Iraq: Stay or Leave?

Should we stay or should we go?

  • As long it takes, we stay

    Votes: 22 32.8%

  • Get hell out of Iraq

    Votes: 45 67.2%
  • Total voters
    67
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe there need to be a phrase plan to get troop leave out of Iraq instead. I liked Hillary's idea than Obama.

Fear if instant leave the whole troop and the thing will go very bad.
 
Now, it's really not easy to end the Iraq war, however it will take few to several years for processing of war in Iraq to be done, such as need withdrawal, clean or rebuild.

I wish that 9/11 will never happen, same goes to Al Qaeda to be never exist in the world.
 
Hey ya all,

I have cleaned up this thread off topic posts as they are not related to Iraq debate.
 
Pacman said:
Now, it's really not easy to end the Iraq war, however it will take few to several years for processing of war in Iraq to be done, such as need withdrawal, clean or rebuild.

I wish that 9/11 will never happen, same goes to Al Qaeda to be never exist in the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would take a long time. Look at German how all UK, US, France (East Germany) and Russia (West Germany) been handle on them until they allow to give them back on control become all Germany as good boy and girl.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
me, too... We need troops to protect us against enemies attacks... I only against troops for go and attack enemy countries.
Click to expand...

Waiting for someone to attack is not the best option.

"Boots on the ground" are very valuable, yes, but you don't need them to attack anyone directly... therefore others don't need theirs to attack directly either.

There is such a thing as interdiction. Like in the WMD example (the fact it was a screwed up situation does not change the theory)

If Saddam actually DID have WMD, and was going to use them, stopping the WMD before they ever leave the launch site is key. This involves attack (or interdiction, you can -try- to do it without casualties). It's a little late when the bombs are already flying, until technology to shoot them down -safely- becomes more viable and common, anyway.


War, the way we think of it, is not only about killing. Some have used it for that, yes, but overall... it is only escalated conflict. There will always be conflict, conflict will always escalate to some extent, therefore war is not going away. Maybe one day we can have war without killing people as much.

There is ALWAYS some form of conflict or disagreement. War tries to resolve these in a more physical manner. A silly example is like... let's pretend you are one particular 'faction'. Another faction you don't particularly get along with (and who doesn't get along with you) has a base very close to you, and it suddenly increases in activity.

You can either watch that base closely, and wait for a possible attack so you can suppress it, or you can stop it before it begins. You can try diplomacy first, but if they have a hostile attitude and won't negotiate, the best option may be to take that base before anything happens.

You don't necessarily want to kill anyone in that situation, you just want that base to go away or at least be less of a threat. So the point is to capture or damage it, but the people operating that base are not likely going to let you do that, they are willing to die, and kill you, to protect their base. That is where combat and killing comes in... two parties who have different ideals clash, and neither wants to give in. The attacker may not want to kill, but they WANT that base, the defender may not want to kill, but they don't want to be attacked. The defender will kill and die defending, and the attacker will kill and die attacking, because that is what the defender is doing too. It is a mutual thing.
 
:gpost:

jenni-m said:
Waiting for someone to attack is not the best option.

"Boots on the ground" are very valuable, yes, but you don't need them to attack anyone directly... therefore others don't need theirs to attack directly either.

There is such a thing as interdiction. Like in the WMD example (the fact it was a screwed up situation does not change the theory)

If Saddam actually DID have WMD, and was going to use them, stopping the WMD before they ever leave the launch site is key. This involves attack (or interdiction, you can -try- to do it without casualties). It's a little late when the bombs are already flying, until technology to shoot them down -safely- becomes more viable and common, anyway.


War, the way we think of it, is not only about killing. Some have used it for that, yes, but overall... it is only escalated conflict. There will always be conflict, conflict will always escalate to some extent, therefore war is not going away. Maybe one day we can have war without killing people as much.

There is ALWAYS some form of conflict or disagreement. War tries to resolve these in a more physical manner. A silly example is like... let's pretend you are one particular 'faction'. Another faction you don't particularly get along with (and who doesn't get along with you) has a base very close to you, and it suddenly increases in activity.

You can either watch that base closely, and wait for a possible attack so you can suppress it, or you can stop it before it begins. You can try diplomacy first, but if they have a hostile attitude and won't negotiate, the best option may be to take that base before anything happens.

You don't necessarily want to kill anyone in that situation, you just want that base to go away or at least be less of a threat. So the point is to capture or damage it, but the people operating that base are not likely going to let you do that, they are willing to die, and kill you, to protect their base. That is where combat and killing comes in... two parties who have different ideals clash, and neither wants to give in. The attacker may not want to kill, but they WANT that base, the defender may not want to kill, but they don't want to be attacked. The defender will kill and die defending, and the attacker will kill and die attacking, because that is what the defender is doing too. It is a mutual thing.
Click to expand...
 
The Bush-Cheney's military occupation of Iraq is doubly illegitimate, besides having been illegal from day one according to international law. First, most Americans want American soldiers out of Iraq. Second, most Iraqis also want American soldiers out of their country. The irony is that the Bush-Cheney regime pretends to be in Iraq for the sake of "democracy", while they trample on people's demands both in Iraq and in the United States. Some "democracy" indeed. How about fascism and imperialism!

And not to mention that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died under US occupation from March 2003 invasion to present.

Get the F**k Out of Iraq!
 
The US is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, in fact successfully, but very slow progress. This is because of two differing beliefs (sunni and shiite) vying for power to control Iraq, the coalition ends up in the middle of it and have no choice but to put down insurgents involved in no good. I agree about the fact we kicked Hussein's regime's ass out of power, but I disagree about sticking around to babysit these idiots. Iraq ought to be paying us back in oil to finance their protection. Matter of fact, Iran has their eye on taking over and establishing a cleric/mullah type of government not only in Iraq, but the rest of the mideast. The once troublesome gulf states sees Iran as a threat and now see a reason for the US to stick around. Iran may be developing nukes, and if they use them, can very well start WWIII. Now not only do we have Iraq to babysit, Iran is gonna need a spanking too for their stupid nuke ambitions. Either way, whether we are in the mideast or not, someone will want to disturb the peace and we end up going back to whup some sense into them. At least the US and most of the western hemisphere cares about world stability, what doesn't make sense is that Russia and China are only interested in selling arms to rogue nations or indirectly to insurgents while giving no hoot about stability there.
 
Actually, Russia was the first and big responsibility to secure its nuclear facility or labs near Turkey, Iran, Syria, and others.

Russia was in a grave financial problem so they were in a black market. Some foreigns bought some nuclear parts, radioactive materials, and many others because some Russian families (lab employees) were desperate for their survival foods and mortgage. The security employees were such a mess. The U.S. Gov't came to help the Russian Gov't, but it was too late. That was on 20/20 news or Frontline news about five years ago.

Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country. Another example, in 1960's, one company sold millions of landmine bombs to all over the world that made in America. What a shame!
 
webexplorer said:
Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country.
Click to expand...
lol they sold junks aka "cold war era" stuff to them. ever seen Chinese's naval force? such a relic ships they have....

webexplorer said:
Another example, in 1960's, one company sold millions of landmine bombs to all over the world that made in America. What a shame!
Click to expand...
because the USA President did not sign the landmine ban treaty - because we need those landmines for DMZ in Korea.
 
webexplorer said:
Actually, Russia was the first and big responsibility to secure its nuclear facility or labs near Turkey, Iran, Syria, and others.

Russia was in a grave financial problem so they were in a black market. Some foreigns bought some nuclear parts, radioactive materials, and many others because some Russian families (lab employees) were desperate for their survival foods and mortgage. The security employees were such a mess. The U.S. Gov't came to help the Russian Gov't, but it was too late. That was on 20/20 news or Frontline news about five years ago.

Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country. Another example, in 1960's, one company sold millions of landmine bombs to all over the world that made in America. What a shame!
Click to expand...

Poland? Poland are one of the US's best allies and diplomatic.
 
webexplorer said:
Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country.
Click to expand...

There is no concern in that area. Only civilian aircraft have ever been sold to these countries, no military aircraft or military grade engines were sold to these countries. The closest thing would be Poland's aircraft upgrades to NATO standards.
 
Right.....but Lockheed-Martin Co. building the Falcons and send the fleet to Polish Air Force, a few months ago. They like the American-made fighter planes better than NATO standards.

We also send the fighters to Israel, Kuwait, Japan, Australia, and a few of the countries.
 
It's rather a tough one for me to answer... rather a tossup.

Just unfortunately things don't work out quick enough in the first place, and that it cost us billions and billions of dollars... rather an awful waste!

A quick war victory yet tough, long battle within! It was good to get rid of Saddam, otherwise.

However, I would probably say for them to withdraw some yet leave some there to ensure and finish our job there for the sake of our losses. Apply with more diplomats to iron things out by themselves (Iraqis) will do maybe. It seems like we're winning little by little as of late.

I wondered as why don't we use their oil as some exchange to make up our losses thus help our gas economy bit more, isn't that strange?
 
Texan Guy said:
Right.....but Lockheed-Martin Co. building the Falcons and send the fleet to Polish Air Force, a few months ago. They like the American-made fighter planes better than NATO standards.

We also send the fighters to Israel, Kuwait, Japan, Australia, and a few of the countries.
Click to expand...

yes of course. American-made military products are the best in the world. unfortunately - even allied forces do not get the full benefit of it. They get partial or the product with exclusion of other classified technology. For example - we sell Raptor fighter jets to them but we do not include radar technology. We sell M4 rifles to Israel but without add-on technologies.
 
A few years ago, I went to a used Army store that sells junk things and some good military clothes.

There are some recent jackets that says, "Made in China." Some are camouflaged shirts and pants. Some clothes are dark green with a U.S. flag label on arm. That's not good. It seems to me that the China "poison" on clothes in order to eliminate American soldiers silently.
 
webexplorer said:
A few years ago, I went to a used Army store that sells junk things and some good military clothes.

There are some recent jackets that says, "Made in China." Some are camouflaged shirts and pants. Some clothes are dark green with a U.S. flag label on arm. That's not good. It seems to me that the China "poison" on clothes in order to eliminate American soldiers silently.
Click to expand...

oh actually - real military clothes/flags are made in america. these clothes are army store are just surplus or junks (copycats).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top