Senate Approves Iraq Withdrawl Bill

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joni Valdora/Kasis Hungo @ Apr 13 2007, 03:05 AM) [snapback]158805[/snapback]</div>

And you are willing to ignore the fact that he gassed thousands of his own people. That he shot all who disagreed with him. He ravaged the land. Stole money from his people. DO you know how many palaces he had? Hmm? Look that one up and tell me how nice your friend was on his people.

And are we going to forget that we actually found WMDs? Yes, bio and chemical weapons were found, and they kill people in mass numbers. I hope this does not surprise you. No, no nukes were found, but we did find other weapons with the capabilities to kill hundreds of thousands.

Cut our losses? Our losses??? What about the millions who will die once we leave? Are you so blindly American that you forget that you are human too?

WWI-

The standard of living in Germany was at an all time high. The Allies were about to lose and the massive loss of life was about to end. But what did America do? It invaded Germany anyways, despite the fact that they were killing people, furthering the length of the war, and "lowing their standard of living". The did this to "Make the world safe for democracy". Now tell me that this does not sound similar. Tell me that we were not justified to enter that engagement.

Hussien was a monster, anyway you look at him. His overthrowing was popular in Iraq. He killed massively minorities whom he did not agree with, like Hitler did in WWII (not the same as the above example) We as a nation swore we would never forget the autracities of the concentration camps. Have we forgotten so quickly?

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it was a horrendous mistake to a dictator on the grounds which we did. If that be the case, then the two world wars also were horrendous mistakes because we used very nearly the same reasoning entering the first and sustaining the second.

BTW: You did cite them and did a good job w/ ur references; I just overlooked it. My bad.
So, Saddam had a right to invade the counrty? Sounds like a pretty still punishment if you ask me. Couldnt they just ask them to stop or return the favor? If memory serves, Saddam did not invade Kuwait to get revenge or dicipline her. He did it to gain access to ports to ship Iraq's goods. Now, we can argue the morality of that one, cause Iraq was out for survival at that point.

Right, and what percentage of the population actually had access to running water and electricity?[/b]

Yup. We made a mistake during WWI, if we didn't invade, then Hitler would have never come to power, and we'd be in a much more peaceful world. Also, the Allies weren't about to lose. Both sides couldn't fight anymore. We just wanted in on the pie.

Now here's where I get upset.

I challenge you to find an instance where I said Saddam was a good man. I challenge you to find a single one. I hate Saddam. But I know how people think. They won't jump for joy because they get to vote. They'll be happy when we improve their quality of life. That's all people in those situations care for.

The facts are: Conditions were better under Saddam. People could eat.

And once more. The longer we stay, and the longer we do nothing, the more hatred they get for the West and for America. At this point there's nothing we can do to stop the slaughter. We can only minimize its extent. And again, the longer we're there, the more hatred and anger gets welled up. This leads to further death. Like I said, we missed our window of opportunity.

Also: No, We haven't even found Bio or Chemical weapons. Cite.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

It's not much, but here is a report from the House Intelligence Committee speaking of the WMDs that were found in Iraq -

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_W...eclassified.pdf

Here's an article about the above report -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

The only thing about the ones there is that they are a bit old, so we don't know if they would have worked or not. On the flip side, we don't know if they would have not worked or not.

Here's a short article about a New York Times author who wrote a book about this very subject. Numbers are provided -

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=...hidebodyad=true

Washington Post -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5081300530.html

I'll look for more later.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 13 2007, 03:08 PM) [snapback]158849[/snapback]</div>

It's not much, but here is a report from the House Intelligence Committee speaking of the WMDs that were found in Iraq -

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_W...eclassified.pdf

Here's an article about the above report -

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

The only thing about the ones there is that they are a bit old, so we don't know if they would have worked or not. On the flip side, we don't know if they would have not worked or not.

Here's a short article about a New York Times author who wrote a book about this very subject. Numbers are provided -

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=...hidebodyad=true

Washington Post -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5081300530.html

I'll look for more later.[/b]

The Washington Post one declares that the stores were established after the invasion. Therefore, not a problem concerning Saddam.


"Boylan said the suspected lab was new, dating from some time after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush administration cited evidence that Saddam Hussein's government was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for the invasion. No such weapons or factories were found."


Perhaps I should have clarified. No WMDs were found that were tied to Saddam Hussein.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I simply gave you what you asked for. ;)

And now that I've given my contribution to this debate, I shall return to the racism one.

 

[lakorish]

Arguing WWI is also for a different debate, which would prove interesting debating with someone of your persuasion. Here is a link to a site that I found: Iraq's Bio/Chem Weapons
Scroll down to the second roman numeral "II". It talks about it.

