# The Iraq war is over



## Truthmatters (Apr 13, 2008)

We are no longer involved in a war.

It is an occupation.

How do you "win" and occupation?

You leave.


----------



## Taomon (Apr 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> We are no longer involved in a war.
> 
> It is an occupation.
> 
> ...


It was never a war. There is no end goal in sight because, as you stated so eloquently...we are occupying not waging war.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 13, 2008)

The American people need to ask why we are occupying another country.

Why are we spilling our blood to occupy someone elses country?

If it is to keep it from having terrorists then why did we go after a country which was no threat to us and turn it into a place the terrorists could take advantage of?


----------



## Taomon (Apr 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> If it is to keep it from having terrorists then why did we go after a country which was no threat to us and turn it into a place the terrorists could take advantage of?



That is the question whose answer they will kill to protect.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 13, 2008)

I wonder how much more for gas the American people would pay to have our country out of this war?

The really sad thing is we are paying like twice what we were paying before we entered Iraq already.

We have been taken for a huge ride by the oil industires in the world via the Bush admin.

Its time to end this occupation and to quit paying for this gas with the lives of our brave young soldiers.

Ill pay another dollar a gallon to stop the bleeding of our troops and the treasury of our country.

Its costing us trillions already.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 13, 2008)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/08/iraq/main2451828.shtml

heres a little information no one seems to pay any attention to.

The meters on the oil pumps have been broken for years and no one replaces them. This makes it possible to steal oil and sell it on the world black market vertually cost free. 

Who is it that is profiting from this free oil?

They dont have to pay Iraq for it because it is uncounted.

Just transport it and sell it on the black  market.

No wonder Bush refuses to leave this cash cow until the bitter end.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 13, 2008)

You cant handle the truth.


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 13, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> We are no longer involved in a war.
> 
> It is an occupation.
> 
> ...



I hear you and know what you mean.  Read the following relevant flip-flop.  These are things that Bush said in a 2000 year debate.

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html

_I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power...

If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that._

How does he do this &#8211; by having our military go into Iraq very soon after going into Afghanistan and, after toppling Saddam, work on practically creating a new nation in Iraq based on democracy.


----------



## nukeman (Apr 16, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> You cant handle the truth.



Gee TM how is that you can make a coherent sentence on this sight but not on others???  I see you still put forth you usual drivel.....

A question for you would be "what do you propose we do"?  You complain a lot but you NEVER have an answer to ANY problem!  Why is that???


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 16, 2008)

And what was the time after VE Day? How about the time after VJ Day?

How long after Germany fell did it take for them to take over their own country again? Did we stick around due to threat of their neighbors?

Do we do to Iraq what we did to Germany after WW1? Stick them with the bill? Or do we help them rebuild like we did after WW2?


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 16, 2008)

Why would we walk away when we are so close to finishing?

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27746/pub_detail.asp



> As the tally below shows, the Government of Iraq has now met 12 out of the original 18 benchmarks set for it, including four out of the six key legislative benchmarks. It has made substantial progress on five more, and only one remains truly stalled. One can argue about the scoring of this or that benchmark, but the overall picture is very clear: before the surge began, the Iraqi Government had accomplished none of the benchmarks and was on the way to accomplishing very few. As the surge winds down, it has accomplished around two-thirds of them and is moving ahead on almost all of the remainder. To say in the face of these facts that Iraq has made "little" or "no" political progress is simply false-to-fact.



Let me guess you're the type that starts something but doesn't finish it... And you expect us to do the same. I'm betting your house is full of half or near finished projects.


----------



## jreeves (Apr 17, 2008)

Angel Heart said:


> Why would we walk away when we are so close to finishing?
> 
> http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.27746/pub_detail.asp
> 
> ...



Great post....they seem to forget the past. Liberals just want to spin their own partisian drivel with no response.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Apr 17, 2008)

> Let me guess you're the type that starts something but doesn't finish it... And you expect us to do the same. I'm betting your house is full of half or near finished projects.



Let me guess.  You are the kind of person who once he/she starts something, you will continue no matter how much the cost or the proof that you were wrong to start it?

How deep do you dig a hole after you realize you started digging in the wrong place?


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 17, 2008)

Well... Concedering we have achived 2/3rds of the goals set and the rest are due to be achived by Oct 1, it would be stupid of us to pull out. To leave now we will be making the same mistake we made after WW1.

Why don't you reply to my questions in the post above the one you choose to quote?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 17, 2008)

WE still have troops in Japan,
We still have troops in Korea,
We still have troops in Germany,
We occupied Western Germany for a long---long time.  Even though weren't "fighting" anyone.
We have troops in the Phillipines.

We don't here anyone griping about the tax-dollars spend maintaining troops and personnel over there???? 
So are a troops everlasting presence in another country during peace time better than 5 years of troop presence in a war zone??HMM.......


----------



## mattskramer (Apr 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> WE still have troops in Japan,
> We still have troops in Korea,
> We still have troops in Germany,
> We occupied Western Germany for a long---long time.  Even though weren't "fighting" anyone.
> ...



