We will start withdrawing from Iraq by Summer 2006

[seremtan]

while this is a possibility, do you really think that this will come to be? I can't see the US coming out of this with very much "control" over the government in Iraq, who will answer to the people of that country. If their people don't like the "control" we have over them, they will simply force the powers that be out of office and elect new leaders that we don't have control over.

ok, without consulting google or any other source, from your own knowledge, list me some policies that all the parties who did well in the last iraqi elections had in common. i'm betting you can't. if you could, you'd know that the popular parties in iraq all support a timetable for US/UK withdrawal and an end to the selloff of iraqi state industry to foreign corporations. you'd also know that both of these demands have been vetoed by the US

converse examples: iran, cuba, nicaragua, venezuela, vietnam - all countries the US has conducted hostile action toward (either covert or overt) because they wanted control and didn't have it

exactly, you don't even know there is a problem. You need to go read the first few posts in this thread. We asked for better solutions to dealing with tyrants like Saddam. In other words, if we should not have attacked him, what should we have done? Even if you say "just wait it out", I will take that as an answer. Granted I think that's a supurbly retarded answer, but I will accept that some people have that opinion.

i'm afraid you're just not getting it at all. leaving aside who is meant by "we" here, the unspoken assumption you share with gramps is that it is the right and privilege of the US (and secondarily, western powers in general) to decide when something is a problem at all, and when/how it should be "fixed". if you think the US has that right and you've totally bought into the gary cooper/high noon myth about america, there's really not much to discuss since were arguing from totally different starting points. i'll just say that it is a fact that from the rest of the world's POV it is the US, not some tinpot tyrant, which is the main threat to world peace

again, a perfect example of avoiding the question, just like everyone keeps doing in this thread. He asked a pointed question and this is the best you could come up with ?

like i said, you and gramps are arguing from assumptions i just don't share, so you don't even recognise my alternative as an alternative. not much i can do about that

[seremtan]

So I'm right, the U.S. has never invaded a county and established it as our own.

lol, apart from the US itself. in 1776 it was 13 states on the eastern seaboard. today it's coast to coast. how did that happen gramps?

SOLUTION TO WHAT?

HANDLING AN INSANE DICTATOR, you momo.

HOW ABOUT DON'T CREATE THEM OR SUPPORT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. HOW ABOUT NOT TURNING YOUR BACKS WHEN YOUR DICTATOR OF CHOICE IS ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOURS (IRAN) AND SLAUGHTERING HIS OWN PEOPLE (KURDS). fucking hell gramps you are one uneducated mong. the list of dictators (insane or otherwise) supported by the US - and the west generally - in the recent past is a long one

Keep living in your fantasy land, Jr. I'm sure that's what ultimately prevents you from identifying reality.

the only reality i'm identifying here is your own ness. everything you come out with can be turned around and multiplied by 10 to get an approximation of reality

[Fender]

Wow. I should really check in on my old threads more often.

[YourGrandpa]

So I'm right, the U.S. has never invaded a county and established it as our own.

lol, apart from the US itself. in 1776 it was 13 states on the eastern seaboard. today it's coast to coast. how did that happen gramps?

SOLUTION TO WHAT?

HANDLING AN INSANE DICTATOR, you momo.

HOW ABOUT DON'T CREATE THEM OR SUPPORT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. HOW ABOUT NOT TURNING YOUR BACKS WHEN YOUR DICTATOR OF CHOICE IS ATTACKING HIS NEIGHBOURS (IRAN) AND SLAUGHTERING HIS OWN PEOPLE (KURDS). fucking hell gramps you are one uneducated mong. the list of dictators (insane or otherwise) supported by the US - and the west generally - in the recent past is a long one

Keep living in your fantasy land, Jr. I'm sure that's what ultimately prevents you from identifying reality.

the only reality i'm identifying here is your own ness. everything you come out with can be turned around and multiplied by 10 to get an approximation of reality

In an effort to skirt the issue and aviod addressing questions directly, you continue to make yourself look like an idiot.

Your would have, could have, should have rants are not SOLUTION, ANSWERS or ALTERNATIVES to the problem. They are your accounts of what has happened in the past. None of which I asked for or even care about.

