Conquer Club

Should Americans stop the Iraq War? If not, what are the reasons to keep fighting it? If yes, how do you propose to stop it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6bi ... re=related

Answer:Yes
Method:Ask Hilary Clinton, she doesn't support the war.

Joodoo wrote:Answer:Yes
Method:Ask Hilary Clinton, she doesn't support the war.

Hillary voted FOR the war. Politicians act on certain interests and almost all of those interests are based on the military and industrial complex. War brings money to the War Pigs and they dish it out accordingly. If we don't have a politician that is seperate from these interests, we aren't really changing anything at all. Ron Paul is the closest thing to real change in the United States.

All peoples should stop the Iraq war.

unanimous peace...no more bombings.

We are there now, if we pull out while there is still so much instability, it will end up like Vietnam did after we pulled out of there. Millions of innocent people slaughtered for nothing more then being there. It would most likely create a war between the surrounding countries, and well, a centralized problem would only rapidly increase. So, we get the country stabilized and able to defend itself, then we pull out.

muy_thaiguy wrote:We are there now, if we pull out while there is still so much instability, it will end up like Vietnam did after we pulled out of there. Millions of innocent people slaughtered for nothing more then being there. It would most likely create a war between the surrounding countries, and well, a centralized problem would only rapidly increase. So, we get the country stabilized and able to defend itself, then we pull out.

"We," as in everyone, and I would agree with you.

What you say to froth-mouthed a American Republican who says, 'What are we going to do if we lose???"

You answer, "What are we going to do if we win?"

(heavily edited for your convience )

muy_thaiguy wrote:We are there now, if we pull out while there is still so much instability, it will end up like Vietnam did after we pulled out of there. Millions of innocent people slaughtered for nothing more then being there. It would most likely create a war between the surrounding countries, and well, a centralized problem would only rapidly increase. So, we get the country stabilized and able to defend itself, then we pull out.

Seems like Iraq would do just fine if we left:



They seem to be on good terms with Iran, thanks to who? US! We killed off the Sunni Bath Regime and put the Shiites into power! If we left Iraq, nobody would come in except Israel. Iraq is freinds with Syria, Iran, and even Kuwait to some extent. Somewhere down the line, we have to say enough is enough.

Is that time now? I guess you want to spend another hundred years over there like McCain? Shit, all my fucking tax dollars are going over there, I might as well fucking MOVE over there now!

The truth is we don't want to see Iraq under Shariah law and Iran sells its oil for Euros and not dollars. That is the real reason we are there.

muy_thaiguy, well said. We should learn from our mistakes. We all know what happened in Vietnam, if we leave now, there is a huge power void, that void will be filled, and it will likely be filled after genocide. Shia and Sunni's are not going to magicly start getting along if we leave, you are going to have several groups fighting over what will ammount to a racialy charged power grab.

What we need to do, is really aid the Iraqi government it getting established, and getting a balance of power in place between the major groups of people, and then help them get to a point where they can be responsable for maintaning order.

As to the original post, the person speaking is a deserter and AWOL soldier, with nothing to back up his claims. I have several friends who servered or are serving in Iraq, and this is the not at all what they say. This guy is a ciminal, and is trying to justify his own actions, by passing the blame to others.

dewey316 wrote: muy_thaiguy, well said. We should learn from our mistakes. We all know what happened in Vietnam, if we leave now, there is a huge power void, that void will be filled, and it will likely be filled after genocide. Shia and Sunni's are not going to magicly start getting along if we leave, you are going to have several groups fighting over what will ammount to a racialy charged power grab.

Yes, indeed, we should learn from our mistakes. We should have never been in Vietnam (we were lied to in that war) and we needed to get out. It wasn't a mistake to leave and the french should have stayed and fought the war! And as far as going into Iraq, it was clearly a mistake all the way around and we are feeling the drain on our economy. It is a mistake to stay, and leaving, you would have some violence, but you are not going to have Iran invading Iraq! The majority is Shia, and the Sunnis need to learn to live with that, as the Sunnis do in Iran. We've already armed the Iraqis, more than what we did in Vietnam!

dewey316 wrote:What we need to do, is really aid the Iraqi government it getting established, and getting a balance of power in place between the major groups of people, and then help them get to a point where they can be responsable for maintaning order.

A balance of power like killing off everybody! The balance of power is against us. We are involved in an escalation of resentment against us. We need to leave and protect our own borders. You guys must be mistaking the Iraq war for some valient glorious war like World War 2? Give the Private Ryan crap a break. Iraq is bad policy, and the place isn't getting better with us there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_ ... ea/iraq_78

dewey316 wrote:As to the original post, the person speaking is a deserter and AWOL soldier, with nothing to back up his claims. I have several friends who servered or are serving in Iraq, and this is the not at all what they say. This guy is a ciminal, and is trying to justify his own actions, by passing the blame to others.

He is a deserter because the opinion of the war is waning, and it is only going to get worse and not better:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21836566/

Yes, he is a criminal. But does that mean his point of view isn't valid? His actions are pretty simple:

Desertion
Don't Pay Taxes to feed the war machine

Who should he pass the blame too?

My opinion is that we need to start getting out ASAP, otherwise more and more Americans are going to start thinking like him. We shall see what this next election brings.

See, this is where our nation is not all in agreement. Even those of us who do not think that pulling out now is the right move. I am not a fan of war, I don't want to see people die, be it our boys, or the iraqi people. The issue of wether we should or shouldn't have to to Iraq, is one that will be argued for a lot of years to come, and I think that as time goes by, and more and more information comes out, we will be better able to deal with issue, I think though, that is a devisive issue, and one that should be dealt with after we are out of Iraq, and once the information is ALL there.

