Used to be against the Iraq War. Now, I'm for it. Opinions?

[airjaw]

Don't have much time to go into this as i'm at work
i'll respond after I read people's comments

Keep in mind that this isn't about how you personally feel about the war
nor is it about whether the war is justified

this is about what is best for the United States and what is best for the Iraqis,
at this point in time, March 2008.

[dubbeltop]

Used to be against the Iraq War. Now, I'm for it. Opinions?

So what exactly changed your mind ?

edit : feel free to respond after you have worked :)

[V Profane]

I used to be a heroin addict, now I'm a methadone addict.

The Iraqis want us out of what's left of their country.

[airjaw]

well i read reddit.com and a lot of liberal sites
so my opinion was a bit biased at first

i thikn also a lot of people are pissd off by the fact that bush deceived us in the beginning
this anger clouds our judgment just as fear clouds the judgment of those overly concerned about terrorists

a lot of the reasons for why we should pull out aren't backed up by any real substantial foundation

no one knows for sure what will happen if we pull out or if we stay
so right there, the claim that "things will be better if we leave" is empty and wishful thinking. it seems that the evidence right now demands that we stay there for the time being to keep things under control.

a lot of people think bush went in there for oil. really? that is oversimplifying a complex topic. it is true that we have strategic interest in the region, including oil, but oil was not the sole reason we went in.

people ignore the progress that has been made and only choose to take one side
i don't think we should have gone in
but the reality is that now we are there
we've invested billions, trillions
we've uprooted the iraqi gov't
we've sacrificed lives and security of iraqi people
can we morally, ethically just leave now?
we have an investment in iraq whether we like it or not
it makes sense to stay at this point in time
i guarantee that there wouldn't be as much of an uproar if the war was handled better in the first place
bush and co made terrible decisions and had terrible plans going in
they made the worst blunders they could possibly make
they routinely ignored advice of knowledgeable advisers and experts

if a more competent administration was in charge
iraq would n't even be an issue

also
people have such a short term view of things
like they expect iraqi gov't to make progress , progres that can take decades
people in other parts of the world are on different schedule than we are
everything is not rush rush rush
only in US are people so focused on short term gains. we think wars should only take a few weeks and aren't willing to fight anything longer than that

noi its not fair that bush went in, wasted trillions of dollars and divided the country not to mention making terrible decisions which resulted int he loss of lives of hundreds of thousands. he should probably be put on trial for lying about the war, along with cheney

but that doesn't take away from the responsibility we have towards iraq
we will live and die there, as a nation we have to assume resonsibility
that means sucking it up and doing the right thing sometimes
even if it means sacrificing our own livelihood int he process

we will live and die in iraq. they are joined to us now, their legacy will be part of ours. we're a part of their history. contrary to what many of you may think
they don't all hate americans
a lot of them are angry that things are so f-ed up, with good reason
but the majority of them were happy when we removed saddam from power
if the war was handled better and the iraqis had better security, jobs, food, etc in the years following saddam's removal
they would be singing our praises

if you really want to be against something, be against the bush administration's incompetent ability as commander in chief

lets use our energies to solving the problem, not to quitting and pretending that the problem doesn't exist
our commander created the problem

now its our responsibility to solve it
everyone talks a lot but no one ever does anything
bush should have created a volunteer force for civilians to volunteer in iraq
the best course of action to take isn't to protest in the streets
what are you really accomplishing by that
when a family member fucks up, you don't stage a protest
you express your anger, your disappointment a
and then you go about helping fix the mistake
solve the problem

we're in this together and its sad that we're so divided because of this

but whats in the past is in the past
we need to look towards the future

i hope barack obama and/or hilary clinton realize this
even though americans may want withdrawal
this option is not realistic and its not the right thing to do
it is more painful short term
but shoulnd't we be looking for long term solutions?
isn't that what we criticize wall street ceos for

the people who say iraq can never be stabilized are plain wrong. we simply don't know what can or what will happen. its only been less than a year since the stability has gotten better. no one can predict the future
and i'm tired of every one thinking they can.

with the information we have now
i seriously doubt we can withdraw at this point in time

i apologize for the fragmented thoughts
had to type this quickly

[Gracchus]

I was for the war from the beginning. Arab culture is a disease that needs to be eradicated. Capturing Bin Ladin would do little to cure this disease, but capturing the largest and most important country in the middle east is a good first step. In the long view Iraq will be a closer ally to the US now than it would have been under the Baathists. The US will likely have a base in Iraq as we have in Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc from where it can launch future military operations. Until the Arabs succumb to Western culture in the way that Germany, Japan, and South Korea have in the last 60 years, the job will not be done. This is how I believe the government really views this war. Not as some sort of moral police action, but rather, a real politik solution to destroying the culture that breeds terrorists. They say military actions don't produce these kinds of results, and yet WWII would argue that they do if the enemy is humiliated enough. It is human nature for people to always prefer winners. It is my belief that Muslims may not fear death, but they do fear being powerless losers.

[stopharian]

Isnt there a difference between realizing that we cant just yank all of our troop out tomorrow and being "for" the war.

If you still dont believe we ever should have gone in the first place, then you are against the war. Sure, you have to be realistic and plan your strategy from the current situation. Dont be deluded though into thinking that a different administration wil be able to do much better than we are doing now. Patterns are set and systems are in place that would take lots of time and effort to change.

It really comes down to whether or not you think anything at all can be accomplished there. Personally Im not so sure. No matter though, you can still have these discussions and be against the war.

[Thevenin]

The cost benefit analysis is simple. The $3 Trillion cost of this war (see: The Three Trillion Dollar War, by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Laureate) and Linda Bilmes. W. W. Norton, 2008) is not equal to whatever questionable benefit we may derive from this war. Furthermore, the incremental cost is not justified by any conceivable incremental benefit. It would be an impossible argument, indeed, to say that we couldn't have found a better use for $3 Trillion (that's $3,000 Billion) with more benefit for Americans, particularly in view of the current economy, which is, in no small way, a partial result of the war. This money is gone forever. It is producing nothing, it will never be available to rebuild infrastructure nor used to invest in capital goods that produce new value, nor used for any number of important needs of Americans.

Indeed, I would argue that there was no benefit from this war whatsoever and that we have made things much worse than they were before. We've destroyed the Iraqi counterbalance to Iran, thus making Iran the now dominant power in the Persian Gulf. We've lost 4,000 soldiers and killed countless Iraqis. Our intervention has decreased the amount of oil Iraq is producing compared to pre-war levels. We've stimulated more international hatred for the US. As a newly failed state, Iraq is a new haven for terrorists that were never there before the war. We've diverted resources from our efforts in Afghanistan, which is an easily justified intervention, and Afghanistan is faltering.

For people who like to think of themselves as good businessmen, Bush and his toadies have behaved stupidly. They've learned nothing. Their ignorance and naivete is astounding. They are authoritarian and rigid. It's hard to believe that, even if there were influential and smart INTP's among Bush's toadies, they have any influence or power.

[airjaw]

Isnt there a difference between realizing that we cant just yank all of our troop out tomorrow and being "for" the war.

If you still dont believe we ever should have gone in the first place, then you are against the war. Sure, you have to be realistic and plan your strategy from the current situation. Dont be deluded though into thinking that a different administration wil be able to do much better than we are doing now. Patterns are set and systems are in place that would take lots of time and effort to change.

It really comes down to whether or not you think anything at all can be accomplished there. Personally Im not so sure. No matter though, you can still have these discussions and be against the war.

Most of the people who protest the war don't make that distinction. Hillary and Barack have based their Iraq War policies on the opinions of the majority - that is to withdraw troops immediately. Any realistic plan gets shot down as catering to the neo-cons. You have a sensible view of things but most people who are anti-war believe in withdrawing immediately

[airjaw]

The cost benefit analysis is simple. The $3 Trillion cost of this war (see: The Three Trillion Dollar War, by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Laureate) and Linda Bilmes. W. W. Norton, 2008) is not equal to whatever questionable benefit we may derive from this war. Furthermore, the incremental cost is not justified by any conceivable incremental benefit. It would be an impossible argument, indeed, to say that we couldn't have found a better use for $3 Trillion (that's $3,000 Billion) with more benefit for Americans, particularly in view of the current economy, which is, in no small way, a partial result of the war. This money is gone forever. It is producing nothing, it will never be available to rebuild infrastructure nor used to invest in capital goods that produce new value, nor used for any number of important needs of Americans.

Indeed, I would argue that there was no benefit from this war whatsoever and that we have made things much worse than they were before. We've destroyed the Iraqi counterbalance to Iran, thus making Iran the now dominant power in the Persian Gulf. We've lost 4,000 soldiers and killed countless Iraqis. Our intervention has decreased the amount of oil Iraq is producing compared to pre-war levels. We've stimulated more international hatred for the US. As a newly failed state, Iraq is a new haven for terrorists that were never there before the war. We've diverted resources from our efforts in Afghanistan, which is an easily justified intervention, and Afghanistan is faltering.

For people who like to think of themselves as good businessmen, Bush and his toadies have behaved stupidly. They've learned nothing. Their ignorance and naivete is astounding. They are authoritarian and rigid. It's hard to believe that, even if there were influential and smart INTP's among Bush's toadies, they have any influence or power.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. But if we are to judge what the best action to take is from this point on, I'd have to disagree with the belief that there is nothing to be gained from staying (and hopefully securing Iraq).
If we can secure the country, we'd have a valuable ally. Of course this isn't a good reason to go into iraq but we are there already. Iraq is in an area of strategic importance. we can launch raids on terrorists from there as well as depose enemy leaders who we don't like. I'm not saying that this is moral, just that it makes sense to stay. I also view it was our moral responsibility to do what is best for the Iraqis. The "you're on your own" policy will only make america look worse than we are already viewed, not to mention there will be even more terrorists in this generation if things go south after we leave.
if we are to judge what to do at this point in time - without considering the time, lives, and money already lost - it makes sense to stay and secure the country.

[Thevenin]

I don't disagree with most of what you said. But if we are to judge what the best action to take is from this point on, I'd have to disagree with the belief that there is nothing to be gained from staying (and hopefully securing Iraq).

Iraq has been a debacle. Given the hatred and violence between the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds (not to mention the Turkmen and other, smaller, groups), and given that it took the extreme, vicious brutality of Saddam Hussein to keep Iraq and its ethnic groups under control, a democratic Iraq is a naive myth.

What you see is what you get, and what you see in Iraq are groups that have hated and fought each other for centuries. This isn't going to change just because we and General Petraeus want it to. I question whether a stable situation can be imposed by Americans or any other external force.

The majority of Iraqis want us to leave. The majority of Americans want us to leave. The majority of the world's nations want us to leave. The Shia are the majority in Iraq and they are now in power. They particularly resent the Sunnis because they used to be in power under Saddam. The Kurds are in the north and they're not about to give up their autonomy. No matter how long we stay, the simple fact is that the Iraqis now have to solve their problems themselves or it will be no solution at all.

The longer we stay, the longer the Iraqis can postpone whatever ultimate resolution results from the current situation. We should pull back to strategically beneficial locations, stop trying to direct the confict and let the Iraqis work things out. We also should continue to train an Iraqi armed force. We should only intervene directly when it is in our own best interests and, also, to prevent the most extreme conflict.

[V Profane]

Iraq is in an area of strategic importance. we can launch raids on terrorists from there as well as depose enemy leaders who we don't like.

This would create more terrorism than it could ever possibly hope to defeat.

[C.J.Woolf]

All this reminds me of the historical argument that the Crusades were a long-term good thing for Europe (dunno about the Arab world) because of cultural mixing, trade, etc., and never mind the bloodshed.


Iraq is in an area of strategic importance. we can launch raids on terrorists from there as well as depose enemy leaders who we don't like.
That was true of Saudi Arabia from 1990 to 2003, and Kuwait from 1991 to the present. Kuwait was the base from which we toppled Saddam Hussein. Now US troops are out of Saudi Arabia, shuffled into Iraq. Why? The Bush administration will never admit this, but 9/11 was the tipping point. The Saud dynasty were always uncomfortable with having US troops in the holiest land in Islam, and after 9/11 they got really uncomfortable. To replace that base in the Middle East, US troops went from one country where they were invited to another which they invaded, and then proceeded to alienate every Iraqi who isn't either a US puppet or a Kurd. This does not strike me as intelligent.

