Page 32 of 39 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 385

Thread: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

  1. #311
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,964
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I think that's how your enemies will look at it. A recently introduced and suspect democracy was able to kick the Americans out of Iraq. We can see why Iran and its allies are cheering.
    Iran helped talk the Bush Admin into invading Iraq. So, that angle is kind of moot, imho.
    Aras Karim Habib
    I may be wrong.

  2. #312
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Zona View Post
    Oh and how did that search for WMD's turn out again?
    Well, it was first wmds, the wmd programs, then wmd program related material (talk about convoluted0 then spreading freedom.


    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #313
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    What's to prevent another nation, or NGO, from attacking the United States or its people? How would being isolationist resolve problems of self defense?

    Just because the USA does not declare war on others does not mean others will not declare war on them. In fact even openly declaring war is a relic from the past. Why bother?
    I didn't call for isolationism. I called for non-interventionism.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #314
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Everywhere and Nowhere
    Last Seen
    03-07-12 @ 03:28 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,692

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    I really doubt that this was just about contracts with Iraq. America stays wherever it wants to.

    I find the timing interesting... that 40,000 troops are being brought home after years and years of debate and stalling, just around the time that popular protest is growing rapidly in the U.S.

    Something insidious is about to happen.

  5. #315
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No, it was a whole lot imperialistic. And it is always time to be concerned about that. I wish we were more concerned about before we set out to be imperialisitic. We have no buisness invading countries with out a clear threat to us.
    In fact there is such a thing as 'good' imperialism, which should be recognized. Britain, it should be noted was, overall, quite a good imperial power. We can see by the legacy they left behind in Canada, Australia, the United States, etc. that these countries are the powerhouses of their areas. Had the Brits behaved in the same 'imperialist' fashion in the Middle East, rather than allowing despots to take over and rule, we probably wouldn't be having this problem now.
    Legitmate? Iraq doesn't want us there. That seems pretty legit to me. You should also worry less about the left, whoever they are, and more about legitmate reasons. Iraq doesn't want us there, bye. We have no legitimate reason to be there, bye.
    Yes, there is a legitimate reason to be there now and that is or national security. If you think that other despots aren't going too take over this area then you're as foolish as Jimmy Carter was regarding Iran. Recall that there are still many religious freaks who commonly refer to the US as "The Great Satan".

    Again, imperialistic and a bit arrogant to think any leader is ours to use as we want. And doing so has caused us more than a few points. Without out our support of the Shah of Iran, Iran would look at us a bot differently today.
    To use as we want? Where did I say that? Had we supported the Shah and his policies Iran would be a lot better off today than with the crazed religious fanatics in charge now, pursuing nuclear weapons.

    Hardly. there really isn't any difference, or least not one worth mentioning. The fact is we can't claim we have a better way when we don't behave any better.
    This moral equivalence stuff is rubbish and should be abandoned forthwith. Americans are not hanging Gays from lampposts, subjugating women, have death squads murdering dissidents, rape rooms, and so on. In fact the fathers and grandfathers of present day Americans fought against such injustices and never identified with them in any way.
    Some fear the world too much, and thus are willing to sell out those core values that used to be so popular to spew off about in order to pretend to be safe. I would rather we actually had some core values and tried to live by them.
    America's 'core values' in the broader sense have pretty much disappeared if its become th fashion to idenitfy themselves with despots and not defend the greater good.

    You miss the point. It is for them to decide, not us.
    No, it's for when the security forces decide. If the United States is that easily pushed around then their adventurism anywhere in the world is going to do more than than good. Anyone can then tell them to piss off and they'll just do as they're told. It's back to square one in Iraq quite soon and probably greater dangers ahead in Libya.

    Not quite, he did not invade and occupy. taht was Bush's greatest error. Obama did more than he shoudl ahve, but stopped short of doing what bush did. Some have a bad tendency to see unlike things as the exact same. They are not.
    He participated in the murder, without even seeking Congressional approval, of a another world leader, and recognized as such by the United Nations. Who gave barrack Obama the authority to do that?

