Iraq is getting worse...

Deadshot · #21 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdnor

Have you ever heard the quote "give me liberty or give me death" ? These are words I live by . The thing that frightens me is , you have stated that you are going to be a police officer . If you do not believe in the basic right of a man to live free , what are you going to do to your suspects ? What in the hell are they teaching you guys in school these days ? It sure as hell is not history . If the US was looking at becoming a dictatorship , you had better believe I would fight to the death before I would shut the fuck up !

Let's take these in order...

The quote, from Patrick Henry in 1775, was from a person rebelling. When a group of Iraqis do this, a large group with freedom as their base, then let's back'em. But when this quote was uttered, the USA had not even entered a war with the British.
I AM and have been a cop for quite a while now. I'm doing just fine.
As to the rights of men to live free...why aren't we in Darfur? How 'bout let's head to one of a numerous amount of countries where freedom is not allowed?
I never talked about a U.S. dictatorship.
Why don't you go fight for others freedoms? Not in Iraq, they've got some help. How 'bout heading to China or Somalia or Chile or North Korea...

You see the problem right? Because if we're talking about just "freedom" here then I think some well armed Boy Scouts could provide a stop to the Genocide and give some freedom to those in Darfur. If it's all about "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" then let's start nuking North Korea and stop appeasing them...but for most of us, here in the real world, comprimise with dictatorships is part of life...don't believe me - please reference the picture below, with Rumsfeld shaking the hand of the brutal dictator (yeah even way back then we knew he was a brutal dictator) Saddam Hussein.

Eternal Footman · #22 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

- please reference the picture below, with Rumsfeld shaking the hand of the brutal dictator (yeah even way back then we knew he was a brutal dictator) Saddam Hussein.

This gets me every time. So quick to point out the US placed Saddam in power, only to turn around and tell everybody we were wrong for removing him and adding that a Saddam-type person is the only way to stabilze the region. Which one is it?

noneof yourbusiness · #23 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

This gets me every time. So quick to point out the US placed Saddam in power, only to turn around and tell everybody we were wrong for removing him and adding that a Saddam-type person is the only way to stabilze the region. Which one is it?

The war between Irag and Iran saw american supporting a well known psycho dictator against another becuase teh aytollah was in Iran thanks to American suport of a third dictator the Shaw. So the Americans were hypocrites that claimed they needed to suport hussien to fix a problem they created in suporting The Shaw. Now when in there National Intrestes AKA goverment and private elite;s finical interest they fight Hussien next under the disguise of Human Rights wich beased on support of people like Noriega, Pinochet, Hussien and others nobbody in the world wil ever belive you care anything about.

So the hypocracy here is the suport for goverment actions over the plast 3 or 4 decades that has to the point we are in now. Crticising those actions is hardly hypocrtical even though they can spun to seem so based on crticising both supprt for Hussien and attempts to remve him.

Furthmore Hussien was portrayed inaccurately lately to help justify the actions. The hypocracy there is he was portrayed as the exact opposite in order to jusitify supporting him against Iran.

Why the hell you dont understand why the world laughs at your claims is beyond me. I guess older nations have a better historical memory then you. We all remember this bullshit from decade to decade while you do not.

Deadshot · #24 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

This gets me every time. So quick to point out the US placed Saddam in power, only to turn around and tell everybody we were wrong for removing him and adding that a Saddam-type person is the only way to stabilze the region. Which one is it?

I feel the same way, EF, which one is it? Is Saddam the ruler of a soveriegn country who does as we say (See picture above)?
Or is he a terrorist madman and as such, he and all terrorist madmen should be stopped? If true look out Iran, Syria, China, North Korea, Somalia, Congo, etc.

You want my real answer?

We should have NEVER put Saddam in power.
We should have never backed Saddam's Iraq v. Iran, his evil was as bad as theirs.
We would have saved the lifes of 3177 Americans had we not invaded.
When the Iraqi's had had enough there might have been a Revolution, but we never should have been involved.
As to putting a Saddam like figure back in power, that is not possible or pratical. What it is, is people wishing they could turn back the clock and leave things as the status quo.