It looks like I'm going nowhere here, and honestly its a matter of personal beliefs. If a tyrant were dictating the US, killing innocent minorities whom he did not agree with, I would hope that a foreign ruler would have the balls to get his butt out of the cockpit of that country. I believe that we did a lot of good, not the least of which was overthrowing said dictator, and still have good to do, like training the Iraqi nationals to protect their own country. If they cannot, then we are handing Iraq to either Al-Quedia (sp) or the surrounding nations. That should be, and is our primary goal currently, along with trying to help keep control of the country until the nationals are ready to patrol on their own. And it will not be over night. It takes gradual assertions on the part of the Iraqi government.

Ask me to cite the last bit and I can't. My dad is a Colonel in the United States Army and is currently in Iraq serving with a reserve unit. This is what he tells me, so I tell it to you. I cannot locate him on the map or give any more information besides the fact that he is going to be extended along with the rest of the unit for another 3 weeks to 6 months as a direct result of the need for troops. I of all people should hate the prez and disagree with his policies. What do you have at stake in Iraq, not to discount your credentials? I have my dad's life.

In short, we are there as long as we have a job to do. Its the military's way. And we will stay there till the job is done. This is America's way. Whether or not we were there rightly in the first place is idle chatter right now. Possibly millions of lives are at stake and the US needs to do the right thing and train the Iraqi military so it can protect its people. We broke the military, now we need to fix it and the job is not done yet. If we pull out now, we will leave their military still largely untrained and therefore unfit to protect civilians, who should not be in the combat zone toe begin with.

If we pull out now, we condemn at the very least tens of thousands to death. Do you have an alternative? If so, plz share it.

The Generals at the pentagon can't find a better solution and I honestly hope to God that someone can think of something. I don't like my dad being in Iraq, I hate it actually. He's been there for 3 months already seen some pretty grizzly stuff. I want him home. But not at the cost of more lives than need be. If we choose a few of our boys over thousands of Arabs, we are no better than Hussein who chose his group over the Kurds. Its a moral decision though, and has not place in this debate.

There, I've said my piece and got emotional. Forgive my rant, there is more than just this particular debate behind it.

I believe that the Senate needs to back the troops and allow them to finish their mission. I do not believe that political leaders have the skills and knowledge to make military decisions. I believe that according to the Constitution the Prez has authority to declare war. I also believe that we need to stand united behind the leaders we voted for. If you don't agree with him, take it to the polls. Because the prez was voted for, so was the war because it was a direct order from out elected official. Again, if you don't like it, vote for Clintion, Obama, or Guilliani. They are all anti-war. Allow the troops to finish their mission though. If we allow a job to go half finished, and the nation stands divided against one another, what kind of image does that leave for democracy? Worse than fixing our "mistake" I'd wager. The Senate has no right to pass such a bill and I won't vote for a senator who supported it.

I'm really done this time. Have fun debating guys. (oh, by the way, has anyone actually asked the soldiers' opinions? They generally agree with the war, and they're the ones getting shot up in it. ;) )

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joni Valdora/Kasis Hungo @ Apr 14 2007, 03:32 AM) [snapback]159013[/snapback]</div>

Arguing WWI is also for a different debate, which would prove interesting debating with someone of your persuasion. Here is a link to a site that I found: Iraq's Bio/Chem Weapons
Scroll down to the second roman numeral "II". It talks about it.

It looks like I'm going nowhere here, and honestly its a matter of personal beliefs. If a tyrant were dictating the US, killing innocent minorities whom he did not agree with, I would hope that a foreign ruler would have the balls to get his butt out of the cockpit of that country. I believe that we did a lot of good, not the least of which was overthrowing said dictator, and still have good to do, like training the Iraqi nationals to protect their own country. If they cannot, then we are handing Iraq to either Al-Quedia (sp) or the surrounding nations. That should be, and is our primary goal currently, along with trying to help keep control of the country until the nationals are ready to patrol on their own. And it will not be over night. It takes gradual assertions on the part of the Iraqi government.

Ask me to cite the last bit and I can't. My dad is a Colonel in the United States Army and is currently in Iraq serving with a reserve unit. This is what he tells me, so I tell it to you. I cannot locate him on the map or give any more information besides the fact that he is going to be extended along with the rest of the unit for another 3 weeks to 6 months as a direct result of the need for troops. I of all people should hate the prez and disagree with his policies. What do you have at stake in Iraq, not to discount your credentials? I have my dad's life.

In short, we are there as long as we have a job to do. Its the military's way. And we will stay there till the job is done. This is America's way. Whether or not we were there rightly in the first place is idle chatter right now. Possibly millions of lives are at stake and the US needs to do the right thing and train the Iraqi military so it can protect its people. We broke the military, now we need to fix it and the job is not done yet. If we pull out now, we will leave their military still largely untrained and therefore unfit to protect civilians, who should not be in the combat zone toe begin with.

If we pull out now, we condemn at the very least tens of thousands to death. Do you have an alternative? If so, plz share it.

