PDA

View Full Version : Three Possible Positions on Iraq, Pick One and Stick With It!



82Marine89
08-25-2007, 10:15 AM
This is a slightly long read, but if our resident liberals can get past having a sound bite mentality, they might learn something.


No matter how or why you think we got into Iraq, the point now is, we have troops in Iraq. We have a responsibility to them. We owe it to them to make decisions with their best interests in mind, no matter what we might like to do if we had a magic wand.

While many have made a profession of wringing their hands over the non-essential points surrounding the topic of Iraq, only three choices exist. I’ll lay them out for you in no uncertain terms, so that even the lamest leftist numbskull can understand. Then you can pick one, but this time, stick to it! This includes you Hillary!

No more casting a vote one way, sending troops into battle and then undermining the effort after. No more speaking out against the war while voting for it. No more asking our troops to strap up and take one for the team and then jumping ship from that team like a turncoat.

Let’s begin with a brief reminder of why we have troops in the first place

In short, our troops are our nation’s volunteer “warriors.” They are our national defense system, one and all. As such, they are extremely well trained to do two things, kill bad guys and break their stuff, all in the name (and defense) of the good guys of course.

They are NOT our international pizza delivery boys and girls or our diplomatic Corps. They are NOT our Peace Corps. They are our “WAR” Corps… They don’t make peace, they make WAR. Only after the war is won, can peace follow and it seldom follows immediately. Ask Japan, which is now one of our strongest allies.

Contrary to popular political rhetoric, our military is not our first tool of international diplomacy. They are in fact sent in last, to do a largely thankless and messy job that our nation’s diplomats failed to accomplish by more peaceful means.

We do NOT conquer nations. We liberate peoples held captive by blood thirsty tyrannical regimes, usually at the request of the captive. The Iraqi people asked us to finish the mission in 1991 and the same UN members standing in the way now, were in the way then.

Although many Americans have lost sight of all of these facts, I can assure you, those we have liberated over the last 200 years and those we liberate them from, know these facts all too well. Those we liberated them from, still don’t like us much. Those regimes who fear they are next, don’t like us at all. Can it be any other way?

In almost every case in history, those we liberated have made pretty good international allies only after our soldiers finished their work.

America won the war in Iraq a few weeks after we arrived in Iraq

The military mission in Iraq was to depose the worlds most dangerous regime since Hitler’s killing spree across Europe. That mission was indeed accomplished within weeks of American troops arriving in Iraq. The Hussein regime no longer exists.

It came as no surprise to any intelligent individual, that once the Hussein boot was lifted from the necks of an otherwise unruly Iraqi population, peace would not be instant. Liberating a people from a tyrannical regime requires replacing that regime with something that is not tyrannical, namely, some form of democratic self-governance.

Anyone interested in knowing, should study the timeline of events following the fall of the Hussein regime, specifically the light-speed at which the Iraqi people rallied to install an interim government, draft and pass a constitution and proceed to formal democratic elections in which almost 70% of the Iraq population took part in freely electing their new democratic government.

We’re talking about bringing a nation held captive in the Stone Age for decades, into the 21st Century over-night. We’re also talking about accomplishing it all while Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria were funneling terrorists into the country to destabilize and derail that effort. A new mission was now established.

Now our mission is to help Iraq win stability and peace after the war

Again, it’s no secret that a free and peaceful Iraq will make a much better international ally than Hussein’s Iraq did. It’s also no secret that before that can happen, remnants of Al Qaeda cells, Iranian and Syrian soldiers and left-over Hussein Batthists, must be dealt with.

As of today, most of Iraq is indeed free and peaceful, unlike before American soldiers arrived. However, pockets of enemy fighters and terrorists remain in a few small regions of Iraq. One way or another, this continued threat must be dealt with, if not by America and coalition forces, then by someone else. In this regard, only three options exist for American voters when considering who should be making such decisions.

Yes, the new Iraq government is struggling to unite a free nation and sometimes, they seem to have as much trouble doing it as we do in the states. Judging from the bad behavior of our own politicians in Washington, this really should not shock anyone American that Iraq’s politicians have trouble coming together on the issues.