Osama bin Laden wanted both these things, and we gave them to him.

[airjaw]

Iraq has been a debacle. Given the hatred and violence between the Sunnis, the Shia, and the Kurds (not to mention the Turkmen and other, smaller, groups), and given that it took the extreme, vicious brutality of Saddam Hussein to keep Iraq and its ethnic groups under control, a democratic Iraq is a naive myth.

Yea they don't like each other, maybe even hated. But they've learned to get along in the past. If you still believe that people can resolve their differences through diplomacy and other peaceful means rather than kill each other, then I don't see how you can believe a democratic Iraq to be a myth.
If the US had taken preventive action from the beginning, the sectarian violence wouldn't have been as violent or brutal.



What you see is what you get, and what you see in Iraq are groups that have hated and fought each other for centuries. This isn't going to change just because we and General Petraeus want it to. I question whether a stable situation can be imposed by Americans or any other external force.
Yes its uncertain. Maybe we can't impose a stable situation. I think its too early to tell, due to Bush's bungling of the war. The military has made a lot of progress by learning from their mistakes. The situation is better than it was before right now and we should see how stable we can get Iraq to be.



The majority of Iraqis want us to leave.
They want us to leave eventually. The majority don't think its realistic that we leave right now, not when insurgent violence still threatens their lives.


The majority of Americans want us to leave.
The majority of Americans don't understand the complexities of the situation in Iraq. If the majority could make military decisions, and we withdrew all our troops tomorrow, who knows what would happen?


The majority of the world's nations want us to leave.
Thats not a good enough reason to leave.


The Shia are the majority in Iraq and they are now in power. They particularly resent the Sunnis because they used to be in power under Saddam. The Kurds are in the north and they're not about to give up their autonomy. No matter how long we stay, the simple fact is that the Iraqis now have to solve their problems themselves or it will be no solution at all.
Thats true, but we still have a responsbility to provide for their safety until they get things done. We invaded their country and toppled the government. Due to our mistakes, only recently has the violence subsided long enough for them to make any kind of political progress. There has to be stability and security before political progress. FIrst things first.


The longer we stay, the longer the Iraqis can postpone whatever ultimate resolution results from the current situation. We should pull back to strategically beneficial locations, stop trying to direct the confict and let the Iraqis work things out. We also should continue to train an Iraqi armed force. We should only intervene directly when it is in our own best interests and, also, to prevent the most extreme conflict.

What locations are strategically beneficial? What do you mean by let Iraqis "work things out"? We are training the Iraqi armed force. When should we intervene? Are Iraq's interests at this point not our responsibility?
Is the military not preventing the "most extreme conflict" that you mention, as we sit here debating?

[airjaw]

All this reminds me of the historical argument that the Crusades were a long-term good thing for Europe (dunno about the Arab world) because of cultural mixing, trade, etc., and never mind the bloodshed.


That was true of Saudi Arabia from 1990 to 2003, and Kuwait from 1991 to the present. Kuwait was the base from which we toppled Saddam Hussein. Now US troops are out of Saudi Arabia, shuffled into Iraq. Why? The Bush administration will never admit this, but 9/11 was the tipping point. The Saud dynasty were always uncomfortable with having US troops in the holiest land in Islam, and after 9/11 they got really uncomfortable. To replace that base in the Middle East, US troops went from one country where they were invited to another which they invaded, and then proceeded to alienate every Iraqi who isn't either a US puppet or a Kurd. This does not strike me as intelligent.

Osama bin Laden wanted both these things, and we gave them to him.

I'm all for hunkering down in our own country, not interfering in other country's affairs, and securing our own borders. Who made the US the world's policeman, right? Well sometimes people forget what good the US has done by intervention. We won't have to get into specifics; my point is that intervention is sometimes necessary. A lot of countries supported the US when we went into Iraq. They only left because the US fabricated evidence and seriously mismanaged the entire situation. That and none of them have any backbone.

Can offense not act as "defense" sometimes? I don't think an aggressive approach towards terrorism is bad. Yea maybe we might deserve it, but that doesn't mean we should sit around and let them do whatever they want with us. That's not to say our over-aggressive approach hasn't created more enemies.. so maybe we should tone it down a bit. But an aggressive approach is still better than a laidback one at this point in time.

[Faust06]

It's too late to just pick up and leave. It would just be a waste. They've spent so much to get to this point, they should at least accomplish the damn mission, whatever the fuck that is now. Leaving would pretty much acknowledge that it was largely a waste of time (and it probably was), and they don't want that.


I don't think an aggressive approach towards terrorism is bad.

Depends on the means. Sometimes it can be, as they say, like going after a fly with a bazooka... which is not to say it's a small threat, but small targets that are hard to track. We need infiltration.

[Titania]

I wasn't opposed to the war initially per se. I don't like going against self-determinism, but provided we did things like "win" and "do the stuff necessary to win," and maybe "actually adequately arm and armor troops," sure.

But we bumbled that, we destroyed whatever economy they could have had by making sure it's Americans who run all the (shitty) infrastructure, and they have it much worse as a country much more consistently than they ever did under Saddam.

We could win, I believe that, but it'd require a draft and a soldier on every street corner, and turning over all the infrastructure jobs to Iraqi citizens. None of those are going to happen.

[Hustler]

Arab culture is a disease that needs to be eradicated.

Islamophobia


Western culture is a disease that needs to be eradicated.

Radical Islam.

[Thevenin]

It's too late to just pick up and leave. It would just be a waste. They've spent so much to get to this point, they should at least accomplish the damn mission, whatever the fuck that is now. Leaving would pretty much acknowledge that it was largely a waste of time (and it probably was), and they don't want that.

The mission was never defined, nor could it have been because Bush and his toadies were lying to themselves as well as the world. That's why they fired General Shinseki, who dared to utter the truth. Furthermore, they never defined an exit strategy, which is always a terrible mistake. Throughout this war Bush and his toadies have planned for the best case scenario, instead of the worst case scenario, which is the most rational plan.

There is still no exit strategy. Leaving is based on some inchoate future when the Iraqis somehow have their democratic act together. Sometimes you have to know when to fold, particularly when you never should have dealt. The argument that we should stay because of what we've already invested in the war is emotional and irrational in view of a cost/benefit analysis.

The question is, how many more trillions of dollars and lives must be lost before some president has the guts to admit the whole thing was an incredible waste? As even Petraeus has said, progress on the battlefield means little if the Iraqis can't get their act together. Given the historical, ethnic, religious, and cultural forces in play, they can't and they won't.

So, we can stay and "keep the peace" for another ten or twenty years at an incredibly debilitating cost, but let's not delude ourselves that this war has benefited the US or the Iraqis. It has destabilized the Middle East and the world in general, it has enraged and encouraged the Islamists, and served as a free recruitment campaign for Bin Laden. Any neocon who says he would still invade Iraq if he could do it again, is either stupid or a liar.

[jyakulis]

this war is a joke. it's illegal under international law. over one million iraqis have died since we've been there.

i think we are just equipping both sides and having them kill each other off to sustain the war. the reason it's taking so long is we havn't killed enough iraqis and we need to put a puppet government in place that will give in to our corporations demands. also, the military industrial complex hasn't fully looted the american taxpayer of every penny they could possibly spend so, i guess we'll be there awhile.

how do you even have a war on terrorism? a war on an some abstract idea? it makes no sense whatsoever. there ain't some terrorism base that we can just blow up. you can't just knock on al quaeda's door and ask to join. and btw if you really believe in al ciaeda you are a straight up buffoon. bin laden is just the boogie man the us government needs to do whatever the hell they feel like. as bill cooper predicted in june of 2001: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA

top cia operative admits al qaeda a complete fabrication:

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html

[airjaw]

this war is a joke. it's illegal under international law. over one million iraqis have died since we've been there.

a lot of countries went into Iraq with us and broke this important "international law" as well.


i think we are just equipping both sides and having them kill each other off to sustain the war. the reason it's taking so long is we havn't killed enough iraqis and we need to put a puppet government in place that will give in to our corporations demands. also, the military industrial complex hasn't fully looted the american taxpayer of every penny they could possibly spend so, i guess we'll be there awhile.
Where's the evidence for this? It seems like you are just ranting here.


how do you even have a war on terrorism? a war on an some abstract idea? it makes no sense whatsoever. there ain't some terrorism base that we can just blow up. you can't just knock on al quaeda's door and ask to join. and btw if you really believe in al ciaeda you are a straight up buffoon. bin laden is just the boogie man the us government needs to do whatever the hell they feel like. as bill cooper predicted in june of 2001:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zy4EyBstOsA

top cia operative admits al qaeda a complete fabrication:

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html


I agree that the war on terrorism can be used as an excuse to violate our civil
liberties and appeal to our most basic instincts of patriotism and fear. I guess you also believe that 9/11 was caused by our own gov't? Even 9/11 truthers just want more investigation. There is no PROOF yet of what really happened. Hell I have my doubts too, and we might never know. You can't just jump to conclusions based on incomplete evidence.

Al Qaeda, however, is real. They might not have a base, or a central leader, but people who are committed to the cause DO exist, as they are currently bombing the fuck out of us in Iraq.

[mgb]

Don't have much time to go into this as i'm at work
i'll respond after I read people's comments

Keep in mind that this isn't about how you personally feel about the war
nor is it about whether the war is justified

this is about what is best for the United States and what is best for the Iraqis,
at this point in time, March 2008.

Well, since this thread is about you and not really about the war, no matter what's been said already, I think you are kind of a moron for changing your mind, my personal feelings about the war notwithstanding.

[Lethal Sage]

Al Qaeda, however, is real. They might not have a base, or a central leader, but people who are committed to the cause DO exist, as they are currently bombing the fuck out of us in Iraq.

as real as buddhist orthodoxy

[C.J.Woolf]

Al Qaeda, however, is real. They might not have a base, or a central leader, but people who are committed to the cause DO exist, as they are currently bombing the fuck out of us in Iraq.
(Emphasis mine.) Al-Qaeda is more like a criminal gang than anything else -- an MS-13 with more murderous aspirations, if you will. The best historical parallel to al-Qaeda is pirates. As criminals, they are best combated by police and intelligence services, with military support if needed. But making counterterrorism a purely military matter does not work.

They're bombing us in Iraq only because we are in Iraq. And most of "them" who are bombing us in Iraq are not al-Qaeda, but Iraqis with other agendas that mostly involve just getting the US forces to leave.

[Limey]

This thread needs a public enemy soundtrack.
Also, maybe a bong.

[V Profane]

This thread needs a public enemy soundtrack.
Also, maybe a bong.

Rage Against the Machine, and a pipe.

[Rivelli]

It was a mistake to go in.

While we were in towards the beginning Donald Rumsfeld's strategy was poor.

David Petraeus's strategy is much better and the surge is finally working.

It would be a mistake to leave before it's ready.

Leaving before it's ready would make it worse then before we went in. That sucks because it was a mistake to go in in the first place. Because of that but at this point we gotta do what we gotta do. If we leave before its safe to do so then we would have to go back later in a much worse situation.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Limey]

Rage Against the Machine, and a pipe.

I'll take that over a pair of glasses and a smile (and having to hang off a clock face)

<try saying that after a few pints>

[airjaw]

(Emphasis mine.) Al-Qaeda is more like a criminal gang than anything else -- an MS-13 with more murderous aspirations, if you will. The best historical parallel to al-Qaeda is pirates. As criminals, they are best combated by police and intelligence services, with military support if needed. But making counterterrorism a purely military matter does not work.

They're bombing us in Iraq only because we are in Iraq. And most of "them" who are bombing us in Iraq are not al-Qaeda, but Iraqis with other agendas that mostly involve just getting the US forces to leave.