The Generals at the pentagon can't find a better solution and I honestly hope to God that someone can think of something. I don't like my dad being in Iraq, I hate it actually. He's been there for 3 months already seen some pretty grizzly stuff. I want him home. But not at the cost of more lives than need be. If we choose a few of our boys over thousands of Arabs, we are no better than Hussein who chose his group over the Kurds. Its a moral decision though, and has not place in this debate.

There, I've said my piece and got emotional. Forgive my rant, there is more than just this particular debate behind it.

I believe that the Senate needs to back the troops and allow them to finish their mission. I do not believe that political leaders have the skills and knowledge to make military decisions. I believe that according to the Constitution the Prez has authority to declare war. I also believe that we need to stand united behind the leaders we voted for. If you don't agree with him, take it to the polls. Because the prez was voted for, so was the war because it was a direct order from out elected official. Again, if you don't like it, vote for Clintion, Obama, or Guilliani. They are all anti-war. Allow the troops to finish their mission though. If we allow a job to go half finished, and the nation stands divided against one another, what kind of image does that leave for democracy? Worse than fixing our "mistake" I'd wager. The Senate has no right to pass such a bill and I won't vote for a senator who supported it.

I'm really done this time. Have fun debating guys. (oh, by the way, has anyone actually asked the soldiers' opinions? They generally agree with the war, and they're the ones getting shot up in it. ;) )[/b]

Again. Like I said. We have no good options. We're in a bad place. And the longer we stay, the more people get killed. The only good choice we had was fifteen years ago. The rest of this argument? Meaningless.

We deposed a dictator who is going to be replaced by a Muslim Fundamentalist faction. No matter how well trained our troops are, that will not do anything. We are not fighting a Main Battle War. We're fighting an Asymmetrical war. This can only be done by improving the people's lives, which we have not.

Also, I don't like the attitudes of "Support the Troops". This has been hijacked and turned into "Support the Republicans". Mind you, that you're also operating from a privileged standpoint.

 

[Cailst]

The longer we stay the more time the Iraqi troops will have to train and slowly take over the jobs of our soldiers.

Also, the Iraqi people will eventually be able to get the government to either build infrastructure for them or they will build it themselves. They will have a lot more control of their government than they did over the last one and he still did it for them so eventually, they will probably get it.

I doubt a fundamentalist will arise in Iraq since the Sunnis and Shiites fight enough as it is for any of them to get together and elect one fundamentalist. Also, even the Sunnis have denounced the terrorists who are blowing them up as it is still worse than not having a lot of food, water, and electricity.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Noncommunist @ Apr 14 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]159034[/snapback]</div>

The longer we stay the more time the Iraqi troops will have to train and slowly take over the jobs of our soldiers.

Also, the Iraqi people will eventually be able to get the government to either build infrastructure for them or they will build it themselves. They will have a lot more control of their government than they did over the last one and he still did it for them so eventually, they will probably get it.

I doubt a fundamentalist will arise in Iraq since the Sunnis and Shiites fight enough as it is for any of them to get together and elect one fundamentalist. Also, even the Sunnis have denounced the terrorists who are blowing them up as it is still worse than not having a lot of food, water, and electricity.[/b]

Again, it has nothing to do with the skill of the soldiers.

Look at the conditions today, our presence hampers the growth of the infrastructure due to our war profiteering. The American Corporations do not want the Iraqis to become self-sustaining because this is a giant gold mine for them, and as such they'll do everything in their power to lengthen the conflict. Look at how we react to South America, we want them as weak as possible so our country can continue to have access to cheap labor.

In response to your last statement, it has nothing to do with elections. You're assuming the country won't split up into different nations(IE: Kurds in the North, Sunnis in the west, Shiites in the east(Forgive me, I'm not certain of the exact locations of the latter two).), each one headed by an ideological hard liner from each sector.

 

[Cailst]

They will still be able to protect the people to a degree.

While these Corperations may find that a longer war may benefit them, the Government doesn't and will try to end it anyway. Plus,

Also, the country is unlikely to outright split into the sections and will probably stay united. And all of them want to have infrastructure so eventually, some Iraqi politician will intervene on the behalf of the people and get it built considering that the corperations will have even less of an effect on the Iraqi government than they do on the U.S.

 

[lakorish]

Eh, i dunno about that. The country really is divided, and deeply so. It would actaully make sense to split the country up, but that might also lead to war between the three for oil.

Remember what Noncommi said though, the government is not making money off the war, its losing it. Its not getting money off it, its losing it. Not even the corperations' bribes, and we all know they have tried, can make a dent in the "billion dollars a day" it takes to feed, clothe, arm, etc our troops over there. The government is trying to get out, but is not going to do so without supporting Iraq's government with everything it can.

