The Iraq war is over

[Swamp Fox]

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]

We still have troops stationed in the South.

LOL

 

[Ravi]

LOL

<bowing>

 

[Paulie]

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.......

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).