George O Well · #25 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

I'm saying the problems that people faced before was different from what they are facing now. And yes, our invasion has brought that evolution about, but we are not the ones targeting civilians with suicide bombers.

I think at this point, George, we should stop argueing about why or how we invaded and focus on exit strategies. Immediate pull-out is not the answer.

>>>I'm willing to focus on exit strategies. Sooner or later, though, I would like an accounting of our entrance strategy. I can wait.

Deadshot · #26 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>I'm willing to focus on exit strategies. Sooner or later, though, I would like an accounting of our entrance strategy. I can wait.

History will provide an accounting, right now, I can also wait. Let's get out by '08-'09, which most can agree upon, and worry about everything else later.

George O Well · #27 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

History will provide an accounting, right now, I can also wait. Let's get out by '08-'09, which most can agree upon, and worry about everything else later.

>>>I'm a little more impatient than '08-'09. Maybe if there was ANY indication that we are improving the situation for those poor dumb bastards.

Eternal Footman · #28 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deadshot

You want my real answer?

We should have NEVER put Saddam in power.
We should have never backed Saddam's Iraq v. Iran, his evil was as bad as theirs.
We would have saved the lifes of 3177 Americans had we not invaded.
When the Iraqi's had had enough there might have been a Revolution, but we never should have been involved.
As to putting a Saddam like figure back in power, that is not possible or pratical. What it is, is people wishing they could turn back the clock and leave things as the status quo.

It appears as though most of your answers are historical analysis in retrospect(ie. if only we would have...). How do we equip the Iraqis to establish a nation that does not breed terrorism. That is the question, as opposed to should we pull out in '08 or '09. You can draw straws and pick a date, but it just does not make sense to me.

Deadshot · #29 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eternal Footman

It appears as though most of your answers are historical analysis in retrospect(ie. if only we would have...). How do we equip the Iraqis to establish a nation that does not breed terrorism. That is the question, as opposed to should we pull out in '08 or '09. You can draw straws and pick a date, but it just does not make sense to me.

Let me give you an analogy, and maybe you'll understand why history plays a role in a decision.

You decide that we HAVE to go on a trip, I'm totally against it - but if you go, I must follow (it's my analogy so let me set it up.

) I tell you "EF, don't go down this path, it's dangerous and full of quicksand." You tell me you know best and not only is this the right path, that you've got it all planned out and will take care of me. Again, I don't want to come, but I follow because I must. Half way there we begin to sink in quicksand, you state everything's fine and up ahead it'll get better. I cannot change your course or mind, but must follow. Later we are knee deep and I, being the wit that I am, point that out and you get angry for my "defeatist attitude." You say we must press on, you know best and my opinion is weak and does not count. You continue forward, I must follow. Now the sand is up to our necks, we can't really move back and we can't really move forward, again I point out your folly, and you get pissed.

I don't know how to get out of Iraq properly, YOUR side said that they'd take care of it. Now your side is upset, maybe not you in particular EF but many Republicans and especially the Bush Admin., because I don't have a plan to get us out of a situation I NEVER wanted to be in, in the first place.

I don't know the best way out, I only know - without a doubt or question - we never should have done this in the first place and many DEM's have been saying that for years.

How do we get out, I don't know. I just know I want out and the sooner the better, ergo my mention of the '08-'09 dates.

noneof yourbusiness · #30 (**permalink**) 03-06-2007, 02:35 PM

There is no need for yeas of this. Exist strategy is simple. LEave and leave now. Its polticvaly motivated BS stating the how compex it is to leave. American precence does nothing to assist or reduce violance and it never will. The Iraqis will fight each other and thats horrid but theres nothing Americans can do over there but die. Get out now. Its vvery easy.