The police and intelligence services need our help. We're providing them military support right now. It is NOT a purely military matter right now - the military learned and changed their strategy and so far things are better than they were before. Those are the plain facts about whats going on in Iraq as we speak. You probably agree with me then that staying right now and doing exactlky what you recommended is the right course of action to take and the most sensible.

Yes they're bombing us in Iraq because we're there. As for your second assertion that most of the people bombing us are Iraqis with other agendas, I'd have to ask you for evidence. I don't think its that simple or easy to figure out who / where these fighters are coming from or what their agendas are. I don't doubt some of them are Iraqis, but how many are Saudis? Iranians? Palestinians? etc. Iraq's borders after we went in were porous and militants definitely entered the country.

[airjaw]

Well, since this thread is about you and not really about the war, no matter what's been said already, I think you are kind of a moron for changing your mind, my personal feelings about the war notwithstanding.

because someone who changes his mind is a moron?

or because i'm a moron cause I'm wrong? in which case, please elaborate.

[Rivelli]

I'm sure he meant the ladder. An INTP (much less any other personality) calling another INTP an idiot for simply changing their mind seems ridiculous.

[Faust06]

The argument that we should stay because of what we've already invested in the war is emotional and irrational in view of a cost/benefit analysis.


It's not irrational if there is actually a good end in sight, with a clear defined mission.. but there isn't.

[mgb]

I'm sure he meant the ladder. An INTP (much less any other personality) calling another INTP an idiot for simply changing their mind seems ridiculous.

Latter. A ladder is something you climb.


because someone who changes his mind is a moron?

or because i'm a moron cause I'm wrong? in which case, please elaborate.

First you ask for an opinion, now you want us to elaborate on it?

You're a moron because your decision to change your mind on whether or not the War in Iraq is justifiable flies in the face of mountains of evidence that contradict every justification for the war that has been offered, and then some. Congratulations, C.S. Lewis totally gets you.

I'm really not going to get any deeper than that as far as explanations go. It'll result in a long winded post from you that I'm not really inclined to read on a subject I know you're wrong about. I just wanted to offer my opinion on you since it was solicited. Thanks for the opportunity to do that, I look forward to future communications.

[Gracchus]

Islamophobia


Arabophobia

The more cultures that can be eradicated, the more peace there will be on earth because the more people think alike, the less they will fight. Realistically, the only solution is a single worldwide totalitarian government run by INTPs, aka, Plato's Republic.

Also, it helps for S types if everybody looks alike, which lends itself to the need for racial and genetic sameness.

As a matter of fact, the best way to achieve a lasting peace is a world full of brainwashed clones.

[airjaw]

Latter. A ladder is something you climb.



First you ask for an opinion, now you want us to elaborate on it?

You're a moron because your decision to change your mind on whether or not the War in Iraq is justifiable flies in the face of mountains of evidence that contradict every justification for the war that has been offered, and then some. Congratulations, C.S. Lewis totally gets you.

I'm really not going to get any deeper than that as far as explanations go. It'll result in a long winded post from you that I'm not really inclined to read on a subject I know you're wrong about. I just wanted to offer my opinion on you since it was solicited. Thanks for the opportunity to do that, I look forward to future communications.

Listen dude, what the fuck is your problem? If you disagree, then say why. There's no need to call anyone on this forum a moron. You're just being an asshole. Stop the passive aggressive bs and contribute something of substance. Otherwise, stay out of the thread.

[mgb]

Listen dude, what the fuck is your problem? If you disagree, then say why. There's no need to call anyone on this forum a moron. You're just being an asshole. Stop the passive aggressive bs and contribute something of substance. Otherwise, stay out of the thread.

I wouldn't call it passive aggression. And there is an overabundance of reasons to call people on this forum morons.

I don't really have a problem. You presented an issue, founded on what I'd call stupidity, then asked us for our opinions on your decision. I gave it to you and that wasn't enough for you so I elaborated. Now you're mad and your feelings are hurt. To avoid this scenario in the future I'd suggest that you either rephrase your threads more carefully, stop being a moron, or failing the first two suggestions, grow some thicker skin.

As for the substance of my posts before this one, they are 100% on topic and 100% substantive. Calling me an asshole probably wasn't though, since the title of this thread isn't, "What do you think of mgb?" In fact, this last one by you and this one by me are completely off topic, but that's sort of what happens here I guess.

With regards to me staying out of the thread, probably calling me an asshole is the worst way imaginable to do that. Even replying to me isn't working out at all for you. I'm a slave to your reactions, what can I say?

[Titania]

Listen dude, what the fuck is your problem? If you disagree, then say why. There's no need to call anyone on this forum a moron. You're just being an asshole. Stop the passive aggressive bs and contribute something of substance. Otherwise, stay out of the thread.If you are wrong (and oh boy are you), four thousand US citizens, most of them just barely out of their childhoods, are dead for no good reason.

I also suggest you take a hard look at the new Abu Ghraib photos, if you haven't already. If you really think the war is worth it, take a good look. (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib) That's a pretty good summary, but this is good for the full picture. (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html)

Note the guy covered in his own shit and the cheerful soldier posing with a black and moldy corpse.

You have an awful lot to justify, and if you're wrong (and you are), it's your consent that makes that happen, and not only is now part of this country's legacy to the world, the world is far worse than it ever was before because of you.

Thanks so fucking much.

[Titania]

Summore to consider:

I think it's BS to say Americans overall don't follow politics, don't read up on them. Overall, we read very much about it. News is a big business.

However, some sources (which don't need to be named) did push misconceptions. Only, those misconceptions lead to support of the war. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1003-08.htm)

It's a lot more likely loss of support for the war stems from those misconceptions finally clearing up. Including the misconception that we were ever winning it. In fact, reports of our success by any sane measurement are greatly exaggerated. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/30316.html) I'd go so far as to say fabricated.

[AkuManiMani]

I used to be a heroin addict, now I'm a methadone addict.

The Iraqis want us out of what's left of their country.

What are you talking about? Our forceful occupation gives them an object lesson in American "democracy" ;)

[AkuManiMani]

Arabophobia

The more cultures that can be eradicated, the more peace there will be on earth because the more people think alike, the less they will fight. Realistically, the only solution is a single worldwide totalitarian government run by INTPs, aka, Plato's Republic.

Also, it helps for S types if everybody looks alike, which lends itself to the need for racial and genetic sameness.

As a matter of fact, the best way to achieve a lasting peace is a world full of brainwashed clones.

"They create desolation and call it peace"

-Tacitus

[Rivelli]

Latter. A ladder is something you climb.


Thanks, I knew that though. :)

[airjaw]

If you are wrong (and oh boy are you), four thousand US citizens, most of them just barely out of their childhoods, are dead for no good reason.

I also suggest you take a hard look at the new Abu Ghraib photos, if you haven't already. If you really think the war is worth it, take a good look. (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2008/02/gallery_abu_ghraib) That's a pretty good summary, but this is good for the full picture. (http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/index.html)

Note the guy covered in his own shit and the cheerful soldier posing with a black and moldy corpse.

You have an awful lot to justify, and if you're wrong (and you are), it's your consent that makes that happen, and not only is now part of this country's legacy to the world, the world is far worse than it ever was before because of you.

Thanks so fucking much.

First of all, this topic is supposed to be a discussion about the Iraq war. It's not a place for you to vent your anger about the war to ME. I understand why you're angry and hell I am too. This isn't about what happened in the past though, and I specifically said that in the original post. Don't take your anger out on ME. What did I do? Like my complicity was what killed those 4000 soldiers? What did YOU do to prevent their deaths? I protested the iraq war back in September of October or whenever the last 07 protest was. I haven't been on internet boards arguing for pro-war causes. In fact i've spent most of my time talking with friends about why the Iraq war was a terrible idea and discussing why we should withdraw.

Stop acting like I'm the asshole here. I just wanted to talk about the fucking issue. Seems like 99% of INTPc is against the Iraq war. So who gives a fuck? That means we can't have a reasonable discussion about a topic any more?
Leave your emotions out of this and certainly don't direct your anger to me.

Finally, if you want to talk about what would REALLY help our soldiers or this country, then I would say that neither war protesters nor pro-war counter-protesters really help at all. I was at the protest and it was nothing more than a controlled, orderly outlet for people to express and let their emotions out. The next day, nothing had changed. If people are so patriotic, then they should volunteer for civilian corps in Iraq or humanitarian positions. Sitting on our asses here and complaining about everything doesn't do as much as we'd like to think it does.


I wouldn't call it passive aggression. And there is an overabundance of reasons to call people on this forum morons.

I don't really have a problem. You presented an issue, founded on what I'd call stupidity, then asked us for our opinions on your decision. I gave it to you and that wasn't enough for you so I elaborated. Now you're mad and your feelings are hurt. To avoid this scenario in the future I'd suggest that you either rephrase your threads more carefully, stop being a moron, or failing the first two suggestions, grow some thicker skin.

As for the substance of my posts before this one, they are 100% on topic and 100% substantive. Calling me an asshole probably wasn't though, since the title of this thread isn't, "What do you think of mgb?" In fact, this last one by you and this one by me are completely off topic, but that's sort of what happens here I guess.

With regards to me staying out of the thread, probably calling me an asshole is the worst way imaginable to do that. Even replying to me isn't working out at all for you. I'm a slave to your reactions, what can I say?

Ok, this could all have stemmed from my crappy OP. I take responsibility for that since it is unclear and poorly written. Let's just drop it and get back on the topic.


It's not irrational if there is actually a good end in sight, with a clear defined mission.. but there isn't.

The mission right now is to stabilize the country enough so that we can get the hell out, without Iraq descending into chaos and hating us forever for it.

Whether you actually believe that mission can be achieved in our lifetime is one thing, but don't say that there isn't a mission.


Summore to consider:

I think it's BS to say Americans overall don't follow politics, don't read up on them. Overall, we read very much about it. News is a big business.

However, some sources (which don't need to be named) did push misconceptions. Only, those misconceptions lead to support of the war. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1003-08.htm)

It's a lot more likely loss of support for the war stems from those misconceptions finally clearing up. Including the misconception that we were ever winning it. In fact, reports of our success by any sane measurement are greatly exaggerated. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/30316.html) I'd go so far as to say fabricated.

Ok, so lets say we're "losing the war". If we were "winning" the war, would that change your opinion of things?

[Titania]

Ok, so lets say we're "losing the war". If we were "winning" the war, would that change your opinion of things?
Well, if we were winning the war, this war would have been received entirely differently by the Iraqi people, we would have handled the initial invasion better, we'd be handling it better now, we'd have fewer dead, and the Iraqis would have enough water and power.

But we're not. That is not the situation we went into, that is not the situation we have. You are basically asking me to speculate on "If this were a different world, would you support the war."

Why yes, if my mother had cast iron wheels, she WOULD be a locomotive. But it's not terribly relevant to how we deal with her since she isn't one.

It is frankly up to you to argue we could turn it around. I've seen no evidence for that.

[Titania]

As for the anger, you are completely unreasonable to expect a war with thousands dead and a very reasonable argument that all that was in vain and not expect people to be angry about that.

If you are wrong, there is plenty for people to be angry at you for. Please recognize that.

[airjaw]

As for the anger, you are completely unreasonable to expect a war with thousands dead and a very reasonable argument that all that was in vain and not expect people to be angry about that.

If you are wrong, there is plenty for people to be angry at you for. Please recognize that.

Hey, I was angry and still am angry about the war. But as for your anger towards me for having second thoughts about whether we should withdraw at this point in time... I mean seriously, do you really think that I'm the problem?
Even Obama and Clinton wanted to take REALISTIC positions on when they'd withdraw the troops. They couldn't do so publicly because they'd get killed in the polls. I agree with probably 95&#37; of what you say about the war, including all the egregious shit we did. I'm not here to talk about that, because all that stuff is obvious. You don't need to point it out to me. I frequent reddit, huffingtonpost, daily kos, and trust me if there is the slightest news of something gone wrong in Iraq, from another suicide bombing to a soldier tying a puppy's legs up and throwing it, I've read about it.

