Pulling Out Of Iraq

[S][N]

Pro's & Con's of staying in Iraq.

Pro's:
------

1: More dead US soldiers equals less chance of another country being illegally invaded by the US. In other words, it'll make them think twice (perhaps) before trying it again.
2: [For Oil Companies] The more trouble in the region, the higher oil prices go, ending up with more $$$ in richmen's pockets.
3: Guerilla techniques and procedures will be re-defined and can be taught to other guerilla groups, that are or might have to fight the US/Western forces.
4: Violence will continue, and get worse. [Which it will either way, once you've destabilized a country, it can take generations to stablize]

Con's:
-------

1: You'll leave the country in a state of complete and permanent chaos. Only problem is, it'll always be like this now.
2: US Govt won't learn another lesson in getting it's butt kicked.
3: US Multi-nationals, Oil Companies and so forth, will lose another financial foothold in the Arab world. [That's more bad for the rich guys ]

-------------------------

[quote]Justin86

Anyone who says America has ever gone to war over oil is way too believing of liberal media diatribe.

The people who claim America is "robbing the Arab world of their oil" are full of it. We pay them $80 for a little barrel of oil and we're robbing them? Please. If we wanted to "steal" the Arab's oil we would have military taken over their oil fields and our gas companies would be getting oil as if they were drilling in the USA. Instead we buy it from them. This is known in global politics/economics as "international trade", not "stealing".

So why are we in Iraq? I don't know for sure. All I know is that we're there and I doubt that we're leaving anytime soon. I'm sure our leaders could tell us what we're really doing over there, but that's classified information.[/quote]

Yes cause clearly the liberals are the cause for rich, right-wing, white man's want to own and control all forms of resources on this planet.

yet another tradgic victim that's been suckered into the right-wing propaganda machine.

"This is known in global politics/economics as "international trade", not "stealing"." [b]ROFL![/b] That bit was the clincher for me. Kind of like when an Israeli soldier kills a Palestine child playing soccer, and calling it self-defense eh?..

Get some sense.

[blovedwolfofgod]

I think we should stay. I joined the Army in one of the most dangerous positions (scout) so that maybe I could make a difference. When we leave, any number of things could happen. Like, Iran invading (new Russian alliance) or genocide like in Darfur. Maybe we shouldnt have gone, maybe there were better places to go. But we shouldnt leave now that we're there. That would be a big mistake.

[Spamity Calamity]

Leaving Iraq would not be feasible or responsible. No matter who gets elected we will not be leaving. Debating wherther we should leave Iraq or whether or not we should have invaded are both pointless to argue at this point.

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409110' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:08 PM']
Pro's & Con's

Pro's:

Con's:
2: US Govt won't learn another lesson in getting it's butt kicked.(left entire sentence for context only.)[/quote]
You're abusing apostrophes. Amnesty International might get upset.

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409110' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:08 PM']
Pro's & Con's

Pro's:

Con's:
2: US Govt won't learn another lesson in getting it's butt kicked.(left entire sentence for context only.)[/quote]
You're abusing apostrophes. Amnesty International might get upset.

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409110' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:08 PM']
Pro's & Con's

Pro's:

Con's:
2: US Govt won't learn another lesson in getting it's butt kicked.(left entire sentence for context only.)[/quote]
You're abusing apostrophes. Amnesty International might get upset.

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409110' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:08 PM']
Pro's & Con's

Pro's:

Con's:
2: US Govt won't learn another lesson in getting it's butt kicked.(left entire sentence for context only.)[/quote]
You're abusing apostrophes. Amnesty International might get upset.

[dairygirl4u2c]

well, i agree we could never leave completely. that seems safe to say.
leave v. go is really a question of how many should leave, if any.
saying clearly one way or the other is not warranted in those situations to anyone who faces reality, and the limits of what they know.

and just so i can take another swipe at conservative obviouslyists. i think this will hit the nail on the head. maybe. i think msot would agree getting out of vietnam was necessary. even many conervatives. yet, many conservative then would not say so. current day ones, i'd suspect, would not admit that they'd espousehat view back then. (some honest ones might, as hind sight is 2020) but what's for certain the case with obviouslyists. back then, they would have said we should stay, obviously. there's the hindsight argument that they coldn't know, but they have no basis for sayig obviously, especially given that history proved them wrong. if it was truely obvious, history would have proven that tehy should stay. if a consrevative back then might be senstivite all that back then, they simply would not say anything, and admit nothing. God forbid being wrong, or acknowledging uncertainty. that's the problem with obviouslists.

Edited October 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

tho sometimes i might misunderstand obviouslists. they could argue, even the uncertainty, that obviously we should stay given what we know, as limited as it is. that would be fair enough of a statement. it's a subjective "obviously". what they seem to be claiming often is more of an objective "obviously" such that if we don't stay all hell would break loose. which, very much seemed not to be the case historically.

[SaintOlaf]

[quote]God forbid being wrong, or acknowledging uncertainty. that's the problem with obviouslists.[/quote]

How much of American politics are based on this? Everyone is constantly scrambling to spin doctor everything so that they look like they were right. I think every politician is guilty of this, and since the politicians control our country (and ultimately our military) we will be stuck with indecisive actions.

Honestly, I think if we were to pull out now, they country would collapse on itself and it would be even more of a disaster. Our politicians have really put us into a no-win situation, either stay and suffer American casualties as a result, or leave and watch the country destroy itself on the nightly news.

In the meantime, just pray for the troops stationed over there, and support them every way we can.

[SaintOlaf]

[quote]God forbid being wrong, or acknowledging uncertainty. that's the problem with obviouslists.[/quote]

How much of American politics are based on this? Everyone is constantly scrambling to spin doctor everything so that they look like they were right. I think every politician is guilty of this, and since the politicians control our country (and ultimately our military) we will be stuck with indecisive actions.