Option # 1 – Stay the course until the mission for peace is completed

The term “stay the course” is a misused term. The military course of action is constantly changing to address and ever changing situation in theater. From the Joint Chiefs to field commanders and troops in the field of operations, the course is adapted to meet the arising challenges on almost an hour by hour basis.

The only course we are staying is the course of providing military support to an Iraqi force being trained by coalition soldiers until such time that they can provide adequate security for their newly formed government. We are staying this course because if we don’t, more innocent Iraqi citizens, who braved a gauntlet of fire for the privilege and honor of holding up a purple finger of freedom, will die needlessly.

In case you think this is Bush’s course, I assure you, George W. Bush has never written a military battle plan in his life, nor did he write the reality of the Middle East or Iraq, and no President will be writing the plans for what needs to happen militarily to succeed. This responsibility rests with the Joint Chiefs, who are career military officers with decades of experience in such matters and yes, nobody knows the unpredictable nature of war better than they.

Option # 2 – Retreat from Iraq as if it has nothing to do with the broader war on terror

Oddly, there are some who are unaware of the fact that the entire free world is currently engaged in a battle for civilization against jihadists of the extreme Muslim variety. Somehow, they have overlooked the fact that these groups not only attacked the U.S. on 9/11/01 and still seek to do even more damage today, but also that they have been attacking civilized societies around the globe for more than thirty years now.

These folks are also unaware that both warring parties understand Iraq to be the current central front in their war. It is largely these folks who think Bush caused this war, unaware that the war started actually under Jimmy Carter. I remind you that Iranian jihadists held and tortured American hostages for months in Tehran, until the day Jimmy Carter climbed aboard Marine One to depart the White House lawn one last time, which happens to be the same day Tehran decided to release those hostages… the same day Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

The retreat message is simple. We want the war to end, no matter what. No matter what happens to the Iraqi people or their country once we leave, the Iraqi people are on their own. We don’t care what happens to them next, we care only about ourselves and we just want to leave.

We don’t believe leaving Iraq will help us in the war on terror, but we don’t care about that either. Bush lied and people died and war is ugly and we don’t like it anymore. That’s it… that’s the message. We’ll address the consequences of our decision when we see what they are. We’re not looking beyond today and you can’t make us.

Option # 3 – Unleash the troops and give them the full support they need and deserve to complete their mission and return home

With the exception of a very few soldiers who didn’t understand they were signing up to be soldiers when they joined the military, our soldiers in the Middle East have but one serious complaint. Someone, in Washington D.C. no doubt, under the duress of leftists I’m sure, came up with so-called “rules of engagement” that tie the hands of our soldiers in combat. The bottom line is they are not allowed to act like soldiers in a war zone.

Even though innocent American lives hang in the balance, we’re not supposed to offend terror detainees in an effort to extract vital information concerning terror operations. Even though our enemy will strap a bomb to the chest of their own three year old and detonate the child as he nears an American soldier trying to hand him a Hershey bar, our soldiers are told not to fire until fired upon, because there could be collateral damage.

Regardless of the fact that the enemy wears no uniform, serves under no flag, follows no known chain of command and makes no distinction between military and civilian targets, we are supposed to engage this enemy under the Geneva Conventions, which admittedly apply only to those nations which are compliant signatory members of that convention.

In our own land, terror cells in hiding are supposed to be given constitutional rights under the U.S. Criminal Justice code, which is an inadequate system for handling common shop lifters and thugs. Such a system is no match for trained international terrorists seeking to level a number of major U.S. cities in single moment.

We are not serious about winning this war or even preventing the next 9/11. We pretend to be worried about a nuke in a U.S. city, but won’t even close our own borders to unknown invaders with unknown intentions. It’s hard to be more foolish than that, but we try.

So, we ask our troops to stand in the breech between us and them, hold their fire, try not to offend the enemy and wait to be sent home in a flag draped coffin.

