Honest Question

[dragonlady]

So, Honestly - because I don't know - what are WE supposed to "win" in Iraq? Maybe they win something (not sure what) but what will the US win? More special immigrants?

[SonofMichael]

Hopefully a lot of dead moslems. The more dead moslems, the better.

[ProudUSC]

Hi Dragonlady,

When you get some time, read this.

Even though I support ending this war as quickly as possible, the article presented another side for me.

[Hudson]

Dragonlady,
Mao Ze**** said "politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed." What this means is how one defines "victory in Iraq." Foreign Affairs article that Proud presented is an excellent example on one measure to define "sucess" or even "progress."

Despite the rhetoric from both sides, most people, including myself, wnat the war to end, but the more important question is how to achieve that goal. Full blown withdrawal without the preservation of an Iraqi stable government is not the way to go. Having significant military forces stationed in Iraq does not accomplish anything. For me, I want a government in Iraq that will counter Iran and Russian aggression. This is why the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein and the Mujaheddin in the 1980's.

And finally, hindsight is always 20/20.

[Houston]

I supported the war, believed in all the things that were said at the time. I bought that "connection to 911" argument but didn't think much about it, in reality, I saw it as just "finishing the job".

People often talk about "support" for the war when in reality we don't have access to any intelligence reports, any evidence, any information whatsoever and all we can do is to support the troops. Those two, in my opinion, are very different things, but that's all any of us can do at this time.

There's nothing to gain out of Iraq, and sure, you can say it's all for the stability of the middle east but when you see the cost of this war, and that's something we all have access to, then you start questioning the motives, the intentions, the real objectives.

So, stabilize the middle east while the economy crumbles, while the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. Let's burn a bridge with every friendly nation just to pursue that war, create enemies out of friends in the name of some goal that cannot be achieved. Is that smart?

Next time you go to the store, tell the cashier you want "free groceries" in the name of the middle east stabilization goal. See what happens. You can't get a loan to pay for your medical bills because of the problems with the economy, but the government is borrowing like crazy in your name to pay for this war, and that's a debt future generations will have to pay.

This war, and all those new ones many are just itching to fight will leave this nation bankrupt, and that's just the beginning.

Instead of talking about progress, hope, technology improvements, healthcare and education, they talk about war. War and war and the rest is not important. That's a middle age approach to the 21st century, no excuse for that.

[ProudUSC]

Can we just pick up and leave Iraq at this point? I know that's what I would like to see happen, but what would be the results of this action? Will it cause more instability and uncertainty in the middle east? I just don't know. I would like to hear input from others.

[Houston]

The first step to fix a problem is to admit there is one. That's the problem here.

McCain is not talking about plans to withdraw or end the war, he sees this as a good thing and he talks about "winning" and "victory" and the such.

Well, to me the war was won when Saddam was terminated. End of story. Why keep that thing going? We're not talking about zero presence, I would agree with diplomatic assistance, advisors, peace keepers, but no more war for Christ sake!

[a9b3h5]

Originally posted by ProudUSC:
Can we just pick up and leave Iraq at this point? I know that's what I would like to see happen, but what would be the results of this action? Will it cause more instability and uncertainty in the middle east? I just don't know. I would like to hear input from others.

Only one word explains it CHAOS followed by uncertainly, insecurity and destruction. If USA were to leave like that, there will be power vaccuum. Al Sadr and his followers are waiting for that moment. ****e and Sunni want to shed each other's blood. Iran, which is dominated by ****e, is also waiting for the moment to get a piece of pie of Iraq. The country will be torn apart by ****e, Sunnis, Al Sadr and Kurds. Not to mention Al Qaeda has also now entered the country, which creates the threat to survival of Israel. The entire region will destablize if US were to leave now. Not until it is stable to do so.

[ProudUSC]

I definitely do not support McCain's position on this war. I thought I heard him say something about pulling troops by 2011. That isn't a timeline most Americans want to hear.

I do hope during the debate tonight that the VP candidates can stick to the issues, rather than hurl insults back and forth. Fat chance of that happening - lol!

[a9b3h5]

Originally posted by iperson:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Houston:
The first step to fix a problem is to admit there is one. That's the problem here.

I agree, the problem is that the war was a mistake in the first place, with no clear cut goals to achieve, which kept changing throughout. First there were supposed to be WMD- not found. Then evil Saddam- toppled. Then **** insurgents (thank god), the Sunni and Shia opposition. Then the troops argument- can't say anything negative about it. Then if you're not with us, you're against us. Tons of b.ull****. And no real goal other than fascist ideological dreams of conquering the Middle East. Dreams of a limitless Empire next? Maybe.

So yeah, I want the US to lose the war. It was never a right war, nor a just war. It was based on a lie, propaganda and deception. What did it bring? A destabilization not of Middle East which grew stronger than ever, but a destabilization of the US economy. Here's where we are today. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are such an unpartiotic person. How can you say want US to lose war? Do you even know how many dead US soldiers will be there to lose a war. You are one hell of a hypocrite democrat who is looking out for her self. You have no value or concern for an American life.

[ProudUSC]

First there were supposed to be WMD- not found.

There was every indication that Sadaam had WMD. We didn't know they didn't exist until we went in there. I tend to agree that after the fall of Sadaam, we should have figured out an exit strategy and not try to shove democracy down the Iraqi's throats. They aren't ready for a democracy.

[Houston]

Posts: 704 | Registered: 06-28-2008

You are a good student of your ultra-right stuff. That's the line you give to all who don't agree with your position.

It is because I CARE about lives, the lives of the soldiers, that I don't want them to DIE for some obscure, selfish goal.

Truth is nobody here knows what the war is about now, and they talk about "victory" without knowing what defines it!

Patriotic? I'm way more patriotic than you are, I know and respect, treasure and value the Constitution.

I don't profile people based on religious beliefs, strongly believe in due process and the equal protection of the law. That's more than you can say about those who advocate secret law, detention without charges, wars for no reason and the destruction of everything that represents the United States one way or another.

Unpatriotic? Hell no. But I'm no sheep and I know what the definition of patriotism means, so what you and your neocon fallas say means little to me because it's been people like you who have been stomping and spitting on the Constitution, hiding behind an office and secret laws, to do what according to GOP leaders is "what you wanted to do for a long time". How dare you talk about patriotism when you don't even know what it is!

Maybe the neocons should create a new party, and I would suggest a Border Collie for a logo, that's a good sheep dog and you all need one!

[4now]

Originally posted by ProudUSC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">First there were supposed to be WMD- not found.

There was every indication that Sadaam had WMD. We didn't know they didn't exist until we went in there. I tend to agree that after the fall of Sadaam, we should have figured out an exit strategy and not try to shove democracy down the Iraqi's throats. They aren't ready for a democracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes... but even if that was true (which we know that it was not) What did that have to do with finding Bin Laden/ Al Queda and the twin towers destruction That is the point and only point.


Then even worse, when you are exposed, try to sell it as a rescue mission. FREE Iraq! message.

Hmmm there is that "rescue" word again. This time it is being used to replace bailout.

Buyer beware. and this time you should be very afraid.

Shame on the american people for falling for that power of suggestion/Lie and shame on them now for listening to the same liar for this latest fear mongering on passing this bailout .



How could any american even commit to believing anything out of GWB mouth after his lies have been exposed. Credibility zero.

[Brit4064]

Maybe the neocons should create a new party, and I would suggest a Border Collie for a logo, that's a good sheep dog and you all need one!

[img]http://www.petspictured.com/dogs/lg_***/border_collie-600.jpg[/img]

Woof woof!

[Aroha]

Originally posted by iperson:
Oh yeah, and that argument- you're not a patriot if you don't support the war, forgot that one.

Ahhh, yes. Doozies like that are regularly thrown out to guilt people in to supporting a position. Another prime example is that you're a racist if you don't support Obama.