I didnt realize that.  I guess that we should pull some troops from those nations too.  I dont see Japan as a military threat for America any time soon.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 17, 2008)

mattskramer said:


> I didnt realize that.  I guess that we should pull some troops from those nations too.  I dont see Japan as a military threat for America any time soon.



Yeah, it's pretty crazy really.  We have troops in more places than that...but alot of people don't realize it. Korea was almost 60 years ago and we still have active troops on the 38th parallel.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 17, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Yeah, it's pretty crazy really.  We have troops in more places than that...but alot of people don't realize it. Korea was almost 60 years ago and we still have active troops on the 38th parallel.



We still have troops stationed in the South.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 17, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Let me guess.  You are the kind of person who once he/she starts something, you will continue no matter how much the cost or the proof that you were wrong to start it?
> 
> How deep do you dig a hole after you realize you started digging in the wrong place?




Until they die from from thirst and hunger because the hole is too deep to climb out.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 17, 2008)

Truthmatters said:


> We are no longer involved in a war.
> 
> It is an occupation.
> 
> ...



From encarta

Occupation - 4. military invasion: the invasion and control of a country or area by enemy forces


Since the iraqi government is not our enemy and we do not control the country, this does not meet the definition of an occupation.


----------



## Swamp Fox (Apr 17, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> Let me guess.  You are the kind of person who once he/she starts something, you will continue no matter how much the cost or the proof that you were wrong to start it?
> 
> How deep do you dig a hole after you realize you started digging in the wrong place?



I thought the Marines made Marines, not compromises?  Guess you didn't get that memo.  Must have been sleeping through the duty, honor, country part of class?


----------



## BrianH (Apr 18, 2008)

Ravir said:


> We still have troops stationed in the South.



LOL


----------



## Ravi (Apr 18, 2008)

BrianH said:


> LOL



<bowing>


----------



## Paulie (Apr 18, 2008)

BrianH said:


> WE still have troops in Japan,
> We still have troops in Korea,
> We still have troops in Germany,
> We occupied Western Germany for a long---long time.  Even though weren't "fighting" anyone.
> ...



What's up Bri.  Or "Bri-Bri" as my daughter would call you.



> We don't here anyone griping about the tax-dollars spend maintaining troops and personnel over there????


We do.  There are a handful running for president right now.  No one wants to listen to them though.  

Americans are so fucking scared shitless, and so fucking paranoid, that they think we need to have military presence all over the world to keep us "safe".  

I like the idea of armed neutrality.  Armed to the bone, rested and ready, locked and loaded.  And very importantly, NOT OVERSPENT financially.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 18, 2008)

I think you need to ask the Iraqi people who they think controls Iraq.

If its Iraqis we are killing in Iraq then who do you think is the "enemy"?


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 18, 2008)

The poles have said one thing and when talk of us leaving happens they scream for us to stay.

Oh and you have yet to reply to my questions... Why is it that people against the war can't honestly address them?


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 18, 2008)

WASHINGTON &#8212; The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute. 



The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush 's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...tchy/2913186_1


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 18, 2008)

Angel Heart said:


> *And what was the time after VE Day? How about the time after VJ Day?
> 
> How long after Germany fell did it take for them to take over their own country again?* Did we stick around due to threat of their neighbors?
> 
> Do we do to Iraq what we did to Germany after WW1? Stick them with the bill? Or do we help them rebuild like we did after WW2?




You don't get to take credit for another generation's accomplishments. Either way, what an awful lazy comparison.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 18, 2008)

Try learning for their success and not make the mistakes (WW1 aftermath) again. Repeat what worked (WW2 rebuilding aftermath). It's called learning from history and not dooming ourselves to repeat history.

Still dodging the questions with personal insults.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 18, 2008)

Angel Heart said:


> Try learning for their success and not make the mistakes (WW1 aftermath) again. Repeat what worked (WW2 rebuilding aftermath). It's called learning from history and not dooming ourselves to repeat history.
> 
> Still dodging the questions with personal insults.




I never personally insulted you, not even close. I said your comparison was lazy - which it is. What you did was obvious, you tried to take credit for an accomplishment another generation made.

World war two and the deliberate American Iraq invasion are nothing alike.

As for "learning from history," well we all love the appeal to jingosim, but as substance its worthless.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 18, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> You don't get to take credit for another generation's accomplishments. Either way, what an awful lazy comparison.



Dude, what are you talking about.  I didn't hear her say that she stormed the beaches of Normandy herself.  What a nerd.  Just because she said "WE" as in the United States, OUR country.  She may have a father or grandfather who fought.  Your calling out a stupid "error" that isn't even an error at all.  It's called national pride and patriotism.  When referring to your own country, most people usually say we.  Just like when someone such as yourself says that "we" are polluting  the earth and causing global warming, are you saying that you've been doing some polluting in India or Mongolia....because by saying "WE" you mean the world. Or Humans.  Start having serious discussions or quit posting.