I just want to talk about the possibility that withdrawing troops immediately might not be the best course of action to take at this point in time. I don't think we should have gone in in the first place and I think the war was terribly mismanaged. I would protest all that stuff if i thought it would make a difference (and I did actually). But lets say that I , or you, was president and had to make a decision. You would probably be set on withdrawing all the troops asap right? But a good president listens to his advisers first, and lets say that all the military advisers told you that withdrawing immediately would be a bad decision - logistical issues, stability issues, etc etc. and that a phased withdrawal would be a better idea. Well you were set on immediate withdrawal, but now you're hearing that its not practical or realistic. Do you stick with your idealistic principle of withdrawing immediately?

Just something to think about. I was gonna edit my post to say that I believe OBama and Hillary have expressed views about the withdrawals needing to be realistic (but they were skewered in the polls so they changed their public stances). Would backlash against hillary and obama be justified if they withdraw immediately (like a lot of people want to do) and the situation in iraq deteriorated and more iraqis died than would have had we stayed for a while longer?

I used to think the decision was easy: withdraw immediately. Immoral war, no reason to go in, they'd be better off without us, we're there for oil, etc etc.
Well, I think its pure fantasy now to think that the situation is that simple. It's complex and must be handled accordingly, lest we make the same shitty decisions GW bush and friends made.

We should at least put as much thought and planning into withdrawal (if not more) than we put into the invasion. I just want us to take more time to think about this... if immediate withdrawal is not feasible at this point in time, then we shouldn't support it, even though it is something we will strive for.

[Titania]

Yes, I believe democracies rule with the consent of the people. You are a subset of the people. The more consent they got, the more legitimate power this war has behind it. You're basically part of the last shred of legitimacy this thing has.

Nobody thinks just withdrawing the troops immediately with no contingency plans is a good idea, I have no idea where you pull that from.

There has been no realistic plan that says we can win or get out of this cleanly, we're coming out of this with our hands dirty, and hoping they won't get dirtier.

You're still hoping this is going to be easy: maybe we can win, or stay until this is less messy. Nope. Every military expert who stays more than a year in the Bush White house says not gonna happen, and is then promptly booted.

We've more than got the minds capable of handling responsible withdrawl, and that takes geniuses. Those same geniuses have consistently said we're not gonna win.

However, pulling out, talking to Iran and making them political allies and together put political pressure on Iraq to stabilize (because it's kind of in their best interests Iraq not be a sucking wound in the Middle East a little more than ours), turn over infrastructure jobs to the Iraqis themselves, we might not have a total fuckin disaster over there in a couple years.

No such plan aside from "MIRACULOUSLY WIN" has been put forward from the 100 years in Iraq crowd.

[airjaw]

HAHA wow. listen, I changed my mind about a week ago. If that makes me the enemy and I now need to be treated differently, then so be it. I don't think I "legitimize" the war cause any more than you illegitimize (donno if thats a real word) it.

Actually, a lot of people want to withdraw immediately. I didn't just pull that out of my ass, I see and read it all the times on the internet, or at the protest I was at.

I don't thikn the war is easy. I do think we can stabilize the situation though. How can you be so sure about your opinion that we can't eventually win? What would you say if the situation improved dramatically in the next 5 years?

I think that if BushCo made better decisions and weren't such bumbling incompetent idiots in the first place, this unjustified war would have gone a whole lot better. Well, they're making pretty good decisions right now, after 5 years of disaster, and I do think there are results, although they are short-lived and only time will tell if things will really get better.

[Titania]

If you don't understand popular sovereignty, you aren't ready for political discussions.

I am not sure it can't be won. I do know nearly every expert on the subject doesn't think it can be done now. In the absence of evidence it can be done, I'll believe the, you know, experts.

And no, the war STILL is not going well.

[airjaw]

If you don't understand popular sovereignty, you aren't ready for political discussions.

I am not sure. I do know nearly every expert on the subject doesn't think it can be done now.

And no, the war STILL is not going well.

It depends on what you would consider "going well" to be. Everyone has a different opinion of what that entails. The war will probably forever remain a disaster in the eyes of most historians, with a somewhat less harsh view if we do end up "winning".

I just don't think that someone expressing his opinion about the Iraq war really DOES anything, just like I don't think anti war protesters really DO anything either. That's why I feel like your anger towards me is misplaced. I think the the ideal American would not only express his dissent about the war, but also go to Iraq and help clean up the mess that our country caused, regardless of what his personal feelings or opinions about the war were. That's what humanitarian workers do. They have no political agenda, they are just there to save people, with action, not words.

[Rhu]

Actually, a lot of people want to withdraw immediately. I didn't just pull that out of my ass, I see and read it all the times on the internet...
There really should be more pornography dedicated to taking a complex situation, and boiling it down to the rhythm method.

[Spartan26]

Ok, so lets say we're "losing the war". If we were "winning" the war, would that change your opinion of things?
I think this is an interesting question. (I'm jumping in w/out having read a middle chunk of this thread). I think either through a well polished PR machine or Americans' tendency to be self centered, if things were going "better" a lot of people would be more dismissive over what is happening over there. Even now w/things going not great, much attention on how to handle the war in Iraq has fallen off. The last midterm election placed a stronger emphasis on getting the troops home. Despite all the seats the dems won, they weren't able to propose, much less pull the trigger on a plan to end the occupation.

Had they broken ground on an Apple Store or added some McDonald's in some shopping complexes, exactly everything wrong thing that has gone wrong could have still gone wrong, I think there'd be plenty who would've labeled it the price paid for freedom. While there will always be debate over what means are used to obtain an end, the primary source used in continuing the war seems to be the same one that allowed unfettered access to the war, fear.

Maybe this was what was talked about earlier in this thread, but it seems like people are viewing a troop withdrawal like a serrated knife to the kidney. But no one seems to be saying how beyond hypothesis. "People will view America as weak," "Who knows what kind of insurgency will grow out of the instability," but never anything to directly explain how pulling troops out of Iraq would make Americans at home less secure. Considering how much the lead up to the war was based on take the fight over there so it doesn't wind up over here, I would think that'd be addressed.

I'm also surprised the Bush adm hasn't taken more credit for the lack of terror attacks on US soil as being directly related to having the troops in Iraq. They'll mention the occasional cell destroyed or intelligence gained through relaxed laws, which I'm not calling bs nor supporting, just noting that there hasn't been the correlation defined. My guess is if they'd found even a cake of Thorium in some bunker over there, we'd see a massive escalation in the case for an Iranian invasion before the "soft dems could get even more power in a Nov election and allow for a much greater tragedy on US soil."

I don't know what it would take to get people to switch off their support of the war. There are principals held that regardless of any apparent success the war may have or seem to be experiencing that still would have had people objecting, such as a nation's right to sovereignty or against a world order. If there were some tapes discovered of White House plan for Iraq invasion that proved knowledge of lies and deceit and law breaking in order to get the war, I'm sure there'd still be people who'd think it's a good idea to stay over there.

[Rhu]

Had they broken ground on an Apple Store or added some McDonald's in some shopping complexes, exactly everything wrong thing that has gone wrong could have still gone wrong, I think there'd be plenty who would've labeled it the price paid for freedom.
Even in my cynical view of American culture and human nature, I'm seeing this as naive. If the big news story broke that a new McD's opened a franchise in Baghdad, the reporters would focus on the different kinds of rendered fat goes in and on the semi-liquified grease pies. There'd be a picture of a kid wiping french fry grease on his shirt and, unless the report was repeated ad nauseum for months, the memory of it would be discarded like any consumer product.



I'm also surprised the Bush adm hasn't taken more credit for the lack of terror attacks on US soil as being directly related to having the troops in Iraq.
He's more concerned about proving that the provisions and improvisions springing from Patriot Act-esque domestic security measures are protected from prosecution without any statistics or anecdotal proof. That's what's closest to home, what's controllable, and what could get his friends in the most trouble.


I don't know what it would take to get people to switch off their support of the war. There are principals held that regardless of any apparent success the war may have or seem to be experiencing that still would have had people objecting, such as a nation's right to sovereignty or against a world order. If there were some tapes discovered of White House plan for Iraq invasion that proved knowledge of lies and deceit and law breaking in order to get the war, I'm sure there'd still be people who'd think it's a good idea to stay over there.
The military culture that tends to be pervasive in families who end up with members in the armed services is always deeply emotionally invested in the outcome of the war. Everybody who has a parent, sibling, or child involved in military service has to agree with the war, whatever the war is. Their world view depends on there being neither kin nor cabal with monsters--so much so that they will deny or reshape their perceptions to fit with that view.

It's easier. The alternative is to live without shelter.

[Titania]

I just don't think that someone expressing his opinion about the Iraq war really DOES anything, just like I don't think anti war protesters really DO anything either.Marches on Washington got women the vote and ended Jim Crow, they can end and arguably will have ended military action in Iraq. It'll just take a politician who even goes through the motions of giving a shit about his constituency.

Just because you have a poor sense of political efficacy doesn't mean what you do doesn't mean anything. Nope, you still get to have some consequences for what you do.

[quantumzero]

well i read reddit.com and a lot of liberal sites
so my opinion was a bit biased at first

i thikn also a lot of people are pissd off by the fact that bush deceived us in the beginning
this anger clouds our judgment just as fear clouds the judgment of those overly concerned about terrorists

a lot of the reasons for why we should pull out aren't backed up by any real substantial foundation

no one knows for sure what will happen if we pull out or if we stay
so right there, the claim that "things will be better if we leave" is empty and wishful thinking. it seems that the evidence right now demands that we stay there for the time being to keep things under control.

a lot of people think bush went in there for oil. really? that is oversimplifying a complex topic. it is true that we have strategic interest in the region, including oil, but oil was not the sole reason we went in.

people ignore the progress that has been made and only choose to take one side
i don't think we should have gone in
but the reality is that now we are there
we've invested billions, trillions
we've uprooted the iraqi gov't
we've sacrificed lives and security of iraqi people
can we morally, ethically just leave now?
we have an investment in iraq whether we like it or not
it makes sense to stay at this point in time
i guarantee that there wouldn't be as much of an uproar if the war was handled better in the first place
bush and co made terrible decisions and had terrible plans going in
they made the worst blunders they could possibly make
they routinely ignored advice of knowledgeable advisers and experts

if a more competent administration was in charge
iraq would n't even be an issue

also
people have such a short term view of things
like they expect iraqi gov't to make progress , progres that can take decades
people in other parts of the world are on different schedule than we are
everything is not rush rush rush
only in US are people so focused on short term gains. we think wars should only take a few weeks and aren't willing to fight anything longer than that

noi its not fair that bush went in, wasted trillions of dollars and divided the country not to mention making terrible decisions which resulted int he loss of lives of hundreds of thousands. he should probably be put on trial for lying about the war, along with cheney

but that doesn't take away from the responsibility we have towards iraq
we will live and die there, as a nation we have to assume resonsibility
that means sucking it up and doing the right thing sometimes
even if it means sacrificing our own livelihood int he process

we will live and die in iraq. they are joined to us now, their legacy will be part of ours. we're a part of their history. contrary to what many of you may think
they don't all hate americans
a lot of them are angry that things are so f-ed up, with good reason
but the majority of them were happy when we removed saddam from power
if the war was handled better and the iraqis had better security, jobs, food, etc in the years following saddam's removal
they would be singing our praises

if you really want to be against something, be against the bush administration's incompetent ability as commander in chief

lets use our energies to solving the problem, not to quitting and pretending that the problem doesn't exist
our commander created the problem

now its our responsibility to solve it
everyone talks a lot but no one ever does anything
bush should have created a volunteer force for civilians to volunteer in iraq
the best course of action to take isn't to protest in the streets
what are you really accomplishing by that
when a family member fucks up, you don't stage a protest
you express your anger, your disappointment a
and then you go about helping fix the mistake
solve the problem

we're in this together and its sad that we're so divided because of this

but whats in the past is in the past
we need to look towards the future

i hope barack obama and/or hilary clinton realize this
even though americans may want withdrawal
this option is not realistic and its not the right thing to do
it is more painful short term
but shoulnd't we be looking for long term solutions?
isn't that what we criticize wall street ceos for

the people who say iraq can never be stabilized are plain wrong. we simply don't know what can or what will happen. its only been less than a year since the stability has gotten better. no one can predict the future
and i'm tired of every one thinking they can.

with the information we have now
i seriously doubt we can withdraw at this point in time

i apologize for the fragmented thoughts
had to type this quickly

ok BOY get the hell on over there!