    George Bush gave Saddam Hussein plenty of opportunity to step down and leave, while Gadaffi was not afforded the same offer at all. It was murder, and with no real reason ever given.
    Which has nothing to do with the cmment you responded to. I don't mind going in another direct, but when you link as a response to a comment, I think it should actually address that comment.
    It was very direct. You may not have read it.

  6. #316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    This is a weak argument. What you're really saying is America should stay in a protracted war where there's no clear way to get out other than killing our enemy. It's been SEVEN YEARS, man! Haven't they - the insurgants - proven by now that we can't kill them all?
    What I'm really saying is what should be quoted, not what you are really saying. If you cannot use what I'm actually saying without putting your spin on it then please don't respond. There is no "protracted war" at the moment. There is near stability but it is not yet stable. The "insurgents" as you call them, have now sent the Americans home in defeat.
    And as much as you'd like to think that President Obama's decision to leave Iraq is just "an exit," I say it's better to bring our troops home than to place them in "an indefinite no-win scenario" where the body count will only go higher and higher and there's really nothing for us to gain other than our pride.
    It is just an "exit". There is no strategy at all. What do you think his strategy is?

    Again, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" was declared SEVEN YEARS AGO! We got Saddam. A new Iraqi government is now in place. We've spread democracy in Iraq as far as we're gonna get it. This new Iraqi government has exercised it's soverign might and has asked us to leave because we refuse to place our servicemen under their legal system. They have determined that our protective services are no longer desired or required. We've offered to stay longer, but were rebuffed. How can you defend us staying there under these circumstances?
    To protect the US and Coalition investment, just as America and its Allies have done in the past and, in fact, are still doing. To walk away now on a pretext is selling out all the sacrifices Americans have made over the past eight years. It was all for nothing, and America's reputation has been irreparably damaged.

    You're concerned what we should do if Iraq falls under the influence of another radical regime. i've got an answer: NOTHING! The Iraqi government has made their decision. Unless the threat of violence and terrorism spreads across the oceans and once again lands upon our soil, I say it's their problem to deal with, not ours. It's beyond time to bring our troops home.
    It will be your problem, and in fact everyone's problem, very soon. The major oil producing countries in the world will have control while the US is still absorbed in wasting billions on solar power, cannot drill for oil, and cannot even get permission to build a pipeline. The US needs power and it is running out, both in a political sense and as a fact of life.


    If we're to worry about how every unfriendly nation thinks of us, we may as well invade every country on the planet! This is just a childish, backwards way of thinking...playground mentality. Besides, Iran can't do anything to us. Their most advanced nuclear technology is over 50 behind ours. They have no Navy to speak off, no formidable Air Force and no long-range inter-continnental ballistic missle capability.
    What Iran and it's Jihadists Allies have is will and determination, both areas in which the US is seriously lacking. You might all sorts of nuclear weapons but everyone knows that they'll never be used and America's chief concern now is that no one gets hurt. They don't share that weak-kneed philosophy.

    To put this perceived threat in perspective: If the best Iran could do is sneak a point man into our country to hire a hitman to assassinate a foreign dignitary, I say we have nothing to worry about from this country.
    We'll see. Perhaps groping each other at airports might do the trick but I'm skeptical.

  7. #317
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I didn't call for isolationism. I called for non-interventionism.
    With the hope that the US and its Allies will somehow remain apart from the fray? Does that seem like a realistic alternative?

  8. #318
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    In fact there is such a thing as 'good' imperialism, which should be recognized. Britain, it should be noted was, overall, quite a good imperial power. We can see by the legacy they left behind in Canada, Australia, the United States, etc. that these countries are the powerhouses of their areas. Had the Brits behaved in the same 'imperialist' fashion in the Middle East, rather than allowing despots to take over and rule, we probably wouldn't be having this problem now.
    I'm sure every impaire sees themselves as good. Britian is a good example of an empire that despite good intentions, not only hurt other countries, but themselves quite a bit. And Britian contributed to the problems in the ME with their imperialism. they weren't alone by any means, but it is arrogance to believe you can decide for others what is right, what is better, and what they ahve to do.