Just admit that you've got nothing to offer and move on. Because while knowing what we've done wrong may prevent future mistakes, it dosen't change or fix the state of things now and I don't need some dipshit on the internet recounting history for me either.

[YourGrandpa]

NIGHTSHADE WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE ABOUT IRAQ, JUST PRIOR TO AND POST DESERT STORM?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IRAQ RIGHT NOW?

You seem to have all the answers, but are refusing to share them.

CAN YOU DO IT?

[Fender]

We didn't have to do ANYTHING about Iraq. They were a non-threat. They had NO WMD. Al Queda linked terriorist activity was almost non-existent. That's certainly not the case now. Seriously, what goals have we accomplished by going over there? None. We removed Sadaam. Big fucking deal. He was an idiot and a non-threat to us.

[Nightshade]

NIGHTSHADE WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE ABOUT IRAQ, JUST PRIOR TO AND POST DESERT STORM?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IRAQ RIGHT NOW?

You seem to have all the answers, but are refusing to share them.

CAN YOU DO IT?

You are a complete idiot. These situations DO NOT exist in a historical vacuum. Stop dismissing answers people give you because they're not the ones you want to hear.
As far as Desert Storm goes, I think George Sr. did an excellent job with the war itself. It was pretty cut and dried, Saddam invaded a country which then asked for our help. What I would not have done was leave the Shi'ites hanging after we encouraged them to rebel and overthrow Saddam, resulting in thousands of them being slaughtered.
I think that Bush was correct in not pursuing Saddam directly, as there was (as there is now) no clear exit strategy. For the post-war situation, more should have been done to get the inspections enforced. GeeDubya's stupid-ass unilateral approach to solving that problem was not the way to go. We DO NOT have the right to change regimes in other countries on a whim. I won't even address all the issues surrounding the run-up to the war, since you'll just dismiss it all as theories and ranting.
Since you're very hard of thinking, allow me to point out that the above is an answer to your first question.
For the current situation, that's a more difficult question. The way Bush went about this invasion pretty much ensured that there would be no winning it. That aside, I'd say ensure that the elections come off as scheduled, and if the elected officials ask us to leave, bug the fuck out. If they don't immediately do so, set a hard timeline to get all the security tasks handed over to the Iraqis, get the oil flowing to get some money to pay for this whole debacle, get the infrastructure restored, and then bug the fuck out.
We need to get the hell out of there, and the sooner the better, because it's going to be Saigon '75 all over again no matter when we leave.

[YourGrandpa]

We didn't have to do ANYTHING about Iraq. They were a non-threat. They had NO WMD. Al Queda linked terriorist activity was almost non-existent. That's certainly not the case now. Seriously, what goals have we accomplished by going over there? None. We removed Sadaam. Big fucking deal. He was an idiot and a non-threat to us.

More could have, would have, should have? Or are you suggesting that it would have been better if the world just turned their backs to the noncompliance to the UN, ingnore the senseless genocide and let Saddam continue to rape his/other countries without reprisal?

[Nightshade]

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

[YourGrandpa]

NIGHTSHADE WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE ABOUT IRAQ, JUST PRIOR TO AND POST DESERT STORM?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IRAQ RIGHT NOW?

You seem to have all the answers, but are refusing to share them.

CAN YOU DO IT?

You are a complete idiot. These situations DO NOT exist in a historical vacuum. Stop dismissing answers people give you because they're not the ones you want to hear.
As far as Desert Storm goes, I think George Sr. did an excellent job with the war itself. It was pretty cut and dried, Saddam invaded a country which then asked for our help. What I would not have done was leave the Shi'ites hanging after we encouraged them to rebel and overthrow Saddam, resulting in thousands of them being slaughtered.
I think that Bush was correct in not pursuing Saddam directly, as there was (as there is now) no clear exit strategy. For the post-war situation, more should have been done to get the inspections enforced. GeeDubya's stupid-ass unilateral approach to solving that problem was not the way to go. We DO NOT have the right to change regimes in other countries on a whim. I won't even address all the issues surrounding the run-up to the war, since you'll just dismiss it all as theories and ranting.
Since you're very hard of thinking, allow me to point out that the above is an answer to your first question.
For the current situation, that's a more difficult question. The way Bush went about this invasion pretty much ensured that there would be no winning it. That aside, I'd say ensure that the elections come off as scheduled, and if the elected officials ask us to leave, bug the fuck out. If they don't immediately do so, set a hard timeline to get all the security tasks handed over to the Iraqis, get the oil flowing to get some money to pay for this whole debacle, get the infrastructure restored, and then bug the fuck out.
We need to get the hell out of there, and the sooner the better, because it's going to be Saigon '75 all over again no matter when we leave.