[quantumzero]

What are you talking about? Our forceful occupation gives them an object lesson in American "democracy" ;)

Where have you been, this has nothing to do with democracy, fucktard.

[Titania]

Where have you been, this has nothing to do with democracy, fucktard.Your sarcasm detector, where is it? You must find it!!!

[airjaw]

ok BOY get the hell on over there!

I would go over there if there was a competent and well-organized volunteer corps.

[airjaw]

Marches on Washington got women the vote and ended Jim Crow, they can end and arguably will have ended military action in Iraq. It'll just take a politician who even goes through the motions of giving a shit about his constituency.

Just because you have a poor sense of political efficacy doesn't mean what you do doesn't mean anything. Nope, you still get to have some consequences for what you do.

What have you personally done to end the war?

[airjaw]

Maybe this was what was talked about earlier in this thread, but it seems like people are viewing a troop withdrawal like a serrated knife to the kidney. But no one seems to be saying how beyond hypothesis. "People will view America as weak," "Who knows what kind of insurgency will grow out of the instability," but never anything to directly explain how pulling troops out of Iraq would make Americans at home less secure. Considering how much the lead up to the war was based on take the fight over there so it doesn't wind up over here, I would think that'd be addressed.


It's not so much people viewing America as weak as it is about holding ourselves responsible for our actions. I'm not sure if a rising insurgency actually threatens us DIRECTLY, but a larger number of Iraqi deaths isn't something we can just keep out of our conscience if we act in an irresponsible manner. What's best for the American people is to withdraw and save as many American lives as we can. That's the selfish route and some will say that we have no responsibility or obligation to the Iraqis. I disagree. The president we elected (fairly, or unfairly, to the iraqis it doesn't matter) altered the lives of millions of Iraqis. If staying there means securing the area for the Iraqis, then more American money and lives is what it will take. I know there is a line between bleeding your country dry and sacrificing for another, but I don't think we have reached that line yet.

[Titania]

What have you personally done to end the war?1) Protested
2) Wrote my senator
3) Voted for and donated to anti-war candidates
4) Donated to local progressive coalitions that back (via mailers and donation drives) anti-war candidates.
5) Phonebanked for anti-war candidates
6) Been part of a couple voter registration drives for areas and populations with low voter registration and who also do not like the war.
6a) Those drives registered about 4500 voters total; by me personally, 2-3 dozen. If even half vote, that's a big deal in a House seat race.

And whaddyouknow, enough people doing that, and you end up with anti-war candidates very viable for election and an overall populace extremely low opinion of the war.

Just because you want to believe what you did was useless doesn't mean I have to buy that bullshit. There's plenty that's been done, and it has made a difference.

[kuranes]

Seems to me that people are saying sometimes that we can't pull out because things are getting "bad", or that they will get bad at that time. Then they say that we can't pull out because the surge has made things better, or "good", and we must wait and see if it improves even more. It reminds me of the lines in that old David Bowie song, where the guy is thinking about making a move on someone in a bar. He says "I'll wait until the crowd comes" and then later "I'll wait until the crowd goes" before doing it.

[V Profane]

Where have you been, this has nothing to do with democracy, fucktard.

I'm pretty sure the ;) denotes sarcasm.

[C.J.Woolf]

The military culture that tends to be pervasive in families who end up with members in the armed services is always deeply emotionally invested in the outcome of the war. Everybody who has a parent, sibling, or child involved in military service has to agree with the war, whatever the war is. Their world view depends on there being neither kin nor cabal with monsters--so much so that they will deny or reshape their perceptions to fit with that view.

It's easier. The alternative is to live without shelter.
And the military culture neatly coincides with the Republican base, for what it's worth.

You touch on something that allowed the war to go unchallenged for so long: all the troops are volunteers, either gung-ho or economically desperate enough to "take the king's shilling", to use a notorious phrase from our own history with professional occupying armies. By contrast, opposition to the Vietnam war reached critical mass in 1968, three years after the first combat units were sent in, and less than three years after the first draftees were sent in. A lot of the draftees and their loved ones felt that they were hostages to a misguided foreign policy, and a large segment of young men rose up because they literally had skin in the game. This is not the case now. Instead, he Bush administration instituted a "back-door draft", raiding the Reserves and National Guard. (One would be a fool to join the Reserves these days; might as well go regular and get better pay, training, and equipment, 'cause everybody ends up in Iraq.)

We didn't lose the Vietnam war because of the draft (the North Vietnamese won it), but the draft accelerated the outcome. With a draft, it's a popular war or no war.

What I just wrote might make you think I favor bringing back the draft, but I'm of two minds regarding conscription. An army with draftees does serve as a check on stupid foreign adventures (eventually). And I think national service can be a social good, especially if draftees are given the option to do non-military service. But as an experience I suspect getting drafted would suck for most of us INTPs.

[kuranes]

I was reading in a mainstream magazine the other day ( while waiting for a prescription to be filled ) about a soldier's experiences in Iraq who was an atheist. He was talking about these "born again" types who are Christian extremists on "our" side that take a hard line on everyone not in their mindset, sending the "non-believers" off on the most dangerous duties. There were some objections to these guys spending valuable pre-mission time on prayer vs. making sure they had contingency plans set up and so on, but it was hard to go against them. The man in question was unsure who to complain to, as he was aware that higher ups might be part of this also. I did a search yesterday for "Dominionators" on Google but saw no references to anything like this, per se. It doesn't surprise me, though.

The soldier said he saw "Dominion" guys telling little Iraqi kids that their fathers were going to burn in hell forever if they remained Muslims, even to kids who had already lost their kin in explosions and so forth.

[Zephyrus055]

If we really want to exterminate terrorism, we should either:

1. Raise the standard of living in breeding grounds for terrorism.
2. Exterminate towns and cities that are breeding grounds for terrorism, and do so with ruthless efficiency and optimal terror.

Each has their own advantages and disadvantages.

[TryIt]

"then more American money and lives is what it will take. I know there is a line between bleeding your country dry and sacrificing for another, but I don't think we have reached that line yet."

Holy crap.

Let me know how you feel about it when YOU need to write a check for $16,000. That's your share of the Iraq war. Maybe that's pocket change to you but not most of America. Let me know how the mass bankruptcies and job losses affect you in the next few years. Can't you see it coming? The once great nation called the United States of America is done! The dollar is going down the crapper. And you want to wait until we're completely bled out? That's patriotic of you.

I had the same mentality ("we're there now, might as well try to finish it") for the first couple years. Then I looked deeper into why the war started, and it really ticks me off. The cause is not noble. The whole thing is based on lies.


"If it was wrong to go, it is wrong to stay." - Ron Paul

"An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." - JFK

[foodeater]

If we really want to exterminate terrorism, we should either:

1. Raise the standard of living in breeding grounds for terrorism.
2. Exterminate towns and cities that are breeding grounds for terrorism, and do so with ruthless efficiency and optimal terror.

Each has their own advantages and disadvantages.

1. But then they become competitors to the US!
2. But the people get pissy and protest!

I like the war. Not really for the ideals or really anything about it, but the irony. It's like when two kids are in a fight, and a third kid steps in a tries to stop the fight, and the kid being antagonized punches the kid that stepped in out of random rage. Maybe you could take it a step farther and say the kid punched back, but who knows. And maybe the two kids weren't in a fight to begin with and the kid that stepped in was just trying to look good for his popular friends.

I'm actually in favor of staying, now that we have so much invested in it. I don't see a good reason to leave without getting something good out of it after $3 trillion.

[airjaw]

"then more American money and lives is what it will take. I know there is a line between bleeding your country dry and sacrificing for another, but I don't think we have reached that line yet."

Holy crap.

Let me know how you feel about it when YOU need to write a check for $16,000. That's your share of the Iraq war. Maybe that's pocket change to you but not most of America. Let me know how the mass bankruptcies and job losses affect you in the next few years. Can't you see it coming? The once great nation called the United States of America is done! The dollar is going down the crapper. And you want to wait until we're completely bled out? That's patriotic of you.

I had the same mentality ("we're there now, might as well try to finish it") for the first couple years. Then I looked deeper into why the war started, and it really ticks me off. The cause is not noble. The whole thing is based on lies.


"If it was wrong to go, it is wrong to stay." - Ron Paul

"An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." - JFK

I am fully aware of the consequences of the war to America - and I believe we have to pay for it with our well-being. That is the legacy and fate that Bush has dragged us into. America was done as soon as we went into Iraq and as soon as the Democrats failed to get us out. Now, our troops are stuck, Iraq is on the brink of civil war, which only the presence of our troops can delay, and our economy and reputation are in the dumps and only going to get worse. What goes around comes back around. The cost of the war like you said is already $16,000 for every American, money that we borrowed and will have to eventually pay. The only REAL hope to salvage our long term prospects is for us to resolve the situation in Iraq somehow and get some benefit out of it. We've put billions, trillions of dollars into Iraq already. You may think the only hope is to pull out. I think America needs a wake up call and that this type of disaster needed to happen. Bush is just a pawn in the global scheme of things. You reap what you sow and in the end after many years of pain, we might just grow stronger and learn.

We should stay, take responsibility for what we've started, and suffer. I view America as a family and a united country, especially when the president we VOTES for decides to alter an entire country's history. You guys think just cuz you didn't vote for Bush or because you disagree with the war that you aren't responsible for his actions.

WRONG. Like it or not we voted him in and we have to clean up for him in Iraq. That's the way you LEARN. You take responsibility for your country's actions. 4000 soldiers dead, 100,000+ iraqi's dead, trillions of dollars lost. I'm against withdrawal until our military commanders tell us that the war is either unwinnable, or that its OK to withdraw without Iraq descending into civil war and millions of Iraqis die.

I just have a different philosophy of what a 'country' or 'nation' is. I view it as more of a family, with everyone connected and responsibile for other members, no matter how much you may hate them or disagree. If you were an Iraqi and the US invaded your country, fucked everthing up ,and then just LEFT without fixing anything, you wouldn't care if half of the US iddn't vote for Bush or didn't agree with him. He was the president and he made the executive decisions, and that means he stands for the rest of the US. That's how every organization and nation works.


edit:: just read some words from McCain. I will post excerpts here:
"It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal."

"He also said there have signs of political reconciliation at the local level, but he acknowledges, "political progress at the national level has been far too slow. … but there is progress."

McCain spent two days in Iraq on a congressional visit one-and-a-half weeks ago.

He has previously said that to be elected president, he will need to convince American voters that whatever they think of the wisdom of having gone to war, the U.S. has a vital interest in keeping troops there long enough to quash the threat posed by Al Qaeda. "

""Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake," he warned.

"Whether they were there before is immaterial. Al Qaeda is in Iraq now. If we withdraw prematurely, al Qaeda will survive [and] proclaim victory … Civil war in Iraq could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. I believe a reckless and premature withdrawal would be a terrible defeat for our security interests and our values."


I think this man understands the situation a lot more than people give him credit for. All the democrats call him a war-hawk. I wouldn't dispute that because he was for this very flawed war from the very beginning. However, he makes an excellent point that simply cannot be ignored - that it doesn't matter where Al Qaeda was before we went into Iraq, what matters is that they are there now. Like it or not, it is OUR problem and IRAQ's problem that WE started, and is now our responsibility. Everyone's talking about justice, values, fairness to the Iraqis, whatever have you , all these LOFTY principles, and yet everyone ignores the value that is responsibility. There is strength in conservative values just as there is strength in liberal values. At different times in our nation, we may need more of one side than the other. I'm pretty conflicted about who to vote for because America is facing deep domestic problems as well, such as Healthcare, education, cultural and moral decline, and an economic disaster waiting to happen. That doesn't mean that everything the conservative side says is BS though. just food for thought.