On this basis, if this is how we intend to fight this war, then I agree, let’s bring them home now. If we won’t allow our soldiers to do their job and won’t support them until the complete their mission, then let’s not ask them to take bullets for us any longer.

But let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that it will end the war. It will instead move the field of battle from Iraq and Afghanistan to New York City and Atlanta, Los Angeles and Portland, San Diego and Phoenix, Miami and St Louis.

These are the three options we have as American citizens. We elect the leadership that will face such decisions. Make the choice carefully and stick to your choice.

If there was ever a topic deserving of more than political rhetoric, it’s this one. Make your choice, state your decision and vote for the people most likely to carry out that strategy. Don’t make excuses, just make your choice and stick to it.

When it’s all over, we’ll all know who had it right and who had it wrong. Either way, some will learn lessons most of us learned by the third grade.

When evil is allowed to exist, it will gain strength and reach. When it’s allowed to prevail, good people die or live in bondage. If we won’t stand against evil abroad, it will find us on our own doorstep. Is there really any doubt about that after 9/11?

America will belong to the free only so long as Americans support their brave. Think about that!

LINK (http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/jbwilliams082407.htm)

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 10:31 AM
Yeap like I have been saying its an occupation and you CAN NOT WIN AN OCCUPATION.

Now here is the thing about the three choices.

1#Stay the course: this can only work if the Iraqi people work with us and they have asked us to leave.
Their government had a majority vote to tell us to draw down and it was ignored, every poll of the people shows they want us to draw down.

2#Retreat: Is just partisan rethoric, It mentions nothing about the US being replaced by a UN mission.
It assumes something that no one is sugesting.

3#Unleashing: Is a ticket to endless death and destruction and would be the greatest recruiting tool for the radical Muslims they could ever dream of.


So this article is nothing but bullshit.

Gaffer
08-25-2007, 12:09 PM
So the first pinhead responds. Though she did not mention which choice she wanted. Though I get the impression she wants the UN to take over. Is that the same UN that hightailed it out of there when a mortor went off near their compound? Maybe they can bring in some of those child molester troops from africa.

I'm for giving our troops free reign and crushing everything that even looks like a threat.

In all the sites I read I have yet to find anything where the iraqi parliament has voted for the US to pull out. sadr's people are trying to do that, but the parliament is on summer break right now and nothing is being voted on. The only thing they have requested was a timetable for withdrawl. They will get one right after the dems get one.

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 12:32 PM
what will America gain with a country full of dead Iraqis?

KarlMarx
08-25-2007, 12:36 PM
what will America gain with a country full of dead Iraqis?
Logical error..... You assume the "dead" are Iraqis or innocent Iraqis... they aren't. Our troops are not killing innocent, unarmed civilians. They are either a) terrorists b) terrorist supporters c) Baathists

Gaffer
08-25-2007, 12:40 PM
what will America gain with a country full of dead Iraqis?

That's not going to happen. Unless we pull out too soon and just leave them to the thugs and murderers that are trying to take over there now. If we just up and pull out you will have a country full of dead iraqis.

LiberalNation
08-25-2007, 12:48 PM
We already have a country full of dead Iraqis.

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 12:58 PM
Logical error..... You assume the "dead" are Iraqis or innocent Iraqis... they aren't. Our troops are not killing innocent, unarmed civilians. They are either a) terrorists b) terrorist supporters c) Baathists

Wrong Karl , if you allow the troops to do what ever they need to completely stop this as others have sugested then you will have a much greater level of Dead Iraqis.

"I'm for giving our troops free reign and crushing everything that even looks like a threat"
is what was said.

That means even more innocents in Iraq will be killed by both ours and the resistance there.

This will increase the resistance bcause you are killing their family members.

There is the cycle you will create.

LiberalNation
08-25-2007, 01:00 PM
Kinda like the one in Palestine. Nearly everybody has family or a clan member kilt by the Israels fualing new generations of hatred for the Israelies no matter how stupid it is.

