always was.

Accept it and move on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ol-840512.html

there have been far more than 3 gulf wars. I can think of 3 involving only Israel.

If this all about oil then why arent we seeing the benefits of it? Let me guess, its because Bush is keeping it all to himself and will only use the oil he has stached away when he is out of office.

[The12lber]

there have been far more than 3 gulf wars. I can think of 3 involving only Israel.


Um, are you kidding me? Israel isn't bordering the Persian Gulf. Israel borders the Meditteranean. Iraq does, that's why in 1991 they called it the "Gulf War". That's why they called the Iran Iraq war of the 80's the "First Gulf War". Iran Iraq war, what is commonly called the Gulf War and the Iraq War = 3 Gulf Wars.

Work harder on your geography.

If this all about oil then why arent we seeing the benefits of it? Let me guess, its because Bush is keeping it all to himself and will only use the oil he has stached away when he is out of office.
Because Iraq doesn't export enough to offset the effect of tremendous increases in demand in addition to the increased cost of buying foreign petroleum with the weaker American dollar.

Oil is the only reason we involve ourselves in the Middle East, if you think otherwise you're a moron.

[BanginJimmy]

Oil is the only reason we involve ourselves in the Middle East, if you think otherwise you're a moron.

You are correct, but not in the way you are implying. It is in the US's best intrest to make sure those wells keep pumping and that crude continues to land on US shores. Just like Japan during WWII. Just like when Germany invaded Russia. The US MUST do what needs to be done to keep the oil flowing.

Personally I think we should leave the mid east all together and start drilling closer to home, too bad the dems wont let that happen.

[The12lber]

You are correct, but not in the way you are implying. It is in the US's best intrest to make sure those wells keep pumping and that crude continues to land on US shores.

Um, that's exactly what I was implying. And we'll do any morally objectionable things we have to do in order to accomplish that. Supporting totalitarian governments, invading and occupying foreign nations, overthrowing democratic governments to be replaced with U.S. puppets, etc.