[Titania]

The Al Quaeda that caused 9-11 is not in Iraq. Even if that utter forign policy moron John McCain doesn't know the difference, you should.

They are completely different organizations with different goas. The one in Iraq is much much less organized and much easier to infiltrate because they're a bunch of gangs who occasionally get hold of something dangerous. They took on a scary name to frighten people like you who would assume they were the hijackers.

We can't fix Iraq. Deal. The solution? Does not involve us. We can sure as fuck continue to fuck up if we stay but no, we are not and will not be part of the solution.

edit: And why the fuck are you taking strong policy stances on Iraq when you obviously know squat about it? The 2 Al Qaedas isn't hard stuff to come across, it should be basic knowledge. Please tell me you're not a voter.

[C.J.Woolf]

I like the war. Not really for the ideals or really anything about it, but the irony. It's like when two kids are in a fight, and a third kid steps in a tries to stop the fight, and the kid being antagonized punches the kid that stepped in out of random rage.
Here's the metaphor I prefer: the US forces are a cop on a domestic dispute call.


I'm actually in favor of staying, now that we have so much invested in it. I don't see a good reason to leave without getting something good out of it after $3 trillion.
A gambler who thinks that way is called a loser. I wish we had better poker players in the White House.


We should stay, take responsibility for what we've started, and suffer.
Have you enlisted yet? I'll take your posts a lot more seriously after you do.


I view America as a family and a united country, especially when the president we VOTES for decides to alter an entire country's history. You guys think just cuz you didn't vote for Bush or because you disagree with the war that you aren't responsible for his actions.
Oh, the irony. Bush is the most divisive president of my lifetime; he's all about his 50%+1 coalition and fuck everyone else. During the 1990s Bush's supporters were all saying "Clinton is not my president."

Bush did not try to build broad-based support for the Iraq war as his father did for the Kuwait war; he used it as a partisan cudgel from day one. It's a political fact of life that if you start of war of aggression, you'd damn well better win or you're in all kinds of shit -- alone. Ask the Argentine junta in 1982 about that, or Saddam Hussein.

So don't start with me on "We're all in this together." Bush started this war to benefit only Republicans, and it's all on them.

[airjaw]

The Al Quaeda that caused 9-11 is not in Iraq. Even if that utter forign policy moron John McCain doesn't know the difference, you should. They are completely different organizations with different goas. The one in Iraq is much much less organized and much easier to infiltrate because they're a bunch of gangs who occasionally get hold of something dangerous. They took on a scary name to frighten people like you who would assume they were the hijackers.


I don't think I ever mentioned the threat of Al Qaeda. I'm concerned about our responsibility for Iraq's stability. Stop assuming things about what I believe or what my fears are.


We can't fix Iraq. Deal. The solution? Does not involve us. We can sure as fuck continue to fuck up if we stay but no, we are not and will not be part of the solution.

Who said we can't fix Iraq? That's an opinion, not fact. Granted, the evidence might point in that direction, especially recently, but don't come here and claim that your opinion is a fact. We don't know what exactly will happen with Iraq and don't pretend you're someone who can predict the future. How does the solution not involve us? we invaded the country. The majority of Iraqis want us to leave, but NOT BEFORE We fix things. They think we have a responsibility to ensure the stability right now and provide them with basic utils like schools, hospitals, water, electricity, etc.
I would really like to hear your logic and for you to address this topic directly. I would also like to hear other people's reasoning on this. How can you say the solution does not involve us when we invaded, deposed their leader and created a power vaccuum, and now are in charge of stabilizing a country that could fall apart at any minute? That's like us knocking out the foundation of someone's building and then refusing to fix the problem because its not our building and therefore not our responsibility


edit: And why the fuck are you taking strong policy stances on Iraq when you obviously know squat about it? The 2 Al Qaedas isn't hard stuff to come across, it should be basic knowledge. Please tell me you're not a voter.

Hey, you can keep swearing and insulting me, as that seems to be the norm on this forum. That seems to be acceptable behavior when someone disagrees with you and their opinion goes against the mainstream. I don't blame you as this is obviously a very emotional topic and you're pissed off about it. I'm just disappointed that no one else has spoke up and said anything about your obviously caustic posts.

[Titania]

I don't think I ever mentioned the threat of Al Qaeda. I'm concerned about our responsibility for Iraq's stability. Stop assuming things about what I believe or what my fears are.You did. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq now" is a huge piece of misinformation. A group calling itself Al Qaeda is in Iraq now, and that is NOT the same thing, and it implies very very different courses of action.

It is the opinion held by people who managed the thing for more than a year, then were kicked out of managing it when they told the administration what they didn't want to hear.

Opinions on things like wars still have standards they are held to. This is not high school english class, this is the real world, there is very little that can or should be proven as monolithic fact. There are, however, bad and unfounded opinions by people who do not know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, a large number of those people are now running the country.

I am so very sorry people are unkind to your opinion, when they are held in common by the people who got us in this mess in the first place. A few thousands of deaths later, they don't carry much weight.

[airjaw]

A gambler who thinks that way is called a loser. I wish we had better poker players in the White House.

That analogy isn't directly applicable. We have soldiers, equipment, buildings, and relationships invested. But if you want to use the poker analogy, then tell me, are you not ignoring the fact that the hand is not yet over, and we have put money in the pot already? In poker, when you've put so much money into a pot, you might as well put a little more money in just to see the outcome. We could also say that we think we're behind, but that we don't know what the other person is holding and what the last card will be. I'd like to hear your thoughts - we can take the poker analogy pretty far.


Have you enlisted yet? I'll take your posts a lot more seriously after you do.

Nope I'm not enlisted and I don't plan to. I'm a coward and I don't profess to be brave or very honorable. I don't claim to be anything I'm not. I would consider going to Iraq if there was a civilian volunteer corps, where I could help out in a non-military way.



Oh, the irony. Bush is the most divisive president of my lifetime; he's all about his 50&#37;+1 coalition and fuck everyone else. During the 1990s Bush's supporters were all saying "Clinton is not my president."

Bush did not try to build broad-based support for the Iraq war as his father did for the Kuwait war; he used it as a partisan cudgel from day one. It's a political fact of life that if you start of war of aggression, you'd damn well better win or you're in all kinds of shit -- alone. Ask the Argentine junta in 1982 about that, or Saddam Hussein.

So don't start with me on "We're all in this together." Bush started this war to benefit only Republicans, and it's all on them.

Bush definitely has divided the country. I'm not excusing his actions. However, if you consider looking at this from the Iraqis' POV, it doesn't make a difference if democrats don't support Bush. American troops are there, and Iraqis don't care if the troops are Black, white, republican, democrat, malaysian, whatever. we can bitch and moan about it all we want. The fact remains that they expect us to stay and keep things stable. Please pretend you're an Iraqi citizen and the next president is about to withdraw the troops. What would you think, how would you feel? would you think America is justified in withdrawing?

[airjaw]

You did. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq now" is a huge piece of misinformation. A group calling itself Al Qaeda is in Iraq now, and that is NOT the same thing, and it implies very very different courses of action.

It is the opinion held by people who managed the thing for more than a year, then were kicked out of managing it when they told the administration what they didn't want to hear.

Opinions on things like wars still have standards they are held to. This is not high school english class, this is the real world, there is very little that can or should be proven as monolithic fact. There are, however, bad and unfounded opinions by people who do not know what they're talking about. Unfortunately, a large number of those people are now running the country.

I am so very sorry people are unkind to your opinion, when they are held in common by the people who got us in this mess in the first place. A few thousands of deaths later, they don't carry much weight.

Listen, you keep speaking to me as if I'm in first-grade. I know of ALL the facts that you've cited. I know it sounds crazy, but people can have all the facts and come to different opinions. So please stop assuming that I don't know the facts are.

In regards to Al Qaeda : I guess your point is that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not a threat to us and therefore we have no reason to stay. FINE. You keep missing my point and thats why this is frustrating, for BOTH of us. Al Qaeda in Iraq may not be a threat to US directly, but they are a threat to Iraqi stability, a stability which I believe the US has a responsibility to maintain and secure before withdrawing. Please address this point.

When you've let all your built-up anger about this out, we can begin to discuss this issue reasonably. Maybe you'll provide me with enough insight for me to change my mind, and then I can go out and be as active as you are in stopping the war. But the snide and insulting remarks don't help. This really isn't how you want to talk to anyone, pro-war, anti-war, or neutral. All they do is put me on the defensive and make me even more entrenched in my position. Just something to think about. Thanks.


edit:: and also, I will say that my positions on Iraq aren't even set in stone. It's interesting though how much anger and ill will has been thrown my way. Again I understand that this is an emotional topic, but its interesting to hear all the things people assume about me. Are INTP's not usually the devil's advocates?

[Titania]

In regards to Al Qaeda : I guess your point is that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not a threat to us and therefore we have no reason to stay. FINE. You keep missing my point and thats why this is frustrating, for BOTH of us. Al Qaeda in Iraq may not be a threat to US directly, but they are a threat to Iraqi stability, a stability which I believe the US has a responsibility to maintain and secure before withdrawing. Please address this point.1) "Stability" is not a feasible goal, any more than "world peace" is a feasible goal. You have yet to present any criteria for victory, and believe me, stability isn't even present in the very well managed countries in the middle east.

2) The goal, as you have presented it, is not feasible. There are alternate acceptable goals. They involve us leaving and using more pinpointed operations if need be and using foreign aid and diplomacy. Also, they have the benefit of being possible and employing Iraqis and overall killing fewer people.


I am not sure what evidence you'd accept which'd change your mind. That people who know their stuff think your idea is a fool's errand seems not to be enough. That the American people are sick of seeing their soldiers die isn't enough. That the Iraqis want us the fuck out (and no, there has not been any study that says they want us to stay there militarily and fix it first) isn't enough. That the longer we stay, the longer US businesses take the majority of the money out of the Iraqi economy isn't enough. That the surrogates who would carry out your plan can't find both their asses with ample help doesn't make you doubt a thing. I'm not sure there's reasonable discussion to be had with you on the matter. I just have to hope the 70&#37; of us drown you out.

Just like you weren't interested in laying any argumentative framework even in your OP, I'm not interested in laying it for you. You wanted my thoughts, you've got them. This isn't a discussion thread, this is a thread where you talked about your vague feeling states about the war, and those were the responses you've gotten so far. Don't hold me to a higher level of discourse than you've held yourself.

[kuranes]

I'm against withdrawal until our military commanders tell us that the war is either unwinnable

Do you think any career general would admit this to Bush, even if he thought it true ? The guy who was in charge of the middle east military forces just "took early retirement", reputedly because he disagreed with Bush ( including hypothetical plans for an Iran invasion ) on how to conduct affairs.

Meanwhile the Iraqis were arguing about how many stars should be on the new flag versus how they will split the oil revenue, and the populace frequently continues to go without basic services like clean water ( ! ! ), power, or phones, even though they get bills for them which they must pay, just in case the services are turned on..... occasionally. They must also pay bribes to local officials who can hook them up to a generator now and then.

We are "training the Iraqis to take our places" but we know that many of the people we are signing up as "policemen" etc. are actually insurgents pretending to want to help, and so we are hesitant to give them the kind of firepower they need to make big impact.

Even if I believed in the POV of the conservative right on this, as far as our presence in Iraq contributing to US homeland security, we simply can't afford to keep going at it on an open ended basis. I do understand the conservative viewpoint on not publishing a public deadline, but there ought to be a private one, and I don't think there is, with the statements that are being made.

I heard one on the news the other day, and I admit that I did not write down the particulars as to who said it and exactly when.

"How long will it take ?"
"If we do it right, 30 years, and if we do it wrong....100."

McCain has used large figures on this question, regardless.

[quantumzero]

That analogy isn't directly applicable. We have soldiers, equipment, buildings, and relationships invested. But if you want to use the poker analogy, then tell me, are you not ignoring the fact that the hand is not yet over, and we have put money in the pot already? In poker, when you've put so much money into a pot, you might as well put a little more money in just to see the outcome. We could also say that we think we're behind, but that we don't know what the other person is holding and what the last card will be. I'd like to hear your thoughts - we can take the poker analogy pretty far.



