|
Grex > Agora56 > #31: It is time to get the hell OUT of Iraq! | |
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
It is time to get the hell OUT of Iraq!
| 
Jan 5 16:16 UTC 2006 |
Seven more americans died this morning in Iraq:
"(AP)In the deadliest day since the December 15 elections, at least 118
people were killed in Iraq and scores were wounded in separate
insurgent-bomb attacks, authorities said. Among the dead were five U.S.
soldiers with Task Force Baghdad, according to a U.S. military news
release. The soldiers were on patrol near Baghdad, the release said. "
Other incidents of violence were reported across Iraq, according to
news services. Reuters said that two more American soldiers died,
killed by a roadside bomb in Najaf along with two civilians, a report
that was not confirmed by the American military."
This situation is not getting better, it is getting WORSE. We are in
the middle of an ugly civil war over there and our soldiers bodies
continue to pile up, even after elections were held.
There was a time when I thought pulling out would be too problematic,
that we needed to stay to clean up the mess and prevent a civil war.
But it hasn't worked. Iraq's new military and new police simply are
never going to be adequate for the situation, meaning things will get a
lot more violent before anything good happens.
So it is time for us to leave. The Iraqis want us to leave. A lot of
Iraqis are getting killed just by being in the vicinity of american
soldiers being suicide bomber attacked. In Vietnam, we finally had to
leave when we realized that we couldn't prop South Vietnam up forever,
that the Vietnamese had to take responsibility for their own destiny.
That war had become unwinnable and so has this one.
Pretty soon more americans will have died in Iraq than died on 9/11.
These people will NEVER stop suicide bombings as long as our soldiers
are there. We need to leave. We need to bring our boys home. NOW.
Regardless of whether you think our intentions there were good or not,
we tried to improve a situation there and we have not succeeded.
This bloodshed has got to stop. Tell the families of those seven
soldiers who died today if their deaths will really mean anything.
Iraq is going to have a long, ugly civil war and we can't stop it. It
is not our country and it is not our place to keep trying.
|
| 133 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 1 of 133:
|
Jan 5 16:33 UTC 2006 |
Tell the families of those seven
soldiers who died today if their deaths will really mean anything.
It might not mean anything to you but that is understandable since none of
them were your bartender. How many people died in car accidents on American
highways yesterday? Why don't you ask Americans to ride a bus since auto
accidents are causing bloodshed.
|
richard
|
|
response 2 of 133:
|
Jan 5 16:47 UTC 2006 |
You can't equate car accidents with what is happening over there. What
is happening in Iraq are not accidents, these are people-- Americans--
being deliberately murdered or attempted to be murdered.
tod, how many more americans have to die over there before you would be
willing to say we should leave and let the Iraqis control their own
fate? At this rate we'll have to stay in Iraq forever. is that what
you want?
|
tod
|
|
response 3 of 133:
|
Jan 5 16:54 UTC 2006 |
These soldiers are volunteers. They know the risks. They also know the long
term benefit of democracy outweighs the danger presented by Syrian insurgents
or Baathist sympathizers. While you prefer to play Bill Paxton in Aliens
"Game over Man" mode, I am comfortable putting a little trust in our military
to know when they should pull out. If everytime we whacked a terrorist
sponsored regime and one of our guys died then we pulled out, it'd be open
season on American soil. Think about it.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 4 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:10 UTC 2006 |
"When they should pull out" is a political decision, not a military one,
in this case. It will be made by politicians, so I don't really see how
"trust in our military" is applicable.
|
keesan
|
|
response 5 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:11 UTC 2006 |
A lot of these soldiers enlisted because they come from poor areas with no
work, such as Vermont (where my friend's granddaughter's husband enlisted and
was killed) and West Virginia (where the other options are work in a coal
mine, and welfare).
|
richard
|
|
response 6 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:12 UTC 2006 |
If it was up to Tod, we'd still be in Vietnam propping up Saigon. We
didn't pull out of 'Nam because the military wanted to leave, we pulled
out because the people back home got fed up with their family members
dying for over a decade in rice paddies. Sooner or later, the people
here at home are going to take this matter out of the military's
hands.
|
richard
|
|
response 7 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:14 UTC 2006 |
re #5 very true, a lot of these soldiers didn't enlist because they
support the war in Iraq. They enlisted because military recruiters
showed up at their doorsteps waving wads of cash. The recruiters come
down en masse to economically depressed areas (like Michigan), and
throw out the words "easy money and a lot of it" Those $5,000 cash
signing bonuses carry a lot of weight to folks who don't have much work.
|
klg
|
|
response 8 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:17 UTC 2006 |
Quit your LYING Richard. You have no evidence for your claim.