5stringJeff
08-25-2007, 01:21 PM
Yeap like I have been saying its an occupation and you CAN NOT WIN AN OCCUPATION.

You're right... and Germany and Japan are living proof, eh?

Gaffer
08-25-2007, 01:22 PM
Wrong Karl , if you allow the troops to do what ever they need to completely stop this as others have sugested then you will have a much greater level of Dead Iraqis.

"I'm for giving our troops free reign and crushing everything that even looks like a threat"
is what was said.

That means even more innocents in Iraq will be killed by both ours and the resistance there.

This will increase the resistance bcause you are killing their family members.

There is the cycle you will create.

Most of the "innocent" iraqis killed are killed by al queda and other iraqis. Not by our troops. If our troops leave there will be a lot more killing.

82Marine89
08-25-2007, 01:23 PM
what will America gain with a country full of dead Iraqis?

A new state? More gas? That is a boneheaded liberal response. You know it will never happen, but you make the implication that it will. Leave emotion out of it and stick to the facts.

LiberalNation
08-25-2007, 01:30 PM
You're right... and Germany and Japan are living proof, eh?

Germany and Japan were worn out, defeated by the time we occupied. Those were conventional wars, not so we the ones we're fighting now.

OCA
08-25-2007, 01:36 PM
Wrong Karl , if you allow the troops to do what ever they need to completely stop this as others have sugested then you will have a much greater level of Dead Iraqis.

"I'm for giving our troops free reign and crushing everything that even looks like a threat"
is what was said.

That means even more innocents in Iraq will be killed by both ours and the resistance there.

This will increase the resistance bcause you are killing their family members.

There is the cycle you will create.

Not as many Iraqi's will be killed compared to the number of Iraqis that have been killed by............Iraqis

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 01:54 PM
Germany and Japan were worn out, defeated by the time we occupied. Those were conventional wars, not so we the ones we're fighting now.


Germany and Japan were also very cohesive governments Iraq has never been a cohiesive government.

You can not MAKE Iraqis love each other they are from differing factions who have hated each other ever since Muhamed died.

Gaffer
08-25-2007, 02:14 PM
Germany and Japan were also very cohesive governments Iraq has never been a cohiesive government.

You can not MAKE Iraqis love each other they are from differing factions who have hated each other ever since Muhamed died.

Germany and Japan were bombed into the stone age. They had nothing cohesive left. iraq had more after saddam was removed than either of those countries. Their government were established by the allies.

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 02:27 PM
Do you understand what the people were like?

Iraq has never wanted to be a single country Japan and Germany have Been single countries for how long in history?

Gaffer
08-25-2007, 02:54 PM
Do you understand what the people were like?

Iraq has never wanted to be a single country Japan and Germany have Been single countries for how long in history?

What people are you talking about, who are you responding too?

So you speak for all the iraqis now?

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 03:03 PM
tell us the history of how Iraq became a country?

Do you know?

manu1959
08-25-2007, 03:08 PM
what will America gain with a country full of dead Iraqis?

oil stupid

manu1959
08-25-2007, 03:09 PM
tell us the history of how Iraq became a country?

Do you know?

someone drew a line in the sand.....

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 03:09 PM
I had the answer already you should call the people on here who deny that is the purpose Liars instead.

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 03:10 PM
someone drew a line in the sand.....

Who drew that line?

manu1959
08-25-2007, 03:17 PM
Who drew that line?

a map maker on a camel?

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 03:24 PM
You really have no idea do you?

It just amazes me how you people talk ,talk ,talk and never look anything up or try to find out anything about what is really going on.

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 03:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#Monarchy_and_republic


Here I am doing your god damned homework for you again.

You people are piss poor debaters

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 03:27 PM
Monarchy and republic
Ottoman rule over Iraq lasted until the Great War (World War I) when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. British forces invaded the country and suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (1915–16). British forces regrouped and captured Baghdad in 1917. An armistice was signed in 1918.

Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

Main article: Iraqi revolt against the British
Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north. During the British occupation, the Shi'ites and Kurds fought for independence. Britain used chemical weapons (white phosphorus bombs) against Kurdish villagers in the revolt, an early application of aerial bombing.