I'm not hard of thinking and I'm very capable of listening to reason. But when someone complains and complains and complain about something, I get really curious as to what that person would have done if it were up to them. I also want to know why they think there ways or ideas are so much better. This leads me to several questions about your proposed solution. What if Saddam continued to hold up his middle finger to the world and refused to allow inspectors in? What should we do, if there’s no real threat of military action? What would be Saddams incentive to comply then and in the future? Just because there's no clear exit policy, shouldn't mean we turn our heads and walk away. When someone is drowning in shark infested waters, a true hero jumps in to save them, without putting their own mortality first. The U.S. is that hero for many countries, not because we wanted it, but because of our compassion for others and the needs of the weak. In today's world were going to have to jump into those waters every once in awhile, whether we like it or not.

As far as your second answer, I agree 100%. I don't want any more of our troops dying over there either, but we can’t throw up our hands and walk out now.



.

[Fender]

More could have, would have, should have? Or are you suggesting that it would have been better if the world just turned their backs to the noncompliance to the UN, ingnore the senseless genocide and let Saddam continue to rape his/other countries without reprisal?

Yes. If we were interested in stopping oppression/starvation, etc. there were, AND STILL ARE, far better candidates.

[YourGrandpa]

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT.

Why?

[GONNAFISTYA]

Once again gramps shows his redneck moron mentality.

I have one question which hasn't been asked but will basically settle this thread once and for all:

Who's dumber...gramps or this Midnight faggot?

[YourGrandpa]

More could have, would have, should have? Or are you suggesting that it would have been better if the world just turned their backs to the noncompliance to the UN, ingnore the senseless genocide and let Saddam continue to rape his/other countries without reprisal?

Yes. If we were interested in stopping oppression/starvation, etc. there were, AND STILL ARE, far better candidates.

But Iraq got it first because of their defiance of UN inspections. Though it is interesting to see you think it's ok to leave all of those people suffering and a tyrant loose to do his bidding. I'd call you an idiot, but that would be over stating the obvious.

Thanks for playing..

[YourGrandpa]

Once again gramps shows his redneck moron mentality.

I have one question which hasn't been asked but will basically settle this thread once and for all:

Who's dumber...gramps or this Midnight faggot?

Hey look, Fatty is back trying to attract the attention away from his inability to participate in an intellectual discussion. Hey Fatty, stand on your head and cram another burger down your throat. That could be funny. You want to be funny, don't you?

[Nightshade]

NIGHTSHADE WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE ABOUT IRAQ, JUST PRIOR TO AND POST DESERT STORM?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IRAQ RIGHT NOW?

You seem to have all the answers, but are refusing to share them.

CAN YOU DO IT?

You are a complete idiot. These situations DO NOT exist in a historical vacuum. Stop dismissing answers people give you because they're not the ones you want to hear.
As far as Desert Storm goes, I think George Sr. did an excellent job with the war itself. It was pretty cut and dried, Saddam invaded a country which then asked for our help. What I would not have done was leave the Shi'ites hanging after we encouraged them to rebel and overthrow Saddam, resulting in thousands of them being slaughtered.
I think that Bush was correct in not pursuing Saddam directly, as there was (as there is now) no clear exit strategy. For the post-war situation, more should have been done to get the inspections enforced. GeeDubya's stupid-ass unilateral approach to solving that problem was not the way to go. We DO NOT have the right to change regimes in other countries on a whim. I won't even address all the issues surrounding the run-up to the war, since you'll just dismiss it all as theories and ranting.
Since you're very hard of thinking, allow me to point out that the above is an answer to your first question.
For the current situation, that's a more difficult question. The way Bush went about this invasion pretty much ensured that there would be no winning it. That aside, I'd say ensure that the elections come off as scheduled, and if the elected officials ask us to leave, bug the fuck out. If they don't immediately do so, set a hard timeline to get all the security tasks handed over to the Iraqis, get the oil flowing to get some money to pay for this whole debacle, get the infrastructure restored, and then bug the fuck out.
We need to get the hell out of there, and the sooner the better, because it's going to be Saigon '75 all over again no matter when we leave.