The Iraqis want us to leave EVENTUALLY.
They aren't so stupid as to want us to leave now or in the near future
so as to put them at the mercy of the terrorists. They know full well
what the terrorists would do if we left the Iraqi people unprotected.
What is wrong with working in a coal mine? If someone wanted work and
didn't want to enlist, couldn't he move to a different area?? (If he
was so stupid that he didn't realize that, he probably couldn't get
into the army.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 9 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:20 UTC 2006 |
Quit your LYING Richard. You have no evidence for your claim.
Anyone else hear the sound of the words "pot," "kettle," and "black" marching
with well-deserved confidence in the direction of this conversation?
|
tod
|
|
response 10 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:38 UTC 2006 |
It will be made by politicians, so I don't really see how
"trust in our military" is applicable.
We're talking about getting killed or are we talking about withdrawing support
from Iraq? If its about getting killed, the military are the ones taking the
heat.
A lot of these soldiers enlisted because they come from poor areas.
A lot of politicisn went into law school because they are rich.
If it was up to Tod, we'd still be in Vietnam propping up Saigon.
If it were up to me, the Green Berets never would have been invented
and whiners like yourself would be doing mandatory Peace Corps in Bangladesh.
They enlisted because military recruiters
showed up at their doorsteps waving wads of cash.
Our military is still voluntary. Nobody gets through bootcamp with false
expectations of the danger involved in their job. I was one of those poor
kids that enlisted in Flint and I'm proud I did it. It had nothing to do
with wads of cash. It had more to do with leaving the shit hole economy
and learning some things about life, death, and independence. I got my
fill of it and don't regret it. Why don't you go hold a sign at a rally
somewhere so you can pretend to be so "in the know" rather than telling
people how things would be "if it were up to Tod". Fuckhead.
|
richard
|
|
response 11 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:43 UTC 2006 |
I guess tod's opinions won't change until his taxes are raised
unreasonably to support the war effort, or they have to reinstate the
draft one day and his kids end up drafted into the military against
their will when they get old enough. Is it that war is okay as long as
military service is voluntary?
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:46 UTC 2006 |
Tell us all about Tod's opinions, richard. You seem to know me quite well.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 13 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:48 UTC 2006 |
Re #10: We're talking about pulling out of Iraq, and if/when/how we should
do so, not about getting killed. The military is ultimately required to do
what the politicians tell them to; it's not a perfect system but the
alternatives are worse.
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 133:
|
Jan 5 17:51 UTC 2006 |
re #13
If I had to guestimate on a timeline, I'd say the military presence in Iraq
will cease AFTER Iran has ceased nuclear interests or until after a new POTUS
has been brought in.
|
richard
|
|
response 15 of 133:
|
Jan 5 18:00 UTC 2006 |
Why is our policy in Iraq affected by whats going on in Iran? Are you
saying we should invade Iran next?
|
trap
|
|
response 16 of 133:
|
Jan 5 18:11 UTC 2006 |
re#0
"Seven more americans died this morning in Iraq"
wow!! great!! fucking bastards must die. :)
|
richard
|
|
response 17 of 133:
|
Jan 5 18:39 UTC 2006 |
We can't just invade every country that presents a potential national
security threat. What, we're going to invade Iran next, and then North
Korea and then Venezuela, and keep invading and kick butt all over the
globe, so we can strut and say "oh yeah we're bad baby!"
|
khamsun
|
|
response 18 of 133:
|
Jan 5 18:50 UTC 2006 |
re #6 & #11:
a comparison with Vietnam is weird and wrong.
The rationale for Korea and Vietnam were fight against the chinese and
soviet expansion, feared or real.
