Page 60 of 66 FirstFirst ... 10505859606162 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 657

Thread: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

  1. #591
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeburte View Post
    It's hard to justify being there much longer than that when the two main reasons for going were found to be completely false. Very few Americans would have supported invading Iraq just clear the world of another dictator, in a country where extremism continually festers anyway. Americans were primarily scared by WMDs and Hussein funding Al Qaeda. When those were found to be complete b.s., even a lot of Republicans wanted to stop paying for it. It had nothing to do with "short attention span"
    Sure it does. The opportunity to confront the Middle East holistically was present, and instead of seizing the opportunity, the country decided to stop after a few short years. It's either a short attention span or shortsightedness in general.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  2. #592
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    If you looked at the turmoil as a Middle East problem rather than just an Iraqi problem
    Exactly. States in the Middle East aren't the same as they are in many other places. Less than 100 years ago, virtually none of the countries there existed. Approaching things as if a Syrian is vastly different from an Iraqi who is vastly different from a Saudi Arabian is failing before you start. And it's not even like, say Armenia or Bosnia or something, where maybe the nation state didn't exist but the nation, as a cultural identity, did. There was no such thing as an "Iraqi" in 1914, and a "Syrian" in 1914 wasn't even the same people who ended up actually ruling Syria. A "Saudi" in 1914 was just someone who was part of the Saud family.

    So flashforward 80-90 years when the US starts to slowly start to focus on the Middle East after the Cold War ended (and especially after 9/11) and it's hilarious for me to see people say "The hijackers weren't even Iraqi!" like they think they're sharing some awesome insight that regional experts, think tanks, and policy makers somehow overlooked. "GOTCHA! THEY WEREN'T EVEN IRAQI!" It's like "Yes, Einstein, everyone knows that, these regional experts and whatnot are working on a different level than you are, clearly, because you're still focusing on nationality when that's not really the issue at all." Nothing is sillier than, in classic Dumb and Dumber style, someone thinks they're making some massive revelation and outsmarting someone when in reality it's only exhibiting their own ignorance, like Jim Carrey from the movie.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  3. #593
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    71

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Sure it does. The opportunity to confront the Middle East holistically was present, and instead of seizing the opportunity, the country decided to stop after a few short years. It's either a short attention span or shortsightedness in general.
    The Iraq war resolution mentioned nothing about "confronting the Middle East," so your statement is completely irrelevant. If Bush received approval from congress to wage war with the entire Middle East and to establish indefinite occupation based on a premise of (insert here, because I'm not even sure what the benefit of this would be) we could discuss that. But that's not what took place in congress and that's not what our public officials agreed to. The premise was false and occupation wasn't even part of the original plan and developed when the country spiraled into a civil war. It's like buying a car, realizing you were lied to, the car is falling apart and you realize the money and time to get this car working right is WAY above your original intended budget. To bail on that is not short attention span, it's common sense.

    If you are so convicted that continuous war and occupation in the Middle East would make your personal life better, use your own money and resources to pay for it. Just stop reaching into my bank account for tax dollars to fund it, or you might get a war right here at home.

  4. #594
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeburte View Post
    The Iraq war resolution mentioned nothing about "confronting the Middle East," so your statement is completely irrelevant. If Bush received approval from congress to wage war with the entire Middle East and to establish indefinite occupation based on a premise of (insert here, because I'm not even sure what the benefit of this would be) we could discuss that. But that's not what took place in congress and that's not what our public officials agreed to. The premise was false and occupation wasn't even part of the original plan and developed when the country spiraled into a civil war. It's like buying a car, realizing you were lied to, the car is falling apart and you realize the money and time to get this car working right is WAY above your original intended budget. To bail on that is not short attention span, it's common sense.

    If you are so convicted that continuous war and occupation in the Middle East would make your personal life better, use your own money and resources to pay for it. Just stop reaching into my bank account for tax dollars to fund it, or you might get a war right here at home.
    That was extremely melodramatic of you. Are you threatening to revolt or something?
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  5. #595
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    [QUOTE=Leeburte;1063979646]Very very bad example. First off we were attacked by Japan and Germany, we were never attacked by Iraq. [QUOTE] The USA was attacked by Islamic terrorists and the greatest source of Islamic terrorism is the Middle East. That's why it was so important to have a presence there.
    Secondly, the implementation of democratic governments in those regions (west Germany and Japan) went very smoothly. In Iraq it started a civil war and actually created NEW and stronger terrorist organizations.
    What 'civil war' are you referring to? In regard to Japan, it was said at the time that the Japanese people could never hhandle a democracy, that it has never been part of their tradition. You probably heard the same arguments regarding Iraq.
    Thirdly, we libertarians don't believe the U.S. Should still be in japan and Germany! It's a complete waste of my tax dollars and U.S. Resources! Socialist big spending republicans however want MORE troops over there. If it really makes you feel better having troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany and Japan, that's fine, but you have to pay for it. Don't be a socialist and force me to use my tax dollars for an international welfare cause I don't believe in.
    International security is not related to welfare, nor is saving lives.