I'm not hard of thinking and I'm very capable of listening to reason. But when someone complains and complains and complain about something, I get really curious as to what that person would have done if it were up to them. I also want to know why they think there ways or ideas are so much better. This leads me to several questions about your proposed solution. What if Saddam continued to hold up his middle finger to the world and refused to allow inspectors in? What should we do, if there’s no real threat of military action? What would be Saddams incentive to comply then and in the future? Just because there's no clear exit policy, shouldn't mean we turn our heads and walk away. When someone is drowning in shark infested waters, a true hero jumps in to save them, without putting their own mortality first. The U.S. is that hero for many countries, not because we wanted it, but because of our compassion for others and the needs of the weak. In today's world were going to have to jump into those waters every once in awhile, whether we like it or not.

As far as your second answer, I agree 100%. I don't want any more of our troops dying over there either, but we can’t throw up our hands and walk out now.



.

If you're capable of listening to reason then why are you refusing to acknowlegde that it's US foreign policy that has created so many of the problems we currently face?
If Saddam had continued to tell the UN to fuck off, then the prudent thing to do would have been get the entire world to want to kick his ass, too. See I think that Bush jumped the gun because he had lots of people in his administration howling to invade Iraq as 1.) A means to secure Israel and 2.) A way to guarantee future access to very large oil reserves.
Nothing about this situation is as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. So when I say you're making a strawman argument, it's because you're dodging the fundamental issues by holding up how much of an asshole Saddam was.

[Fender]

If Saddam had continued to tell the UN to fuck off, then the prudent thing to do would have been get the entire world to want to kick his ass, too. See I think that Bush jumped the gun because he had lots of people in his administration howling to invade Iraq as 1.) A means to secure Israel and 2.) A way to guarantee future access to very large oil reserves.

Let's not forget
3) There's an election to win and we need to make people forget that we haven't caught Osama in Afganistan. WE ARE FIGHTING TURRORISTS! GO USA!

[GONNAFISTYA]

Once again gramps shows his redneck moron mentality.

I have one question which hasn't been asked but will basically settle this thread once and for all:

Who's dumber...gramps or this Midnight faggot?

Hey look, Fatty is back trying to attract the attention away from his inability to participate in an intellectual discussion. Hey Fatty, stand on your head and cram another burger down your throat. That could be funny. You want to be funny, don't you?

Dude...you forget we've both been posting here for a long time and I pretty much know how thick headed you are when it comes to these types of discussions. I've tried to engage you but realized after your first reply it'd be a waste of time trying to batter down the walls of ignorance in your life.

I'd rather watch Jell-O set.

[Tormentius]

Hell just look at Iran. They are blatantly and openly defying the UN now. They are basically going to put themselves, and us, in the same position that we were in with Iraq. They have flat out told everyone that they are developing the capabilites to build nuclear reactors for energy, which means they can also build bombs. AND the leader of the country said that his mission is to remove the jews from the gaza strip. That sounds like a bad combination to me. Not to mention that any world leader who makes it his country's mission to commit genocide is capable of tossing nukes at us or anyone else who he doesn't like. And it should be obvious that all of this hate he and his countrymen have is founded on their whacked out religion!!! There is no other reason to remove the jews from gaza.

Until the US decommissions the vast majority of it's nuclear and chemical weapon stockpiles it isn't in a position to decide who else possesses them. As for "whacked out religions" its the right-wing religious quacks in the US which have led you guys into one war after another and earned you a bad reputation in many parts of the world. Don't start commenting on other extremist's beliefs when your own leader is almost as much of a fanatic.