In the Mandate period and beyond, the British supported the traditional, Sunni leadership (such as the tribal shaykhs) over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement. The Land Settlement Act gave the tribal shaykhs the right to register the communal tribal lands in their own name. The Tribal Disputes Regulations gave them judiciary rights, whereas the Peasants' Rights and Duties Act of 1933 severely reduced the tenants', forbidding them to leave the land unless all their debts to the landlord had been settled. The British resorted to military force when their interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army and the Arab Legion from Jordan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...y_and_republic

Gaffer
08-25-2007, 03:47 PM
Now go read up on islam. The real islam, not the cair version. bin laden, the mullahs, ahmalittlehitler in iran, hizbollah, hamas, muslim blotherhood, and many more are the real islam. They are not a tiny minority of fanatics they are a very large segment of the muslim world. A large segment of 1.5 billion. And every time the west falters or backs off they get a little stronger.

avatar4321
08-25-2007, 04:01 PM
Yeap like I have been saying its an occupation and you CAN NOT WIN AN OCCUPATION.

Now here is the thing about the three choices.

1#Stay the course: this can only work if the Iraqi people work with us and they have asked us to leave.
Their government had a majority vote to tell us to draw down and it was ignored, every poll of the people shows they want us to draw down.

2#Retreat: Is just partisan rethoric, It mentions nothing about the US being replaced by a UN mission.
It assumes something that no one is sugesting.

3#Unleashing: Is a ticket to endless death and destruction and would be the greatest recruiting tool for the radical Muslims they could ever dream of.


So this article is nothing but bullshit.

Replace the US troops with UN peacekeepers? Yeah thats an oxymoron if ive ever heard of one. lets replace the guys willing to protect the civilians for the guys who want to rape them. Makes sense to me.

avatar4321
08-25-2007, 04:02 PM
what will America gain with a country full of dead Iraqis?

Most of the terrorists arent Iraqis in the country. The Iraqis are being murdered by Al Qaeda like everyone else. We pull out and they will be murdered much more.

Do you really want that to happen?

manu1959
08-25-2007, 04:04 PM
You really have no idea do you?

It just amazes me how you people talk ,talk ,talk and never look anything up or try to find out anything about what is really going on.

the british and the french.....you take so fucking long to get to the point you are more fun to fuck with than debate......

avatar4321
08-25-2007, 04:04 PM
Germany and Japan were also very cohesive governments Iraq has never been a cohiesive government.

You can not MAKE Iraqis love each other they are from differing factions who have hated each other ever since Muhamed died.

you would be surprised what people can do when they dont listen to people who say they cant do something.

manu1959
08-25-2007, 04:08 PM
You can not MAKE Iraqis love each other they are from differing factions who have hated each other ever since Muhamed died.

no shit...that is why we are trying to kill them all....actually we have them killing each other now.....darth cheney is pretty smart huh......anyway, once they are all dead will will fire up the pumps and take all their oil....

same thing the US has done in every war.....kill all the civilians and take all their shit.....

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 04:31 PM
So we are in Iraq to get the Iraqis to kill each other?

manu1959
08-25-2007, 04:35 PM
So we are in Iraq to get the Iraqis to kill each other?

ya so we can get the oil ......well we don't want to get our own guys killed ...... please keep up .....

plus everytime one of our guys dies some poor liberal has to build another cross.....http://www.zombietime.com/lafayette_mock_war_memorial/

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 04:40 PM
ya so we can get the oil ......well we don't want to get our own guys killed ...... please keep up .....

plus everytime one of our guys dies some poor liberal has to build another cross.....http://www.zombietime.com/lafayette_mock_war_memorial/



So what you are saying is you have nothing to offer to the debate?

OK got cha!

manu1959
08-25-2007, 04:48 PM
So what you are saying is you have nothing to offer to the debate?