Honestly, I think if we were to pull out now, they country would collapse on itself and it would be even more of a disaster. Our politicians have really put us into a no-win situation, either stay and suffer American casualties as a result, or leave and watch the country destroy itself on the nightly news.

In the meantime, just pray for the troops stationed over there, and support them every way we can.

[S][N]

Awesome comeback there Winchester...no wait...it wasn't.

[Justin86]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409110' date='Oct 26 2007, 02:08 AM']Yes cause clearly the liberals are the cause for rich, right-wing, white man's want to own and control all forms of resources on this planet.

yet another tradgic victim that's been suckered into the right-wing propaganda machine.

"This is known in global politics/economics as "international trade", not "stealing"." [b]ROFL![/b] That bit was the clincher for me. Kind of like when an Israeli soldier kills a Palestine child playing soccer, and calling it self-defense eh?..

Get some sense.[/quote]
I find it amusing that when confronted with a rational argument against your hypothesis all you can do is throw out insults. Thank you for making me and American conservatives look good.

[S][N]

Sorry but you've got about as much knowledge of this as I do about quantum physics, the difference is, I recognize my own ignorance and drive to fix it. Where you prefer to stay in a state of forced ignorance.

Edited October 26, 2007 by S][N

[Justin86]

[Winchester]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409534' date='Oct 26 2007, 04:38 AM']
Awesome comeback there Winchester...no wait...it wasn't. [/quote]
You're only saying that because you don't know what an apostrophe is.

[S][N]

I do so! It's a verb!

[LoneYankee]

S][N, you have to be one of the most incredibly morbid people I have ever had to debate with.

Let me pull a few "Pros" off the top of my mind.

1.) Secure democracy for the Iraqi people.

Wait, let's stop there and define this.


---------------------
Democracy: de·moc·ra·cy /dɪˈmɒkrəsi/

–noun, plural -cies.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the [b]supreme power [/b]is vested in the [i]people[/i] and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a [i]free electoral system[/i].
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal [b]equality[/b] of [i]rights and privileges[/i].

[size=1]"democracy." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 26 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy>"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy>[/url].[/size]

- You can thank me for the bold and italics.
---------------------


Ok, now that we've established the basis for democracy, let's take a look at what Iraq had prior to our invasion, the regime under Saddam Hussein:


---------------------
Dictatoship: dic·ta·tor·ship /dɪkˈteɪtərˌʃɪp, ˈdɪkteɪ-/

–noun

1. a country, government, or the form of government in which [b]absolute power [/b]is exercised by a [i]dictator[/i].
2. absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control.
3. the office or position held by a dictator.

[size=1]"dictatorship." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 26 Oct. 2007. <Dictionary.com [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship>"]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictatorship>[/url].[/size]
---------------------

So, basically, what the United States had done: Oust a dictator, attempt to instill a democracy in Iraq.

If we use the well-known transitive property, we can come up with: Take power away from a dictator, give it to the people.

It's really quite simple when you break it down.

Now, when I argue with non-Christians or "Sunday" Christians, I often hear the response, "Why should we worry about Iraq?"
Seeing as this is a predominantly Catholic member-based (practicing Catholic at that) site, I don't think I will hear anyone argue that we shouldn't help out our fellow man. I am a son of God before I am the son of an American, though I am a patriot until death. God has always wanted us to help those who are oppressed.

Were the Iraqis oppressed? Most certainly. They feared for their lives. Military intelligence was notorious for torture. Saddam was hanged by his own people for massacring a village who didn't show support for him. Saddam read off a list, at the beginning of his career, of political opponents who he claimed were "traitors." Twenty-two were killed. (Citations available upon request.)

Most importantly, freedom and power did not belong to them. God grants us freedoms (as stated in the Declaration of Independence) that no one has the right to usurp.

So the United States, as the moral entity that it can sometimes be, went in and removed this cruel man from power. Now, we are attempting to build democracy in the war-battered country. We are attempting to free the Iraqi people and give the freedoms we enjoy every day.

When you states the "Pros" of staying in Iraq, I hope you realize the main reason. To save the Iraqi people. This is the cause of our mission. This is the mission of the soldiers. They're there and they want to finish the job.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='S][N' post='1409580' date='Oct 26 2007, 07:47 AM']
Sorry but you've got about as much knowledge of this as I do about quantum physics, the difference is, I recognize my own ignorance and drive to fix it. Where you prefer to stay in a state of forced ignorance.[/quote]

there's a certain degree of truth to this.

the whole point of this thread is we don't really know the details. justin said we should should stay, as we should defer to the government, assuming they know what we do not.
i'm not sure that's a safe assumption, as government is notoriously screwing things up and being unwise.
now, if he was saying we should jsut defer to teh government generally, as a sign of respect etc, then sure whatever.

if he's trying to insist that we stay, yet is assuming we don't know it all, but taht the government does and that we should stay. but he is NOT just deferring no matter the position out of respect. then he's taking just enough of the point of this thread to look good, yet remain adhering necessarily to the stay crowd. unduly, perhaps. cause like i said, they could just as likely not know what they are doing.

bottomline, we shouldn't necessarly assume they know what they are doing or that they are the wiser. we should at least be open to the opposite.

Edited October 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i remember Johnsonville brat chenney's wife made a keen obvservation. during our constituaional forming, it was chaos for a number of YEARS. we have to be realistic about how long it will take. but with that said, these are terrorists etc. in no way civil or willing to change, as opposite of our founders.

just thought i'd throw that out there. not hat it really solves anything.