Nope I'm not enlisted and I don't plan to. I'm a coward and I don't profess to be brave or very honorable. I don't claim to be anything I'm not. I would consider going to Iraq if there was a civilian volunteer corps, where I could help out in a non-military way.



Bush definitely has divided the country. I'm not excusing his actions. However, if you consider looking at this from the Iraqis' POV, it doesn't make a difference if democrats don't support Bush. American troops are there, and Iraqis don't care if the troops are Black, white, republican, democrat, malaysian, whatever. we can bitch and moan about it all we want. The fact remains that they expect us to stay and keep things stable. Please pretend you're an Iraqi citizen and the next president is about to withdraw the troops. What would you think, how would you feel? would you think America is justified in withdrawing?

re poker analogy: This must be the "flop"


re civilian volunteer: I would support your decision to go over there in a civilian capacity and get a taste of the reality of war and what is going on as opposed to what is being reported. Also if it interests you, to follow the money trail, and see what it is that honorable men and women in our armed forces are getting mutilated and dead for.

re troop withdrawl: I agree we need to stay and clean up the mess, if thats even possible, for it is written, "where ever it is they are saying 'peace and security' sudden destruction will be instantly upon them."

[kuranes]

re poker analogy: This must be the "flop"


:theclap: I've been waiting to use that phrase in such a way, but I don't think I could top this.

[airjaw]

1) "Stability" is not a feasible goal, any more than "world peace" is a feasible goal. You have yet to present any criteria for victory, and believe me, stability isn't even present in the very well managed countries in the middle east.

2) The goal, as you have presented it, is not feasible. There are alternate acceptable goals. They involve us leaving and using more pinpointed operations if need be and using foreign aid and diplomacy. Also, they have the benefit of being possible and employing Iraqis and overall killing fewer people.


I am not sure what evidence you'd accept which'd change your mind. That people who know their stuff think your idea is a fool's errand seems not to be enough. That the American people are sick of seeing their soldiers die isn't enough. That the Iraqis want us the fuck out (and no, there has not been any study that says they want us to stay there militarily and fix it first) isn't enough. That the longer we stay, the longer US businesses take the majority of the money out of the Iraqi economy isn't enough. That the surrogates who would carry out your plan can't find both their asses with ample help doesn't make you doubt a thing. I'm not sure there's reasonable discussion to be had with you on the matter. I just have to hope the 70&#37; of us drown you out.

Just like you weren't interested in laying any argumentative framework even in your OP, I'm not interested in laying it for you. You wanted my thoughts, you've got them. This isn't a discussion thread, this is a thread where you talked about your vague feeling states about the war, and those were the responses you've gotten so far. Don't hold me to a higher level of discourse than you've held yourself.

I wasn't really sure of what my opinions were. I just had some ideas in my head that I wanted to get out there and get opinions on. It's quite a common INTP trait actually, to argue for a side even if you aren't quite sure that you believe in it. So, you're right that I talked about my vague feeling states about the war. I did frame my argument in my subsequent posts however. I like discussions where there is a back-and-forth dialogue more than just simply writing all my opinions out in a well-reasoned essay. My opinions weren't set in stone so I didn't see any reason to start off that way.
I don't really appreciate the attitude you gave me, especially because 99% of what you assumed about me was plain false and incorrect. Then again, I'm sure you don't care either, and I don't really blame you for feeling the way you do or coming off the way you do either.

In regards to your points:
1) I would define the criteria for stability as a functioning government, very few suicide bombings, and no inter-faction fighting between the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds. Yes, "stability" is a vague concept that is hard to define just like success in the war on "terror" is.

2) I'm not sure which point of mine you're responding to.

[airjaw]

re poker analogy: This must be the "flop"
witty.


re civilian volunteer: I would support your decision to go over there in a civilian capacity and get a taste of the reality of war and what is going on as opposed to what is being reported. Also if it interests you, to follow the money trail, and see what it is that honorable men and women in our armed forces are getting mutilated and dead for.


I'm sure all this would push anyone past the point of disgust for the war. I know that billions are wasted and that 4000 of our men have died for no good reason. It's all very silly and tragic and simply ridiculous.

[airjaw]

Do you think any career general would admit this to Bush, even if he thought it true ? The guy who was in charge of the middle east military forces just "took early retirement", reputedly because he disagreed with Bush ( including hypothetical plans for an Iran invasion ) on how to conduct affairs.
I trust the military commanders. I don't trust Bush.


Meanwhile the Iraqis were arguing about how many stars should be on the new flag versus how they will split the oil revenue, and the populace frequently continues to go without basic services like clean water ( ! ! ), power, or phones, even though they get bills for them which they must pay, just in case the services are turned on..... occasionally. They must also pay bribes to local officials who can hook them up to a generator now and then.
Iraqis are on a different sense of time. It's hard to build up infrastructure when people were bombing the hell out of each other just a year ago. It remains to be seen whether the Iraqi gov't can get things together. Democracy takes time to develop; thats why going in and rebuilding countries in our image is almost never a sensible idea.



We are "training the Iraqis to take our places" but we know that many of the people we are signing up as "policemen" etc. are actually insurgents pretending to want to help, and so we are hesitant to give them the kind of firepower they need to make big impact.
Yep, not sure how well this strategy is going to work long-term.



Even if I believed in the POV of the conservative right on this, as far as our presence in Iraq contributing to US homeland security, we simply can't afford to keep going at it on an open ended basis. I do understand the conservative viewpoint on not publishing a public deadline, but there ought to be a private one, and I don't think there is, with the statements that are being made.
No, we can't afford to. Its just up to Americans how much responsibility we want to accept. I think there is some honor (as well as stupidity) in going down with the Iraqis. Perhaps I want to see America end in noble tragedy. If we wanted to do what was best for Americans (and not necess. the iraqis), then withdrawing immediately would be the obvious decision.

[Titania]

1) I would define the criteria for stability as a functioning government, very few suicide bombings, and no inter-faction fighting between the Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds. Yes, "stability" is a vague concept that is hard to define just like success in the war on "terror" is.Our military involvement over there will never get all of those. Getting any would be a feat the military commanders you trust say will not happen.

[airjaw]

Our military involvement over there will never get all of those. Getting any would be a feat the military commanders you trust say will not happen.

What about civilian involvement? Actually, I've heard a few military commanders say that we need to keep the troops there to maintain stability.

[Titania]

What about civilian involvement?What about it? There's a lot to be said for it, you have to be specific.
Actually, I've heard a few military commanders say that we need to keep the troops there to maintain stability.Yes, we will almost certainly need a base there. There is a huge difference between a base and an occupation.

[quantumzero]

Your sarcasm detector, where is it? You must find it!!!

er...uh...my bad!

[airjaw]

What about it? There's a lot to be said for it, you have to be specific. Yes, we will almost certainly need a base there. There is a huge difference between a base and an occupation.

Civilian involvement should be focused on creating jobs and building infrastructure. There is less incentive to fight each other when you have a job and electricity, water, food, etc.

I'm not exactly sure what the best plan is or how to go about implementing this. Some smart people high up in gov't (not the bush admin) would be in charge of this plan.

I don't think the US wants an occupation.. the military knows it is stretched thin and near the point of breaking. The alternatives: a draft, and withdrawal, however, aren't too particularly enticing either.

I guess I just dont' view the US forces there as completely bad. I think that's over-simplifying a complex, complicated situation. You say that you haven't heard of a study of any Iraqis who want the US to stay. I guarantee you that there are many Iraqis who want us to stay temporarily for their own safety. I don't have time to find it right now as i'm leaving work.
we'll continue this later.

[Titania]

Yes, getting Haliburton etc out would be a huge step in a good direction.

[MadamI'madaM]

This thread has unwound into a stagnated quagmire.

I think it's about time for airjaw to apologize and move along.

[kuranes]

I trust the military commanders. I don't trust Bush.

It's not like the commanders are giving you a confidential, person to person report.



Democracy takes time to develop
How much time do we have to give towards this ?



I think there is some honor (as well as stupidity) in going down with the Iraqis. Perhaps I want to see America end in noble tragedy.

!!!!

[airjaw]

This thread has unwound into a stagnated quagmire.

I think it's about time for airjaw to apologize and move along.

Actually I think we're finally getting somewhere in terms of discussing the issues.

And since when did an INTP ever apologize for playing Devil's advocate?

I've learned more by testing my ideas out. I hope others have too.\

I guess explaining some ofmy more unsconscious intentions might shed some light on where I'm coming from.

I started off learning about the Iraq war from liberal sites such as reddit, daily kos, huffington post, etc.
There is a lot of good information on those sites but if those sites are all you read, your opinion can get a bit biased.

Now, iI'm not saying the opinions on those liberal sites are wrong. I still feel they can be right. I personally need to question all those ideas though, before I can truly accept them.
That's why I'm considering the conservative point of view towards Iraq. There are strengths to the conservative mindset (hard to believe i know) and when i understood that, i mean truly undersetood that, not just fooled myself into believing I did, I started to see that the truth is somewhere in the middle and a bit more nuanced than most of the posters on the liberal sites would have you believe. I guess this post was a reaction to what I viewed as a distortion of the truth and I wanted to test my opinions out on reddit. Whether you are pro Iraq war or anti-Iraq war, we still have a responsibility to come to the truth.

[airjaw]

It's not like the commanders are giving you a confidential, person to person report.


How much time do we have to give towards this ?



!!!!

I never said that we have to stay until they develop democracy. I was stating the fact that democracy take stime to develop. Plain and simple. You don't need to look for pro-war agendas in everything I say. In fact you can probably use that statement I made against me. Fine, as long as its the truth.


As for my noble tragedy comment, I am exploring the concept and boundaries of loyalty, something that doesn't usually come natural to INTP's. Loyalty has its strengths, does it not?
It has its downfalls as well. I am also exploring the concept of responsibility. Are we responsible for what happens in Iraq? As a nation I mean. If we decide that we aren't, and that the costs outweight the benefits of us staying, then we should leave. If the benefits outweigh the costs, then we should consider staying.

If we decide we are responsible, and that the benefits to us do not outweigh the costs, then we'd have a tough decision to make. We'd have to try to guess what would most likely happen to the Iraqis depending on what withdrawal plans we eventually followed. We'd have to potentially risk allowing a civil war to break out and the deaths of who-knows-how many Iraqis. We'd have to consider the ramifications of an unstable Iraq and what effect that will have on the other countries in the middle east.

Maybe all of you have considered these points and have made your decisions already. That's fine. I just want the other side to be heard and the potential positive and negative consequences of not only staying but also withdrawing to be heard. I refuse to believe that the situation in Iraq will be a fairy tale ending if we up and leave. No one has proof of that, and I just want people who are anti-war to admit this, just as you want proiraq war people to admit that keeping forces in Iraq will likely never end up in a fairy tale ending either.

I guess i should say at this point that my opinions aren't strongly formed one way or another and so I hope people wi ll stop assuming things about where I stand or what my opinions are.

[MadamI'madaM]

Actually I think we're finally getting somewhere in terms of discussing the issues.

And since when did an INTP ever apologize for playing Devil's advocate?

I've learned more by testing my ideas out. I hope others have too.

Heh, good one. (obviously a Bush quote or joke about the surge?)

Well, if the idea was to get everyone frothy mouthed while making a shitload of concessions, then maybe you did reach your objective.

The OP seemed to want to actually convince others, IMO...just conjecture...


Either way, I just think it's somewhat ironic that one would initiate a situation doomed to fail, carry on in a repetetive fashion, deny/question its inherent futility, and then tack on additional justification later

and that this could just happen to coincide with one's support of the Iraq "War"







on another note, I'd be suspicious of anyone not currently sponsoring an Ethiopian or volunteering for/donating to their local homeless shelter who claimed to care about the lives of strangers abroad at the cost of American soldiers. It just seems more likely to be a narcissistic/sophistic last defense of their sinking ideological (republican) ship.