----------



## BrianH (Apr 18, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> I never personally insulted you, not even close. I said your comparison was lazy - which it is. What you did was obvious, you tried to take credit for an accomplishment another generation made.
> 
> World war two and the deliberate American Iraq invasion are nothing alike.
> 
> As for "learning from history," well we all love the appeal to jingosim, but as substance its worthless.



She's talking about different methods of post-war genius.  She never once said the reason for war was the same, nor the outcome.  What she is saying, is that if you're going to go to war somewhere (whatever the reason-significant or not) you shouldn't go in there and destroy the place and leave it for the dogs.  You go in, and then help clean up afterwards.  Doesn't matter what the reason for war is.  But I'm sure you knew that.


----------



## cbi0090 (Apr 18, 2008)

The reason we are in all those other places, and in Iraq, is to secure our interests.  The British, France, etc. do the same.  You can't have trade without rules and you don't have rules without enforcement.  We, meaning us and others, stay in those places to provide enforcement.  It's still a pretty lawless world out there.  As much as everyone likes to talk about international law, it's not worth the paper it's written on if enforcement doesn't exist and is applied uniformally.  
Much of our backing off from international law in recent years has been due to the rest of the world's behaviour in their response to the Balkans and Africa


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (Apr 18, 2008)

cbi0090 said:


> *The reason we are in all those other places, and in Iraq, is to secure our interests.*  The British, France, etc. do the same.  You can't have trade without rules and you don't have rules without enforcement.  We, meaning us and others, stay in those places to provide enforcement.  It's still a pretty lawless world out there.  *As much as everyone likes to talk about international law, it's not worth the paper it's written on* if enforcement doesn't exist and is applied uniformally.
> Much of our backing off from international law in recent years has been due to the *rest of the world's behaviour* in their response to the Balkans and Africa



A lowly justification for neo-colonization coupled with an "It's everyone else's we fault we don't follow the rules!" rationalization.

Is this post intended as serious text?


----------



## cbi0090 (Apr 18, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> A lowly justification for neo-colonization coupled with an "It's everyone else's we fault we don't follow the rules!" rationalization.
> 
> Is this post intended as serious text?



Well, whether you like it or not everyone is doing it and if we're to stay in the game we'll have to, as well.  It's been going on for hundreds of years and isn't likely to change now.  
As for the last part, just look at Rwanda and the millions who died there.  Everyone else was supposed to chip in with UN forces, because we were overextended along with England, and no one did.  Later, when things got so bad we had to get involved, it was too late.  How do you count on partners like that?  You don't.


----------



## Annie (Apr 18, 2008)

TheGoodShepherd said:


> A lowly justification for neo-colonization coupled with an "It's everyone else's we fault we don't follow the rules!" rationalization.
> 
> Is this post intended as serious text?



What do you consider colonialism? What markers do you see displayed? The US has said they will stay until the Iraqis can protect themselves or the Iraqis ask them to leave.


----------



## Taomon (Apr 18, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> What do you consider colonialism? What markers do you see displayed? The US has said they will stay until the Iraqis can protect themselves or the Iraqis ask them to leave.



I guess invasion & occupation do not count. And you are convinced that all of the violence in Iraq is caused by al Qaeda? Or do you realize that there are Iraqis who do not want us there (basically the majority of them).


----------



## jreeves (Apr 18, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I guess invasion & occupation do not count. And you are convinced that all of the violence in Iraq is caused by al Qaeda? Or do you realize that there are Iraqis who do not want us there (basically the majority of them).



Here you go again, spewing lies. Where is the evidence that the majority of Iraqis want us to leave?


----------



## Annie (Apr 18, 2008)

Taomon said:


> I guess invasion & occupation do not count. And you are convinced that all of the violence in Iraq is caused by al Qaeda? Or do you realize that there are Iraqis who do not want us there (basically the majority of them).



Failed to answer rather simple question, which was based upon your own post.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 18, 2008)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; Page A22

BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.





http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/


Majority of Iraqi Lawmakers Now Reject Occupation

By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted May 9, 2007.



More than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected for the first time on Tuesday the continuing occupation of their country. The U.S. media ignored the story. Tools

 On Tuesday, without note in the U.S. media, more than half of the members of Iraq's parliament rejected the continuing occupation of their country. 144 lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal, according to Nassar Al-Rubaie, a spokesman for the Al Sadr movement, the nationalist Shia group that sponsored the petition.

It's a hugely significant development. Lawmakers demanding an end to the occupation now have the upper hand in the Iraqi legislature for the first time; previous attempts at a similar resolution fell just short of the 138 votes needed to pass (there are 275 members of the Iraqi parliament, but many have fled the country's civil conflict, and at times it's been difficult to arrive at a quorum).


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 18, 2008)

Have anything that isn't 11 months old? Anything in lets say the last 2 months? A lot has changed since May 2007.


----------



## Angel Heart (Apr 18, 2008)

http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1060a1IraqWhereThingsStand.pdf


----------



## jillian (Apr 18, 2008)

According to your link at pps 4-5, only 43% of iraqis now think it's acceptable to attack US military forces. 

Doesn't sound like they want us there much even with the 15 point drop.


----------