And how can you say that military training doesnt matter? If you live in the most volitile locale in the entire world a good military is what keeps you alive. That is the main reason why the arab countries have been unable to kick the jews out of the mid-east since WWII. They built a military fast and fought off their neigbors.

Ya, i know im priviged but I had to let that bit out. Sry about that.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 14 2007, 10:04 AM) [snapback]159025[/snapback]</div>

Also, I don't like the attitudes of "Support the Troops". This has been hijacked and turned into "Support the Republicans".[/b]

No it hasn't. That's simply the way you're percieving it. Every politician says "support our troops" in the context of "even if you don't support the war, support the troops because they're simply doing the job they were ordered to do".

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 17 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]159979[/snapback]</div>

No it hasn't. That's simply the way you're percieving it. Every politician says "support our troops" in the context of "even if you don't support the war, support the troops because they're simply doing the job they were ordered to do".[/b]

Yea, is that why nearly every time I speak out against the war around a bunch of republicans they chant "SUPPORT THE TROOPS. THEY'RE JUST DOING THEIR JOB" Followed by "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR. YOU AREN'T SUPPORTING THE TROOPS".

 

[Raze]

Withdraw from Iraq, good all around idea, saddam is down, its best if we let them have their little civil war. Though I think supplying the Iraqi goverment with supplies and training is not really a bad idea, after all we don't want to de-throne saddam just to have another tyrant arise, eh?

Now as for the more current branch-off topic of this forum, soldiers are willing to die for their country, so in a sense they are bowing to the every whim of the country, if the country says a course of action is right, they feel the same, or should feel the same, after all they did join the service.

In a sense, if you don't support the war, you don't support our troops, and our goverment, and if anything you should seek to change the goverment instead of nagging people about "teh wer is eevel n neds to diez0rs"

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kalin Morne @ Apr 18 2007, 11:39 AM) [snapback]160071[/snapback]</div>

Yea, is that why nearly every time I speak out against the war around a bunch of republicans they chant "SUPPORT THE TROOPS. THEY'RE JUST DOING THEIR JOB" Followed by "IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE WAR. YOU AREN'T SUPPORTING THE TROOPS".[/b]

Then they're just retarded. I'm a Republican. Am I telling you that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops?

Also, don't say "around a bunch of Republicans". The people who you are referring to are Conservatives and, regardless of what they'd like to believe, they don't own this party. It's my party too and I'm no Conservative.

 

[Kalin Morne]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Granden @ Apr 18 2007, 12:58 PM) [snapback]160072[/snapback]</div>

Withdraw from Iraq, good all around idea, saddam is down, its best if we let them have their little civil war. Though I think supplying the Iraqi goverment with supplies and training is not really a bad idea, after all we don't want to de-throne saddam just to have another tyrant arise, eh?

Now as for the more current branch-off topic of this forum, soldiers are willing to die for their country, so in a sense they are bowing to the every whim of the country, if the country says a course of action is right, they feel the same, or should feel the same, after all they did join the service.

In a sense, if you don't support the war, you don't support our troops, and our goverment, and if anything you should seek to change the goverment instead of nagging people about "teh wer is eevel n neds to diez0rs"[/b]

It's impossible to change the government at this stage, it's been too highly compromised by Special Interests.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Consort @ Apr 18 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]160077[/snapback]</div>

Then they're just retarded. I'm a Republican. Am I telling you that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops?

Also, don't say "around a bunch of Republicans". The people who you are referring to are Conservatives and, regardless of what they'd like to believe, they don't own this party. It's my party too and I'm no Conservative.[/b]

Unfortunately, your party also lets anyone in who wants to be a Republican. Libertarians...Conservatives....Neo-Conservatives....Neo-Liberals...etc, etc. Goldwater, my man.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Democrats will let anyone in too. Neither party "restricts access", because there is no real access to restrict. All you have to do is fill out the party name on your voter registration and you're part of that party.

 

[Ser Yorick]

Ohhh, got ya there partna'. But wait, they should implement the "party detector" voting sheets. As well as "dumbass detectors" to stop people from voting for Bush. Thank god he can't run again this time.

America is fucked in this Iraq war no matter what happens now. If they pull out (please, no sexual reference here) then they've left a big mess behind, just like in Afghan, cept it'd be worse. A LOT worse, us and the British can't come help out.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adroit @ Apr 19 2007, 07:26 PM) [snapback]160386[/snapback]</div>

America is fucked in this Iraq war no matter what happens now. If they pull out (please, no sexual reference here)[/b]

Dude, the Watergate informant was named "Deep Throat". All you have to do is say "America" and you've made a sexual reference.

 

[Ser Yorick]

Yeah... America... America. America.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(adroit @ Apr 19 2007, 07:29 PM) [snapback]160390[/snapback]</div>

Yeah... America... America. America.[/b]

See, all I saw there was Sex... Sex. Sex.