But, were you and I differ in opinions, is what to do now, we are over there, so the question to deal with now is, what is the right action to take now. I don't forsee Iran as a nation taking over Iraq, but I do see us pulling out immediatly, as not being a valid option. I still beleive that if we leave now, there is not a stable enough local government, or law enforcement for their to not be a very large and bloody power grab.

I do agree, that we need to put more effort into making forward progress in making the Iraq self sustaining. That is where our opinions on this differ.

Leave Iraq.
How you ask??

Well the same way they got there!

dewey316 wrote:The issue of wether we should or shouldn't have to to Iraq, is one that will be argued for a lot of years to come, and I think that as time goes by, and more and more information comes out, we will be better able to deal with issue,

That's because people try to justify the invasion and won't accept Bush lied.

I want to get out... but I know that's bad policy.

I however in NOT for staying forever till the politicians can settle their petty differences and hammer-out a true and lasting peace.

I don't see why would shouldn't establish a military Govenor with complete power. I am NOT saying put an Iraqi in charge. I am saying put a US General in charge.

Martial Law and a Military Govenor.
Strong and painful medicine... but it's the best solution.

Oh... while we are at it.

We should use their oil money to fund the war too.

we waste 720million $ a day in iraq! cant we use it for something better like stopping world hunger?

muy_thaiguy wrote:We are there now, if we pull out while there is still so much instability, it will end up like Vietnam did after we pulled out of there. Millions of innocent people slaughtered for nothing more then being there. It would most likely create a war between the surrounding countries, and well, a centralized problem would only rapidly increase. So, we get the country stabilized and able to defend itself, then we pull out.

I agree whole heartedly. This is an issue on which I generally disagree with the majority on the 'left'. Whatever the benefits of pulling out, we have a duty to stabilise the country and leave it in a fit state for the so called 'freedom' and 'democracy' we are so enthusiastic to spread to flourish. Neocon, I know...

Well the UK should definately move out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. I can understand the US pulling out but i think the Americans should stay there until peace is secured and keep it a moderate muslim country so we can invade Iran if need be.

brooksieb wrote:Well the UK should definately move out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. I can understand the US pulling out but i think the Americans should stay there until peace is secured and keep it a moderate muslim country so we can invade Iran if need be.

No, sorting Iraq out would mean we don't have to invade Iran (or at least it takes away a major casus belli).

Guiscard wrote:Neocon, I know...

At least you've got a lot of company

im starting to become more skeptical of some of the stability reasons that are being posed as the reason to stay. While on the basic level they certainly make a lot of sense, i think ive argued (or perhaps been influenced by other people who argue -in the interest of full disclosure) that no matter how long we stay, there is likely to be a pretty rough period right afterward. While i think a lot of people buy into the idea that there is a correlative relationship between how long we stay there and the mitigation of this period, im becoming less so sure.

While it might be overly pessimistic, it seems that theres a lot of circular thinking in how stability is going to be achieved. While things are not quite there yet on the formal side of things, im not sold on the long term viability of the surge practice of essentially paying both sides (which is reasonable in the short term) in order to essentially get a bit of a cease fire.

I also think to its a bit of a dangerous illusion. I do think it is having an effect on promoting some stability in the short term, but i question whether or not in the long term propping up multiple sides of a conflict that is likely to already be well financed from a number of quarters, is really sound policy.

While this doesnt quite do the job for explaining how to get out and the like, it seems at the very least, when you start to run out of viable reasons for staying, its a better sign that its probably a good reason to be going.

You could have just said the last part by itself, you know.

muy_thaiguy wrote:You could have just said the last part by itself, you know.

i try to anticipate some of the reaction and deal with in before hand.

just the last part on its own and the first part would have had to have been an unnecessary follow up post.

got tonkaed wrote:im starting to become more skeptical of some of the stability reasons that are being posed as the reason to stay. While on the basic level they certainly make a lot of sense, i think ive argued (or perhaps been influenced by other people who argue -in the interest of full disclosure) that no matter how long we stay, there is likely to be a pretty rough period right afterward. While i think a lot of people buy into the idea that there is a correlative relationship between how long we stay there and the mitigation of this period, im becoming less so sure.

While it might be overly pessimistic, it seems that theres a lot of circular thinking in how stability is going to be achieved. While things are not quite there yet on the formal side of things, im not sold on the long term viability of the surge practice of essentially paying both sides (which is reasonable in the short term) in order to essentially get a bit of a cease fire.

I also think to its a bit of a dangerous illusion. I do think it is having an effect on promoting some stability in the short term, but i question whether or not in the long term propping up multiple sides of a conflict that is likely to already be well financed from a number of quarters, is really sound policy.

While this doesnt quite do the job for explaining how to get out and the like, it seems at the very least, when you start to run out of viable reasons for staying, its a better sign that its probably a good reason to be going.

I'd certainly accept the point that there is most likely going to be some form of 'rough period' upon eventual withdrawal, whenever it may be, but I think exterior factors (the elephant in the room being Iran) play a major role in the equation. You're probably right that 'propping up multiple sides' creating an illusionary benefit at the moment, but whatever goes on within Iraq a withdrawal now will create a very exploitable opening for Iranian aggression, whereas withdrawal 'down the line' somewhere can only give Iraq more of a chance to develop sufficient sucirty to cope with such an action indepenantly. I'm certainly not a warmongerer, I don't by any means think military action against Iran is the right course of action, but military action by Iran isn't either...