Pulling Out Of Iraq

[LoneYankee]

To wrap this discussion up,

I provided a well-written, sound response without an ounce of sarcasm. I defined everything so that nothing could possibly be distorted as should be necessary. I expressed my views in an intelligent manner without criticizing the opposing side's view, rather, stating my own with my reasoning.

You, however, are challenging the intelligence and mental competence of the people in this thread. It is not your job to test people about their knowledge of the subject. If someone posts an incorrect piece of information or states something that he or she cannot back up or site, then, by all means, feel free to point it out. I ceratinly would. This thread is for debating the topic at hand, please stick to that. Do not test those who choose to join in on the debate. If they lack proper knowledge of the subject, it will be evident by the rebuttal of future posters.

Back to the topic then.

The U.S. did back Saddam, I am more than aware of this. However, ousting him was a way of taking responsibility for such a mistake. The fact remains that the U.S. want to grants the Iraqis their God-given freedoms.

As to my conversations with soldiers, they all have agreed we need to say in the Middle East. Now, don't get me wrong, some are not accepting of the reasons that we went in, but each one agrees we must finish the job.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'll just cut to the chase.

see, yankee. you're just arguing rhetoic to SN. saying all the good reasons to stay.
your posts are wise in that regard.
if it's all hell that cannot be fixed in iraq, then, like vietnam, all should admit we leave. and since you have just rhetoric, you need facts to prove your position should be accepted instead of the all hell position.

what are the conditions in iraq? how many soliders claim to want to stay? can the iraqi's be trained? why or why not? to name a few.

if you are not an absolutist, i have no beef with your position, and points.

[dairygirl4u2c]

facts are required to have a position. anyone can argue rhetoric. if they don't have facts, then they don't have an argument.

you say all soldiers you know want to stay. that is signifiant. assuming it's that way across the board. the next question is... even if they wanted to stay, are they informed enough to know whether it's wise to stay? it leads to the questions of what the actual conditions are in iraq.

if the conditions are bad, we should disregard their positions and leave, as it is not in their interest or anyones for htem to stay. if it's uncertain, which might be the case, it could be wise to stay, to see if it can be fixed, as they are willing to stay anyway.

it really depends on facts. we need a good source to say whether it's good bad or uncertain, even, there.

Edited October 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[LoneYankee]

1.) Iraq and Vietnam are not so closely-related as everyone seems to think. We have won militarily in Iraq, unlike Vietnam. In Iraq, we face guerilla warfare and serious religious conflicts.

2.) I just wanted to state that little bit. I will get back to you on your questions, since it will take a decent amount of time to document, summarize, and cite each piece of information.

3.) Please use proper grammar and capitalization. It's not an insult to you personally. It's just very difficult to read your posts.

4.) The fact that I'm doing this is ridiculous, you have more or less insulted me and everyone in this thread.

5.) No matter the condition in Iraq, I would say we still need to stay since we began the fight and need to finish it, for the sake of the Iraqi people.

[Aloysius]

Iraq can get itself together the way we got ourselves together after the revolution, if they want to. Leave them to work it out themselves, it should not be our business. That's carrying the Lynn Cheyney analogy to its fullest extent possible: they have a long road ahead of them in getting their constitution together. They cannot be dependant on us forever, we ought to pull out and make them take control of their own future.

Seems like conservatives are all about keeping the poor from getting dependant on the government, but do not see how Iraq gets dependant upon the US government the longer we stay.

Ron Paul '08

[dairygirl4u2c]

so to wrap it up, it's okay for you to have positions tending one way or the other, but if you cannot answer questions of fact regarding the situation, then you should not be an absolutist. just have reserved positions.

[LoneYankee]

Since you seem so fond of double-replying and editing, this makes an additonal post requistite.

I repeat, no matter the condition in Iraq, we need to stay for the sake of the Iraqi people. We need to stay to ensure their freedom and safety that we taken for granted daily. The condition of the country has nothing to do with whether we should stay or not. As for the soldiers: yes, their voices matter, as they are Americans. Every voice matters.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you can get the info, i'd be happy with you. i'm only insulting people who take absolut positions with no facts, or insufficient facts.

some things are true and should not be ignored.. if you have no facts, you shouldn't be an absolutist. i'm not trying to be mean, i'm just saying what is true.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so are you saying that we should stay even if they would all be bound to die? i would hope not.
so, your idea is that we should smell of elderberries up the dying, to do whatever we can. so, i might think you're arguing, it doesn't matter the situation there, we have to stay and smell of elderberries it up, even if it just means just mitigating all out hell with no solution.

it's a fair enough position. i suppose you don't need many facts for yours. i'd tend to think the iraqis should take care of it if all we're doing is mitigating an unsolvable hell. but, that's just me.

edit: sorry for not reading your last post closer. you said "even if the conditions are bad" you want to stay. i had to edit this post cause i had not read that. so if you read something else, it was misguided.