  6. #596
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeburte View Post
    The Iraq war resolution mentioned nothing about "confronting the Middle East," so your statement is completely irrelevant.
    George Bush could never have publicly admitted he was looking for an entry into the Middle East, though the leaders there probably understood that quite well. It would have been handy for those people in Libya to have some ready help a little closer to the action.
    If Bush received approval from congress to wage war with the entire Middle East and to establish indefinite occupation based on a premise of (insert here, because I'm not even sure what the benefit of this would be) we could discuss that. But that's not what took place in congress and that's not what our public officials agreed to. The premise was false and occupation wasn't even part of the original plan and developed when the country spiraled into a civil war.
    No one wanted war with the entire ME. You're missing the point. A 'presence' was wanted in the ME and we can now see what a great advantage that would have been.

  7. #597
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    71

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    [QUOTE=Grant;1063980278][QUOTE=Leeburte;1063979646]Very very bad example. First off we were attacked by Japan and Germany, we were never attacked by Iraq.
    The USA was attacked by Islamic terrorists and the greatest source of Islamic terrorism is the Middle East. That's why it was so important to have a presence there. What 'civil war' are you referring to? In regard to Japan, it was said at the time that the Japanese people could never hhandle a democracy, that it has never been part of their tradition. You probably heard the same arguments regarding Iraq.
    International security is not related to welfare, nor is saving lives.
    I'm not trying to be insulting but I don't think you're educated enough to debate this issue if you don't know about the civil war in Iraq and if you think the hotbed of terrorism pre-2003 was Iraq.

    And FYI, a study was done by national security officials a few years ago where they sent undercover officers to the same airports that hijackers boarded planes for 9/11, and the officers had dummy bombs, firearms and other weapons. Most of the officers got through security easily. The best strategy for preventing terrorism is establishing a near impenetrable homeland security in our airports, other public transportation and public buildings and areas, and by increasing security intelligence (the Boston bomber was on the FBI watch list but the agency is so over whelmed they didn't monitor him thoroughly). This would cost a fraction of what the Iraq war cost and would be much more effective for safety. The Iraq war has literally created new terrorist groups and increased middle eastern hostility towards are country, and homeland security has been thoroughly neglected. If you can't admit the failed policy in that, I have nothing else to say.

  8. #598
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeburte View Post
    I'm not trying to be insulting but I don't think you're educated enough to debate this issue if you don't know about the civil war in Iraq and if you think the hotbed of terrorism pre-2003 was Iraq.
    I'm wanting clarification from you as to what you're referring to as a 'civil war'. Just name the participants to be certain. Shouldn't take long. Again, you're confusing all of the Middle East with Iraq.
    And FYI, a study was done by national security officials a few years ago where they sent undercover officers to the same airports that hijackers boarded planes for 9/11, and the officers had dummy bombs, firearms and other weapons. Most of the officers got through security easily. The best strategy for preventing terrorism is establishing a near impenetrable homeland security in our airports, other public transportation and public buildings and areas, and by increasing security intelligence (the Boston bomber was on the FBI watch list but the agency is so over whelmed they didn't monitor him thoroughly). This would cost a fraction of what the Iraq war cost and would be much more effective for safety. The Iraq war has literally created new terrorist groups and increased middle eastern hostility towards are country, and homeland security has been thoroughly neglected. If you can't admit the failed policy in that, I have nothing else to say.
    So you are a "Fortress America" buff thinking that America can somehow make itself impenetrable. How's that working out so far? You got a lot of other 'libertarians' climbing on to that particular bandwagon?

  9. #599
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    71

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    I'm wanting clarification from you as to what you're referring to as a 'civil war'. Just name the participants to be certain. Shouldn't take long. Again, you're confusing all of the Middle East with Iraq.
    So you are a "Fortress America" buff thinking that America can somehow make itself impenetrable. How's that working out so far? You got a lot of other 'libertarians' climbing on to that particular bandwagon?
    If someone breaks into your house you don't go roaming through the neighborhood on the other side of the tracks trying to root out all thieves to prevent future break ins. Why? It is costly and there will always be new thieves popping up to replace them. What you do is secure your own house so they can't break in. If you want to keep roaming through the Middle East trying to do the impossible task of root out all terrorist, go ahead, just don't use my tax dollar to pay for it.

  10. #600
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Leeburte View Post
    If someone breaks into your house you don't go roaming through the neighborhood on the other side of the tracks trying to root out all thieves to prevent future break ins. Why? It is costly and there will always be new thieves popping up to replace them. What you do is secure your own house so they can't break in. If you want to keep roaming through the Middle East trying to do the impossible task of root out all terrorist, go ahead, just don't use my tax dollar to pay for it.
    ...why do you insist on seeing things as far as nation states when they don't?
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

Page 60 of 66 FirstFirst ... 10505859606162 ... 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
  •