But both the korean and the vietnamese were fighting an independance
war, against the japanese (Korea) and against the french (Vietnam, at
first in 1945).
Both Korea and Vietnam did get massive help from China.
In Vietnam, USA was re-fighting a war which had already been fought ten
years before by the french, who leaved *exactly* for the same reason USA
had to do: the chinese massive support and the determination of
vietnamese, even if they were wrong (=communists) to die for their
country. So, nothing similar in Iraq. Afghanistan and Iraq are cheap
wars to get a foot in Asia, a couple thousand soldiers dead is quite
little, relatively to the huge budget USA have been putting into control
of the mid-east area, even if they didn't expect at first all the mess.
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 133:
|
Jan 5 19:05 UTC 2006 |
re #18
cheap
wars to get a foot in Asia
I'm with you on that mindset. SouthWest Asia is a hotbed for military
positioning and has been for decades. Its not like the USA hasn't been in
bed with Iraq or Afghanistan in the past. The only difference now is that
the enemy is "within" rather than across the border...Iran, USSR, etc...then
again maybe they still are a threat but one that has infiltrated their
infrastructures.
|
richard
|
|
response 20 of 133:
|
Jan 5 19:32 UTC 2006 |
khamsun said:
"Afghanistan and Iraq are cheap
wars to get a foot in Asia, a couple thousand soldiers dead is quite
little, relatively to the huge budget USA have been putting into control
of the mid-east area"
Maybe its just the value I place on human lives, but I don't think the
lives of 2,000 american soldiers is in any way a cheap or reasonable
cost for any action.
|
richard
|
|
response 21 of 133:
|
Jan 5 19:38 UTC 2006 |
Also, we were in Vietnam for national security reasons, just as why we
are in Iraq, because we feared communist expansion in southeast asia as
a threat to us. It became a situation where we were not taking
aggressive war actions, but rather acting as policemen, patrolling the
rice paddies and being a presence. Just as what is happening in Iraq.
We are just police over there now, our soldiers are sitting ducks being
kept in place just as the soldiers in the 'Nam were when all they'd do
for months on end is cross back and forth over the same fields. Both
countries, 'Nam then and Iraq now, are in the midst of brutal civil
wars, and in both cases we have placed ourselves in the middle of a
conflict that is not really our battle and which we can't win in the
end. The people in Iraq, just as the people in 'Nam, are going to
decide their futures for themselves. No amount of U.S. military might
is going to change that.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 133:
|
Jan 5 19:39 UTC 2006 |
I don't think you believe in action, period. American lives is just an excuse
for you. If you really wanted to show a human side, you'd be clamoring about
the loss of Iraqi civilian lives and the human rights atrocities associated
with CIA led torture camps. I can't take you seriously in a foreign policy
discussion because your only solution is for Americans to hide in their homes
rather than trying to make the world a better place.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 133:
|
Jan 5 19:42 UTC 2006 |
re #21
Both
countries, 'Nam then and Iraq now, are in the midst of brutal civil
wars, and in both cases we have placed ourselves in the middle of a
conflict that is not really our battle and which we can't win in the
end. The people in Iraq, just as the people in 'Nam, are going to
decide their futures for themselves. No amount of U.S. military might
is going to change that.
The visions of bodies being packed into cattle cars doesn't disturb
you...Kosovo, Auschwitz, and possibly Sunnis if we withdraw from Iraq. Just
as long as an American soldier, or as you put it: poor boy from the inner
city, doesn't get harmed, then damn the rest of the planet.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 133:
|
Jan 5 19:49 UTC 2006 |
Trying to make the world a better place by unilaterial invasion of other
countries? Sounds like the Roman Enpire (Pax Romana) all over again. The
way to make the world a better place is to, first, act morally, and
second, to assist other countries in improving conditions for their
people. Murder and mayhem do not seem like good solutions.
There would not be the current "loss of Iraqi civilian lives and the human
rights atrocities associated with CIA led torture camps" if we had
proceeded with the ongoing diplomacy. Conducting an error-ridden invasion
is not a substitute for that.
Since we got ourselves into this quagmire we must find a way out with the
best of a number of likely attrocious outcomes. I think we need an
entirely differnent administration in order to do that.
|