Edited October 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also, i admit i was wrong to say all positions require facts. i think it's reasonable to have your position that we stay no matter what, and that doesn't require too many facts.

i doubt most would have that view. i assumed most would want to leave if all we were doing is mitigating an unsolvable hell.

Edited October 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

[quote name='LoneYankee' post='1409823' date='Oct 26 2007, 07:17 PM']Since you seem so fond of double-replying and editing, this makes an additonal post requistite.

I repeat, no matter the condition in Iraq, we need to stay for the sake of the Iraqi people. We need to stay to ensure their freedom and safety that we taken for granted daily. The condition of the country has nothing to do with whether we should stay or not. As for the soldiers: yes, their voices matter, as they are Americans. Every voice matters.[/quote]
We have no business staying there "for the Iraqui people"... what we're doing is making Iraq a dependant nation, dependant upon us for its secuirity. Enough is enough, we need a clean and clear pull out which says to the Iraqui government: it is now time for you to fully control and secure your own country. If it descends into civil war, then that is what must be for Iraq to decide what it wants itself to be.

It's just like how people say the government needs to do all these things "for the poor people"... when they are in fact making them dependant upon the government instead of helping them to get independant and self sufficient.

It is now time for the Iraqui people to decide what they want their country to be. Frankly, it is not up to us what Iraq ought to be.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i also may have mistaken people like al's position too. if he is sayin "enough is enough, i don't care if it's possible to fix your problem we should leave" that's an absolute that doesn't require too many facts. i actually think that's not as reasonable as an absolute stay position like yankee's, but that's just me.

if al'd be willing to stay if it's possible, then he needs facts too, to show that it's really not possible, or else he cannot be an absolutist to his position.

Edited October 26, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[S][N]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1409833' date='Oct 26 2007, 05:28 PM']We have no business staying there "for the Iraqui people"... what we're doing is making Iraq a dependant nation, dependant upon us for its secuirity. Enough is enough, we need a clean and clear pull out which says to the Iraqui government: it is now time for you to fully control and secure your own country. If it descends into civil war, then that is what must be for Iraq to decide what it wants itself to be.

It's just like how people say the government needs to do all these things "for the poor people"... when they are in fact making them dependant upon the government instead of helping them to get independant and self sufficient.

It is now time for the Iraqui people to decide what they want their country to be. Frankly, it is not up to us what Iraq ought to be.[/quote]

I semi-agree with this. This bit "...[i]it is now time for you to fully control and secure your own country." [/i]is a good point. And in the same sentence, you also provided the answer to why that won't work, "[i]what we're doing is making Iraq a dependant nation, dependant upon us for its secuirity[/i]."

Imo, I believe if the US leaves, the whole country will descend into utter chaos (more than it is now). You will have the Shi'ites and the Sunni's still going at each others throats. Then you have the Kurdish who want their own nation, within Iraqi and Turkish terrority, although I believe they have given up on the Turkish territory for Iraqi. But as we see of late, the Turks want to completely wipe the Kurdish off the face of the planet.

Now, if the US stays, the country will still descend into more and more chaos, whether or not it'd be as bad as the scenerio in-which the US leaves, no one can say for sure.

This part I also was pleasantly surprised to see, "Frankly, it is not up to us what Iraq ought to be.". Now I don't know if your talking just in future tense or both past and future.
In the end I think it'll be upto what the US Govt and the Private-Industrial sector want Iraq to be.

[Aloysius]

It's not our job to fix their problems. It's up to the Iraquis. Civil wars happen everywhere, all the time, throughout the world, and we don't intervene. We shouldn't intervene in other country's business like this.

It's not about is it possible or is it not possible, it's about the theory of self-determination; and the principal of non-interventionism. the Iraquis have the right to self-determination, it is up to them to secure and establish their nation; they should also have the right, if they so choose, to divide up into seperate nations (something we've got a vested interest in stopping becasue we want to deal with a larger more stable centralized government in our trade for oil). It is not our business, the only purpose of our military is to defend our own nation. If it becomes absolutely necessary to declare a defensive war (and yes, it must be a defensive war for it to be just) then congress can declare war; but we should let other nations self-determinate as much as possible as soon as we have defeated the enemy, it is not our role to build up nations around the world.

[S][N]

That I completely agree with bro, just wish Western Govts thought that way.