0
   

Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

 
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:56 pm
Maybe I am too simple-minded, I don't know. I think nearly all Iraqis are happy to be free of Saddam and his thugs. I'm sure most would tell you they are glad the US came in and took him out. But I am also sure most would say that they would like the US out of their country. I know if the shoe were on the other foot that is what I would want.

The problem is that I think most Iraqis do not understand the inherent danger of the US just up and leaving. I think most of us on A2K would agree that it would probably create more problems than it would solve. And that is the dilemma now facing us. How to pull out without making things worse.

So, yeah, I am quite sure most Iraqis want us gone. And I don't blame them. It just isn't as simple as packing up and moving out.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:58 pm
Oh, and Karzak, I think who trained them has very little to do with how they feel about US forces being in their country at this point.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 01:58 pm
The way to get out without creating a power vacuum is to announce a reasonable date of departure, and stick to it.

The problem is, we are never leaving Iraq. Ever. Because there are 14 permanent military bases there now that belong to the U.S. And we aren't about to get up and abandon those.

So, in effect, there IS no moving out of Iraq, and you have to think that there are Iraqis who realize this fact as well....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:00 pm
Setting a date and sticking to it is a tremendously bad idea. All that does is let the terrorists and evil-doers know when they can come in and create chaos and take over.

We should merely stay there until we are no longer needed. No longer, no shorter.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:02 pm
Who gets to decide whether or not we are still needed, us or the Iraqis?

But we aren't ever leaving, really. So the whole argument is moot. See the second part of my post.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:04 pm
We got rid of Saddam. Most Iraqis seem to feel that we are now no longer needed.

So, let's pull the troops out.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:07 pm
I hope they win a medal. I mean, we're not there, so why shouldn't I root for a team from a country we occupy?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:18 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
The central point is that Saddam Hussein's history indicated that he was not someone who ought to be allowed to develop and stockpile WMD. Yes, I know you could say that about a lot of people, or maybe even everyone, but realistically, the world would have been at great risk had someone like Hussein been allowed to amass a more and more deadly stockpile of WMD. It would have been foolhardy in the extreme to allow him to continue developing and stockpiling WMD.

A few points... we were not allowing him to continue to develop and stockpile WMD (what a catch all term). He was contained. In addition, he was a secular dictator that oppressed his religious majority. We were attacked by Islamic fundamentalists. Iran is under the control of Islamic fundamentalists. Invading Iraq was a gamble with huge downsides. Poppy Bush knew this.
Quote:
In his memoir, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Norman Schwarzkoph knew it.
Quote:
In a 1996 Frontline Special on The Gulf War General Norman Schwarzkoph spoke these prophetic words.

Gen. NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF: On the question of going to Baghdad_ if you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle in world public opinion. Eventually, we lost the battle at home.

In the Gulf war, we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations resolutions, every one of which said, "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait." Did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and- and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two- had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone. The coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

And, oh, by the way, I think we'd still be there. We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit. We could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying 100 percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.

I suspect Colin Powell also knew it, but was overruled.

Each day we are still killing large numbers of Iraqis, and many innocents are caught in the crossfire. For each one killed or injured many of their friends of relatives become our instant enemy. How can you think that the Iraqi soccer team does not reflect the opinion of the average Iraqi? They suffered the worst type of abuse under Odai.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:19 pm
It's up to the Iraqi government when we are no longer needed. Once the permanent government is in place and their army is fully trained and staffed and the police forces have things under control, you will see an American exodus. Until those things happen though, the Iraqi government will not be kicking the Americans out because they know that would be the ned of their government and would spell doom for the country.
0 Replies
 
Bazooey
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:23 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Setting a date and sticking to it is a tremendously bad idea. All that does is let the terrorists and evil-doers know when they can come in and create chaos and take over.


Sorry... did you just use the term "evil-doers" with a straight face?

Wow... so... what's it like, living in an Underdog cartoon? Smile

McGentrix wrote:
We should merely stay there until we are no longer needed. No longer, no shorter.


Can you travel back in time to March last year? That would do the trick.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:25 pm
mesquite wrote:
A few points... we were not allowing him to continue to develop and stockpile WMD (what a catch all term). He was contained.

How do you contain someone who at any time can smuggle a couple of WMD into your country and use them to kill a mammoth number of people then deny involvement? What would have stopped him from doing this? Do you assert that he couldn't have come up with a sufficiently clever way to get the components through our borders?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:25 pm
Quote:
Once the permanent government is in place and their army is fully trained and staffed and the police forces have things under control, you will see an American exodus.


Yeah, I don't think those things WILL happen while we remain. Therefore; we are caught in a situation where there IS no exit strategy.

Not good thinking on the Admin's part.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:38 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
mesquite wrote:
A few points... we were not allowing him to continue to develop and stockpile WMD (what a catch all term). He was contained.