    Yes, there is a legitimate reason to be there now and that is or national security. If you think that other despots aren't going too take over this area then you're as foolish as Jimmy Carter was regarding Iran. Recall that there are still many religious freaks who commonly refer to the US as "The Great Satan".
    There was never a national interest that justified invading. And there isn't one for staying. Those depots, whoever you're speaking of, cannot defeat us, cannot do anything differently to us rather we stay or go. 19 individuals can come toegether regardless of what happens in Iraq. And what caused Iran, what followed was not Carter's fault, but every president before him who allowed evil like the Shah to be a partner of ours. You might recall how easily Reagan appeased terroists, while you're misremembering.

    To use as we want? Where did I say that? Had we supported the Shah and his policies Iran would be a lot better off today than with the crazed religious fanatics in charge now, pursuing nuclear weapons.
    Read what you wrote. Supporting the Shah is what led to where we are. You have it backwards.


    This moral equivalence stuff is rubbish and should be abandoned forthwith. Americans are not hanging Gays from lampposts, subjugating women, have death squads murdering dissidents, rape rooms, and so on. In fact the fathers and grandfathers of present day Americans fought against such injustices and never identified with them in any way.
    I'm not sure you know what the term moral equivilence means. You don't have to be exactly equal to still be wrong. And if you're the person living under the tyrannt we support, you'd be hard pressed to see our way as better. You don't seem to understand how hate is bred.

    Nor have I said Americans are for such things, only that we've turned a blind eye when it suited us to do so. Saddam was brutal, and we turned a blind eye while he was doing it (waited until long after with much suffering before we added injury to injury). We saw no evil while the Shah was brutalizing his people, and were cshocked those people revolted and saw us as the enemy. Not to mention we've used their resources as if they were ours.

    America's 'core values' in the broader sense have pretty much disappeared if its become th fashion to idenitfy themselves with despots and not defend the greater good.
    But isn't that what you support? You say we should have supported the Shah and Saddam when we did? I'm the one arguing we should ahve some core values, not you.

    No, it's for when the security forces decide. If the United States is that easily pushed around then their adventurism anywhere in the world is going to do more than than good. Anyone can then tell them to piss off and they'll just do as they're told. It's back to square one in Iraq quite soon and probably greater dangers ahead in Libya.
    None of those countries are ours. You do realize this don't you? Would you like me coming into your home tellign you want to do? And saying I'll only leave when I think you're ready? After all, the only critieria was because I could. Can you really not see that we don't own these countries?

    He participated in the murder, without even seeking Congressional approval, of a another world leader, and recognized as such by the United Nations. Who gave barrack Obama the authority to do that?

    George Bush gave Saddam Hussein plenty of opportunity to step down and leave, while Gadaffi was not afforded the same offer at all. It was murder, and with no real reason ever given.
    Murder? Wow you do make leaps. He worked within the UN, with agreements already signed and in place. This legal framework has been discussed several times. I still disagree with hi9m doing so, but congress saying we're too weak to decide, so we'll you decide as they did with Bush is really no better. Had congress actually declared war, you'd have a point, although we'd still be left without a justifiable reason for war. But they didn't.

    And who are we to give anyone notice to step down? Iraq does not belong to us. We do not rule the world.


    It was very direct. You may not have read it.
    Saying something direct that in no way responds to what is said is not very fruitful. Try again.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #319
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,434

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    I really doubt that this was just about contracts with Iraq. America stays wherever it wants to.

    I find the timing interesting... that 40,000 troops are being brought home after years and years of debate and stalling, just around the time that popular protest is growing rapidly in the U.S.

    Something insidious is about to happen.
    I find the timing curious, also... though I am glad it is finally happening.

  10. #320
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    With the hope that the US and its Allies will somehow remain apart from the fray? Does that seem like a realistic alternative?
    Yes. Friends with all, entangling alliances with none. Jefferson had said something similar. That's the goal. We can have diplomatic relations, we can have trade relations with as many as we can. But less they directly threaten our own sovereignty, then we do not intercede militarily. It is quite a realistic alternative, one which requires a lot of backbone for sure, but not one outside the realm of reality.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 32 of 39 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •