Iraq war

[HEAD]

Al, I don't think pulling out is a good idea. That is what they are hoping for. They are very patient and will wait until we do pull out and then swarm in again. People claim that Bush is the reason we haven't been attacked again. While there may be some truth to that, the real reason is becasue they are patient. It was 8 1/2 years between the first WTC attack and the second. Was that becasue Clinton was great at preventing a second attack. I don't think so. They waited until our guard was down and attacked again. The Sunnis and the Kurds have fought against each other for thousands of years. The only way to have any order is to seperate them and give them their own government, or have a brutal dictator rule with an iron fist.

[josh]

To say that you don't want to be there forever is a red herring of sorts. Nobody - the most hawkish of neocons even - wants to be there forever. So take that off the table as a reason why you want to pull out now. Orderly withdrawal as the situation on the ground dictates is what is being done. The successes right now are night and day, which is why troops are starting to return. Thank goodness your arguments didnt win the day after WWII...there would have been no free Japan or Germany. We would have left the day after the cease fires were signed!


Ok fine. I'm making stuff up...the govt makes stuff up. Apparently, the only one with Truth is you! Awesome. While I have your time, can you tell me what happened to JFK? Or, since you hold the Truth...what is really stored at Area 51?

You asked for evidence - I provided it (and I didnt even quote Rush once) and you chose not to believe it. Everyone can certainly have an opinion which is why I like message boards like this...but not every opinion is correct. My opinion may be that the sun revolves around the earth...and I am free to keep holding and shouting that opinion til I die, despite the evidence. Some people strike me as having similar views when it comes to defending their dogmatic anti-war beliefs. I think there could be lots of good reasons not to go to war in general. And they change depending on the war. But saying Saddam did not having ties to terrorism, actively exporting that terrorism is something I just cant let stand.

Notice - I'm not even confortable saying that securing the oil was not partly a factor...it could have been. I'm not even saying that "plans" to someday take out Saddam were not in place prior to 9/11 - could have been. But those are separate points, and do not impact the terrorist ties and his willingness to use those terrorist ties to attack US interests and destablize an already unstable ME.

[Common Sense Al]

Al, I don't think pulling out is a good idea. That is what they are hoping for. They are very patient and will wait until we do pull out and then swarm in again. People claim that Bush is the reason we haven't been attacked again. While there may be some truth to that, the real reason is becasue they are patient. It was 8 1/2 years between the first WTC attack and the second. Was that becasue Clinton was great at preventing a second attack. I don't think so. They waited until our guard was down and attacked again. The Sunnis and the Kurds have fought against each other for thousands of years. The only way to have any order is to seperate them and give them their own government, or have a brutal dictator rule with an iron fist.

As you said, they are patient and will wait... so what do we do? Stay in there forever? I don't think that is a viable option but it seems like that is the practicality of the current plan.

Maybe they do need a dictator to keep the peace.

Like I said before, I want to leave, but I want to do it in an orderly fashion so the Iraq gov't and people step up to the plate and choose either to fix their own problems or decide to just keep killing themselves and fighting. If they want to keep fighting, then all we can do is delay it by staying in there as long as we can. Eventually we'll have to pull out a lot of troops and they will do what they're gonna do.

[HEAD]

Everyone can certainly have an opinion which is why I like message boards like this...but not every opinion is correct. My opinion may be that the sun revolves around the earth...and I am free to keep holding and shouting that opinion til I die, despite the evidence.

That is not an opinion, that is an untruth. An opinion, in my opinion , is a statment that can be proven or disproven factaully. If someone says that the color blue is the most beautiful color of the rainbow, that is an opinion, or Chicago pizza is better than NY pizza.
Saying the sun revolves around the sun, while the person may believe it to be true, is not an opinion becasue it can be proven otherwise. That is why no opinion is wrong and no opinion is right.

But saying Saddam did not having ties to terrorism, actively exporting that terrorism is something I just cant let stand.

I believe he was supporting terrorism is some form. Never said he didn't. He wasn't involved with Bin Laden, but he supported the Palestinians in their fight against Israel

Notice - I'm not even confortable saying that securing the oil was not partly a factor...it could have been. I'm not even saying that "plans" to someday take out Saddam were not in place prior to 9/11 - could have been. But those are separate points, and do not impact the terrorist ties and his willingness to use those terrorist ties to attack US interests and destablize an already unstable ME.

He was more concerned about Iran invading him than he was about our interests. That is why he never allowed inspectors to find out the truth. He needed the Iranians to think he still had them. It was the only defense against them he had.

[josh]

If an opinion is something that can be "proven or disproven factually"...how can you prove or disprove that the "color blue is the most beuatiful color of the rainbow"? You have lost me.


But you did in fact say earlier that you didnt believe Saddam was responsible for terrorism when I stated that he was arming, financing, etc. You responded to me by saying "And the proof is where?". You then pulled an about face of sorts by saying that he only sponsored terrorism against Israel.

What is your official position? Was Saddam a state sponsor of anti American, anti Democracy, and anti Israel terrorism, or was he just out to get the Jews and nobody else? And finally, where is YOUR PROOF?

[HEAD]

If an opinion is something that can be "proven or disproven factually"...how can you prove or disprove that the "color blue is the most beuatiful color of the rainbow"? You have lost me.

Sorry, Typo. An opinion is something that can NOT be proven or disproven. That is why everyones opinion is neither wrong or right.

But you did in fact say earlier that you didnt believe Saddam was responsible for terrorism when I stated that he was arming, financing, etc. You responded to me by saying "And the proof is where?". You then pulled an about face of sorts by saying that he only sponsored terrorism against Israel.

He morally supported the Palestinians in their fight agiant Isreal. I do not think he was a state sponsor, financer, supplied arms, to any organization. There are many terrorist organizations, Al Qaeda, PLO, IRA. He can support a cause without being directly involved. He did reward the families of Palestinian bombers, but he was not involved any other way.

And finally, where is YOUR PROOF?

My proof is the lack of hard evidence.

[josh]

One more thing that helps me understand your position...are you making a distinction between Saddam's personal support (i.e did he withdraw money from his local branch and cut a check to terrorists) vs. Iraqi government support (did he use the various branches of Iraqi govt - which he controlled - to lend support)?

Just curious if that is a nuance to you that makes a difference. Hard evidence is definitely lacking under the first scenario but not the second is why I ask.

You have neatly constructed a burden of proof that almost always assures you are correct - kinda cool actually. I didnt ask you to invalidate my opinion. I asked you to validate your opinion. "Lack of hard evidence" for mine (although you have yet to address the substance of the evidence I provided) is not evidence for yours.

[HEAD]

One more thing that helps me understand your position...are you making a distinction between Saddam's personal support (i.e did he withdraw money from his local branch and cut a check to terrorists) vs. Iraqi government support (did he use the various branches of Iraqi govt - which he controlled - to lend support)? Just curious if that is a nuance to you that makes a difference. Hard evidence is definitely lacking under the first scenario but not the second is why I ask.

I agree it was Iraqi government money that was used as a reward to families after the fact. But we all his own piggy bank and the governmant money were all one in the same. When I refer to government sponsered, I am refering to funding operations to a particular organization before the operation takes place. He rewards the private families of the people after an attack is successfully carried out. If an attack is not carrie dout, he does not pay out.

You have neatly constructed a burden of proof that almost always assures you are correct - kinda cool actually. I didnt ask you to invalidate my opinion. I asked you to validate your opinion. "Lack of hard evidence" for mine (although you have yet to address the substance of the evidence I provided) is not evidence for yours.

My opinion was based on the fact that there is no hard evidence that saya otherwise. I have had a hard time trusting what our federal givernment says. Always have, aleays will. They can take information and twist it to their benefit. When I say hard evidence, I am refering to something that can be proven in court, a smoking gun, documentation of some kind, not just because someone said so.

[HEAD]

You have neatly constructed a burden of proof that almost always assures you are correct - kinda cool actually.

I've been married a long time. I've learned from the best.

[neighbor]

I wonder, if this situation escalates, how it will impact the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/ ... newssearch

[Hog Caller]

Can we add another line to the poll:

Pull every single troop out in a 24 hr period. On the 25th hr drop about 5 glass makers (nukes) on the whole region and turn the whole place in one giant Coke bottle.

Slider, that is one of the most original suggestions I've heard in a long time. It takes me back to conversations I heard as a kid in the '50s, but I thought it was very creative!

[Common Sense Al]

I wonder, if this situation escalates, how it will impact the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/ ... newssearch

Seems ironic:

"It should not be long-lasting," Bush said. "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

[HEAD]

I wonder, if this situation escalates, how it will impact the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/ ... newssearch

Seems ironic:

"It should not be long-lasting," Bush said. "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

I'm curious to know what his definition of "quickly" is.

[neighbor]

I wonder, if this situation escalates, how it will impact the U.S.'s strategy in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/ ... newssearch

Seems ironic:

"It should not be long-lasting," Bush said. "The Turks need to move, move quickly, achieve their objective and get out."

I'm curious to know what his definition of "quickly" is.

... lack of specific definition allows latitude...

[Common Sense Al]

Estimating all economic and social costs might push the U.S. war bill up toward $5 trillion by 2017, they say.

Studies: Iraq costs US $12B per month