OK got cha!

there is no debate.....you win you are right it is all about the oil....there is no solution to iraq....fuckem....let em all die....pull out...just like rawanda and let them all chop each other to pieces.....

for you every topic is reduced to you are right everyone else is wrong....bush and america are evil....got it....

truthmatters
08-25-2007, 04:54 PM
Dont blame me if the facts are not on your side

manu1959
08-25-2007, 05:03 PM
Dont blame me if the facts are not on your side

facts.....hell i ain't lettin facts get in my way....i am just gonna start chantin slogans and that will become the truth.....

reality will not matter soon....

LiberalNation
08-25-2007, 07:04 PM
This is a stupid way to steal oil. Bush doesn't even know how to steal oil right.

manu1959
08-25-2007, 07:11 PM
This is a stupid way to steal oil. Bush doesn't even know how to steal oil right.

how do you do it ?

LiberalNation
08-25-2007, 07:16 PM
How would I, well for one i wouldn't worry with the democracy crap and instead instal a friendly US dictator. Also be a lot more brutal to keep the lid on things so we didn't hafta worry with a bunch of Iraqi terrorist blowing up the infastructer.

avatar4321
08-25-2007, 07:23 PM
This is a stupid way to steal oil. Bush doesn't even know how to steal oil right.

That is my point. So if its a dumb way to steal oil why do you guys assume thats what he is trying to do?

LiberalNation
08-25-2007, 07:24 PM
I don't.

manu1959
08-25-2007, 07:36 PM
How would I, well for one i wouldn't worry with the democracy crap and instead instal a friendly US dictator. Also be a lot more brutal to keep the lid on things so we didn't hafta worry with a bunch of Iraqi terrorist blowing up the infastructer.

brilliant....oh that is how it was.....matbe busshie isn't after the oil at all maybe....he just want's to kill heem sum mooslims

manu1959
08-25-2007, 07:40 PM
That is my point. So if its a dumb way to steal oil why do you guys assume thats what he is trying to do?

cuz busshie is a marooon.......now ask her how a marooon stole two elections and blew up the wtc without getting caught....

diuretic
08-25-2007, 07:45 PM
The article is a bunch of drivel. It's simply propaganda. Simplify a very complex problem, then lay out some simplistic responses that can't hope to address the complexities which have been largely ignored and then challenge people to take them up.

The oldest lie indeed.

How about a different view of war from someone who really knew about it?


WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

retiredman
08-25-2007, 09:24 PM
"we have troops in Iraq. We have a responsibility to them. We owe it to them to make decisions with their best interests in mind"

no. we should never make decisions regarding our military based upon THEIR best interest, but rather the best interest of the country that they serve.

the three options are artificial and not really the sum total of our options, but, to play the game, I would have to chose option 2. I think we need to get out of Iraq and let Iraqis settle their own political and economic turf war. Certainly there are outside interests in play, but they are middle eastern.... the Saudis are backing the sunnis and the Iranians are backing the shiites... as onerous as this is, it is not really our problem. Our problem is to deal with the problem of defeating islamic extremism wherever we find it. It may be in Iraq now, but only because we are there, and a handful of deadenders in their final throes have occupied 150K american troops for over four years while, in Afghanistan, where they were when they attacked us, and where they still are today, they can hold a televised public outdoor graduation ceremony for suicide bombers and we are spread so thin there that not only did we not know about it, we would have been hard pressed to respond in an effective way if we had. On one hand, we are told that our enemy knows no national allegiance, yet on the other, we stubbornly remain in Iraq with a preponderance of military force and are trying to use it to solve a political problem. The "surge" is working, but only on a very limited tactical level. Violence in those areas where we surged troops is down, but violence everywhere else is up. The surge was designed to give the Maliki government the "space" to achieve some progress on the political stalemant. In that regard, the surge is a total failure.

I am 100% behind kicking AQ ass wherever we find it. I am NOT behind staying in the midst of a civil war and having our military trying to babysit a political process while our real enemies are just as strong and capable as they were the day they attacked us and we have wasted four years, 30K dead and wounded and a half a trillion dollars to get ourselves to that point.