[airjaw]

Yes, getting Haliburton etc out would be a huge step in a good direction.

The whole Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. contracting situation is ridiculous. We should have had more military personnel to begin with and civilian volunteer corps instead of Halliburton and co.
Ther'es no reason why a civilian corps couldn't do everything Halliburton does for 25% of the price.

[airjaw]

Heh, good one. (obviously a Bush quote or joke about the surge?)

Well, if the idea was to get everyone frothy mouthed while making a shitload of concessions, then maybe you did reach your objective.

The OP seemed to want to actually convince others, IMO...just conjecture...


Either way, I just think it's somewhat ironic that one would initiate a situation doomed to fail, carry on in a repetetive fashion, deny/question its inherent futility, and then tack on additional justification later

and that this could just happen to coincide with one's support of the Iraq "War"







on another note, I'd be suspicious of anyone not currently sponsoring an Ethiopian or volunteering for/donating to their local homeless shelter who claimed to care about the lives of strangers abroad at the cost of American soldiers. It just seems more likely to be a narcissistic/sophistic last defense of their sinking ideological (republican) ship.

The OP was meant to get people to contribute their opinions. Obviously you don't understand the concept of questioning your own beliefs from time to time. What if everything you believed in t urned out to be false? Is it possible? This might just be an INTP thing. Either way, you're on INTPc so you should expect this kind of thing.

I'm not a republican. I wlil probably vote Democrat. However, that doesn't mean that everything the republicans stand for is wrong. It's not as simple as good vs. evil.

[MadamI'madaM]

The whole Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. contracting situation is ridiculous. We should have had more military personnel to begin with and civilian volunteer corps instead of Halliburton and co.
Ther'es no reason why a civilian corps couldn't do everything Halliburton does for 25% of the price.

nobody wants to die for free/discount rates

I think the main problem was that after we exhausted our military, hiked up soldiers of fortune were all that was left. Let's face it, a draft would bring an end to it immediately.

Iraqi lives < American lives

the entire (bullshit) premise of the war (WMD/terror) was founded on that assumption

[MadamI'madaM]

The OP was meant to get people to contribute their opinions. Obviously you don't understand the concept of questioning your own beliefs from time to time. What if everything you believed in t urned out to be false? Is it possible? This might just be an INTP thing. Either way, you're on INTPc so you should expect this kind of thing.

I'm not a republican. I wlil probably vote Democrat. However, that doesn't mean that everything the republicans stand for is wrong. It's not as simple as good vs. evil.

Don't mind that post, I just think I'm funny.


and the second part wasn't about you, since your crazy ass only recently flipped sides



and everything republicans stand for is wrong, but so are most of the things democrats stand for

[airjaw]

Fair enough. I wiill keep that in mind.

I want to pose a hypothetical situation and see what you guys think. This is an idea I want to explore more.

Lets say that you are the father of a troubled kid who always gets into trouble. One day your kid goes out and gets into debt, huge debt which if he doesn't pay off, will get him murdered. Your kid made a stupid decision, and now in order to save his life, you will have to sell your house, give up your savings, and put the family into financial ruin for a good while, of which you are not sure you will ever recover from.
Is the father responsible for the kid? Should the father save his son's life, ruining the family's well-being in the process?

Now, what if paying off the kid's debts didn't save the kid's life, but instead affected the lives of another family's? Lets say the kid burns down another family's house, a nd as a father you have to choose between accepting responsibility for your kid's actions and helping the ot her family out, even if it means ruining your own, and keeping the money and looking out for your own family first.

[MadamI'madaM]

The social and legal implications of the responsibilities to one's immediate spawn have nothing to do with the ironically childish actions by george bush or the unfortunate state of Iraq.

In other words, I want a DNA test and a subpoena before I'll take an ounce of responsibility for this bastardized shitmess.

[Titania]

Now let's take this tortured metaphor and apply it to Middle East foreign policy!!!

Guys...? Guys where are you going...?

[kuranes]

At some point the people who are chopping off heads and lighting bomb fuses ( sending electronic signals ) are going to have to be looked at as bearing at least a smidgen of "responsibilty".

It will be interesting to see which faction ( Sunni or Shia ) the USA backs if it comes down to having to choose a side, instead of continuing to juggle both. I would guess the Sunni, due to our affiliations with the Saudis; which is another reason we are there in the first place. The Saudis wanted us to move our Middle East base somewhere else. Yet during most of our occupation we have leaned towards "favoring" the Shia. Interesting that there is now a major schism amongst the Shia.

[airjaw]

The social and legal implications of the responsibilities to one's immediate spawn have nothing to do with the ironically childish actions by george bush or the unfortunate state of Iraq.

In other words, I want a DNA test and a subpoena before I'll take an ounce of responsibility for this bastardized shitmess.

do you think the Iraqis would be justified in their anger towards the US if we withdrew troops and civil war broke out immediately after?

[Titania]

They will frankly be justified in their anger if nothing less than ten thousand angels descend and magically fix their infrastructure and heal all the sick and basically give them back five years of their children's lives, and then say "Yeah, we were subcontracted by the USA."

And I'm talkin real ones.

Edit: Oh, and they should be Iraqi nationals, no using US angel labor when we could be using Iraqi.

[C.J.Woolf]

That analogy isn't directly applicable. We have soldiers, equipment, buildings, and relationships invested. But if you want to use the poker analogy, then tell me, are you not ignoring the fact that the hand is not yet over, and we have put money in the pot already? In poker, when you've put so much money into a pot, you might as well put a little more money in just to see the outcome. We could also say that we think we're behind, but that we don't know what the other person is holding and what the last card will be. I'd like to hear your thoughts - we can take the poker analogy pretty far.

re poker analogy: This must be the "flop"
Heh. Yeah, we should have folded after the flop, when it was apparent the cards were against us. Instead, Bush stayed in so we will lose a lot more on the river (Tigris)


The fact remains that they expect us to stay and keep things stable. Please pretend you're an Iraqi citizen and the next president is about to withdraw the troops. What would you think, how would you feel? would you think America is justified in withdrawing?
The majority of Iraqis want us out. We are not keeping things stable. The Iraqi combatants are mostly laying low until the "surge" ends, as it must someday. They know Bush is running out the clock, and so are they.

Look, we are invaders. We are occupiers. The Iraqis are proud nationalists like almost all people. We are violating their nation. This mess might yet be cleaned up with foreign help, but it won't be Americans doing it. They hate us too much.


I trust the military commanders. I don't trust Bush.
Which commanders? Petraeus, who has hitched his career to Bush, or all the other commanders who are now retired and finally free to say we can't win?


Yes, we will almost certainly need a base there. There is a huge difference between a base and an occupation.
Not to the Iraqis. Any base in Iraq is a violation of their sovereignty and perceived as imperialism, unless permitted by a legitimate successor to the current puppet government.

[MadamI'madaM]

do you think the Iraqis would be justified in their anger towards the US if we withdrew troops and civil war broke out immediately after?

Yes, they have every right to be angry with republicans just like everyone else.

[Bwian]

There's a problem with the logic that we can "fix" the middle east and/or our situation by either staying where we are and waiting for it to fix itself, or leaving and waiting for it to fix itself.

You have to fix the first problem. Iraq isn't the first problem. We have soldiers on the ground. Soldiers aren't the first problem, because they didn't ask to go over there. They followed the general's orders. And they aren't the first problem either.

The first problem is the arguably the dimwits who decided that we should be over there in the first place, so that responsibility lies with the President and everyone he appointed to deal with this clusterfuck.

So really, we need to change who is in charge of making the decisions. Bush isn't going to become any smarter anytime soon, so he can't even be trusted to fix his own mess. Our first problem is figuring out how we can get people in charge that know what the hell they're doing.

Sometimes it makes me think that having a one-commander-in-chief is a bad idea. Also, the fact that the American public can't be trusted to make truly informed decisions as a group (most of us can't tell when we're being lied to, or bullshitted, or if we're standing in front of a clueless buffoon). But that's another subject entirely.

Also, I'd like to add to the forum topic that it's a logical fallacy to argue against the person in a debate instead of arguing a point of the debate itself. Irregardless if you have the same opinion as one another or not, you should never resort to name-calling the one you're arguing with. Both sides doing it makes it look like monkeys flinging shit at each other, instead of actually having a human discourse.

Unless the President and Vice President of the United States comes onto the forum itslef and posts in this topic, I'm not going to resort to insulting anyone else in the topic. So I'd appreciate if everyone else did the same for me and others.

[meanlittlechimp]

Best documentary I've seen on the subject, and I think I've seen them all.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/no_end_in_sight/

They interview several high level people from state dept, dept of defense, DIA, CIA, DOD, and other military and civilian personnel about the conflict. The incompetence of the republican administration is shocking, far beyond what I even imagined.

They set up a task force for nation building but forgot to bring anyone who could speak Arabic or knew anything about the culture or history (this went on for years). They disbanded the iraqi army and let them keep all their weapons (even though there were repeated requests not to do so by dozens of senior personnel on the ground, problem was the people put in charge by Bush wouldn't even set foot in iraq for a long, long, time.)

They did not secure their weapon caches and refused to employ the US military or former Iraqi military (when they pleaded to do it for free) to stop the looting and violence. The country had 15 billion in property damage in the first week of looting (equivalent to an entire year of their GNP). BOTH the US army and Iraqi army wanted to prevent this (and easily could have) but were stopped by Washington (and would not even respond to other agency heads and generals in Iraq or Washington), all whom knew this action was moronic. Most of the secular army hated Saddam, as well as the majority of the populace, but once they allowed the criminal elements in the country to destroy everything, kidnap and rape etc. And once they realized that the US was not there to do anything except take their oil (which intelligent folks around the world were already aware of), they joined the insurgency when they originally wanted to put the insurgency down! The one and ONLY place they stopped the looting was the oil ministry.

They then follow up, with an even more stupid, de-Baa'thification process which put the final nail in the coffin, for the country. Many professionals, doctors, teachers, etc were Baa'thist not because they actually supported Saddam but they had to join the party to pursue their profession. Imprisoning and crippling the most secular, educated and skilled portion of their populace could be put much better to use, by having them work with you NOT against you, especially since we thought it would be smart to NOT bring Arab speakers with us. We even turned down offers from many other gov't institutions (DOD, CIA, etc) and int'l organizations (UN, and dozens of neutral, domestic NGOS and foreign governments).

This was not understood by the simpletons (Paul Bremer and the other dipshit) Bush sent down to run the country, though one actually refused to actually go to Iraq, and thought it better to run things from the US (while ignoring and not even talking with the generals, and diplomats, who were there and understood the situation at all. Once this happened the country basically shut down. No schools, no health care, no police, no electricity nothing. This pretty much made almost EVERYONE join the insurgency; and the sentiment changed to wanting to help re-build to killing anyone who would even talk to the Americans.

The former Iraqi Army tried to volunteer to stop it, but were prevented. That's half a million disenfranchised, trained and well armed soldiers who were repeatedly stopped from helping their country to descend into chaos. The CIA, DIA, DOD, Powell, pretty much every government agency who had experience with nation building KNEW this was a horrible idea to allow this, but their pleas were ignored by the arrogant and self righteous neo-cons Republicans. This coming from a group that had no military service whatsover (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolwowitz, Bush, Jenner, Rice etc and dodged the draft during Vietnam when they were of age). The war was stupid to begin with, but they way it was handled has done permanent damage to the world's perception of us, accelerated secular Arab sentiment with the extremists, and most importantly - will cost us trillions of dollars. I think it will be the impetus to one of largest recessions we've ever seen.

The White House sent fresh college grads to rebuild the country (mostly kids of large campaign donors). One case, some trust fund moron was in CHARGE of re-designing the traffic system (with no experience whatsoever or even a single class in urban planning!) , he was assigned a senior position 2 months after graduating college! His Professor randomly bumps into him there and was shocked to see this recent former student with this kind of responsibility, and was actually subordinate to him! Even the kid was embarrassed by this (I would be too if my daddy gave that much money to Bush's campaigns).