How do you contain someone who at any time can smuggle a couple of WMD into your country and use them to kill a mammoth number of people then deny involvement? What would have stopped him from doing this? Do you assert that he couldn't have come up with a sufficiently clever way to get the components through our borders?
Why fixate on Saddam? If you think creating more enemies alleviates the problem, you are mistaken. And by WMD you exact fear is what?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:41 pm
Karzak wrote:
No one ever claimed that every iraqi supported being freed, there are still plenty of saddam supporters in iraq who hate that people were liberated from their yoke of terror.

If you thought about it for a moment, who trained these athletes?

Eh, saddam stooges who tortured them when they lost. i'm quite sure they're happy saddam is no longer there.
That however does not mean that they're happy the americans are still there, or think that the americans are doing right, currently, or even are all too happy that their liberation from saddam had to come through the invasion of people they didnt want around, in the first place.

I know its hard for those who are ideologically inclined to seeing only black and white and our side and their side, as if everything's always monolithically divided up in two parts, but its really quite simple:

Not everyone who is against saddam is for bush/the US/american troops in their country. Not everyone who is against bush/the US/american troops in their country is for saddam.

The poll results i posted earlier in response to questions on this thread (and that seem to have been conveniently overlooked since) show exactly that: little support or nostalgia for Saddam, yet no love lost for the US troops or the CPA or even the invasion itself.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:44 pm
Nimh, what does the alternative look like? What happens should the US pack up and leave?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:44 pm
I didn't overlook your poll, Nimh. :wink:

It's like people don't understand how the Iraqis could hate Saddam AND the U.S.....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:46 pm
mesquite wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
mesquite wrote:
A few points... we were not allowing him to continue to develop and stockpile WMD (what a catch all term). He was contained.

How do you contain someone who at any time can smuggle a couple of WMD into your country and use them to kill a mammoth number of people then deny involvement? What would have stopped him from doing this? Do you assert that he couldn't have come up with a sufficiently clever way to get the components through our borders?
Why fixate on Saddam? If you think creating more enemies alleviates the problem, you are mistaken. And by WMD you exact fear is what?

Scenario: We attempt to contain Hussein's WMD programs. He sends agents to smuggle a disease, perhaps augmented by biologists, into the US and initiate it at a dozen points throughout the country. The epidemic is out of control. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are dead with no end in sight as it continues to spread. Hussein has succeeded in weakening his oppressors (us) greatly and giving us something else to worry about.

Alternative scenario: We continue to attempt to contain Hussein, but he finally manages to obtain a few working nukes. He has the components smuggled into the US and simultaneously destroys New York and Washington, DC.

In both cases, he denies responsibility and offers us sincere assistance with our tragic loss of life.

Hence, the term containment has no meaning in the modern world.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 02:51 pm
Scenario: Saddam smuggled all his weapons out of Iraq before we got there, including some chemical and biological agents.

Now we don't know WHO has them. And this is a prefferable scenario to KNOWING who has the weapons? How?

Cycloptichorn

p.s. It sounds as if you believe sanctions and blockades can never work again; after all, we can never fully contain a country with 100% accuracy. Do you propose with getting rid of sanctions altogether?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 03:01 pm
Scenario: Knock out the army and leave nuclear waste sites and hundreds of conventional munitions storage areas unguarded as looters paradise.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Aug, 2004 03:16 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Scenario: Saddam smuggled all his weapons out of Iraq before we got there, including some chemical and biological agents.

Now we don't know WHO has them. And this is a prefferable scenario to KNOWING who has the weapons? How?

Cycloptichorn

p.s. It sounds as if you believe sanctions and blockades can never work again; after all, we can never fully contain a country with 100% accuracy. Do you propose with getting rid of sanctions altogether?

I want to note first of all, that neither of you has disputed my claim that containment is now impossible.

As you state correctly, previously we thought that possibly Hussein was still amassing WMD and developing more, and now we really don't know what became of them. You ask me if this is preferable. My response is this. We simply could not allow someone on a par with Hitler to stockpile an arsenal of superweapons and then use them to dominate the region and kill who knows how many people, perpaps some in America. Someone of his sort simply could not be allowed to continue doing this. We had attempted negotiations for a dozen years and he had mostly demonstrated duplicity and an unwillingness to give them up. He might eventually have progressed to the point where he could simply have announced, "Yes, I have the weapons, and I will use them against anyone who gets in my way. I will now invade Kuwait again, and if you try to stop me, I will destroy Kuwait." We had to end the situation. You are correct, though, in that the proliferation of WMD is a very complex problem with no very good solutions readily available.

You ask: "It sounds as if you believe sanctions and blockades can never work again; after all, we can never fully contain a country with 100% accuracy. Do you propose with getting rid of sanctions altogether?"

I am pointing out that containment cannot work anymore against someone with a possible capacity to build WMD. This is the truth. We can never again contain a country with real assurance that it cannot send agents to kill a million of our citizens. I am not making a specific proposal, I am merely pointing out that this is the new reality.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 06:10:19