If you honestly think that invading Iran wouldn't make the losses in Iraq look miniscule in comparison then you're even more of a redneck moron than I thought. Iran has a much larger and more well-equipped military and they have close ties with the rest of the Middle East. Then consider the fact the rest of the planet is getting tired of the US propaganda and bullshit so the odds of there being much support for another invasion are pretty slim.

Indeed put it this way: What if we lived in a country like Iraq was, with said dictator? Wouldn't you want Britain or the UN to come in and get rid of him and help us to establish a democracy like we have now? If you say no, you can just leave the country please. I mean it should be obvious that democracy or something close to it is the best form of peaceful government. It is always the countries with power hungry dictators at the helm that cause most of the problems. People are greedy, so you have to balance the power out so no one person is in charge. It's fundamental, surely you can agree.

They don't want the US' way of life and, in fact, much of that way of life directly contradicts their culture and beliefs. Is comprehending that not everyone wants to emulate the US that fucking difficult?

[seremtan]

In an effort to skirt the issue and aviod addressing questions directly, you continue to make yourself look like an idiot.

Your would have, could have, should have rants are not SOLUTION, ANSWERS or ALTERNATIVES to the problem. They are your accounts of what has happened in the past. None of which I asked for or even care about.

Just admit that you've got nothing to offer and move on. Because while knowing what we've done wrong may prevent future mistakes, it dosen't change or fix the state of things now and I don't need some dipshit on the internet recounting history for me either.

i've already told you that i think you're misidentifying "the problem" through ignorance, and your pretence that history doesn't matter is just fox news-style idiocy. it's just not worth my time any more trying to penetrate that thick block on your shoulders

[seremtan]

If you're capable of listening to reason then why are you refusing to acknowlegde that it's US foreign policy that has created so many of the problems we currently face?
If Saddam had continued to tell the UN to fuck off, then the prudent thing to do would have been get the entire world to want to kick his ass, too. See I think that Bush jumped the gun because he had lots of people in his administration howling to invade Iraq as 1.) A means to secure Israel and 2.) A way to guarantee future access to very large oil reserves.
Nothing about this situation is as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. So when I say you're making a strawman argument, it's because you're dodging the fundamental issues by holding up how much of an asshole Saddam was.

the irony is, saddam was complying constantly with the weapons inspectors (he didn't throw them out in 1998, they left of their own accord, contrary to the widely-stated myth), and if all the WMD 'evidence' had been used as the basis for UN inspectors' searches, the truth would have been arrived at a lot sooner without 100,000 civilian deaths. but of course, the iraq war was no more about WMDs than it was about 'bringing democracy', an utterly obvious fact that the war party seem incapable of grasping

[Nightshade]

I've actually read of quite a few instances wherein the Iraqis were very evasive if not openly defiant of UNSCOM inspectors. I'd say that Saddam was only making a token effort to comply. There were U2 overflight shots showing trucks leaving sites that were about to be inspected, palaces that were suddenly off-limits, lots of stuff like that.

BUT IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT ALL THE WMDS WERE TRUCKED INTO SYRIA THE NIGHT BEFORE THE GLORIOUS LIBERATION BEGAN.

[seremtan]

iirc saddam publicly decommissioned a bunch of rockets a few days before war. i remember thinking "you fucking dolt, they're invading whatever you do, and you're sawing up what's left of your pitiful arsenal"

also, this stuff saddam was meant to be hiding from UNSCOM doesn't sound like much if the iraq survey group (who didn't have any barriers to searching) couldn't find it

[R00k]

Gramps and Midnight, you guys are regurgitating the President's rhetoric on our reasons for invading, when even our own top-ranking military commanders have publicly said that this conflict never could have been won militarily.

The problem is, when someone makes such a valid point, you start calling them names like some kind of kindergarten kid instead of considering the actual implications of the fact itself.

If a UN inspector says they had Iraq pegged and knew there were no WMD's, you call him a liberal-UN-supporting-pussy-guy.

When one of our own decorated generals' position is stated about our war machine, you dismiss it outright as "one man"s opinion - disregard the fact that he was the single most competent person on the planet to make that call, having led the event himself.

When it's mentioned that Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell both said that Iraq did not have any WMD programs - only months before the war - I'm sure you dismiss it as some sort of attack directed at you, instead of an obvious fact that PEOPLE KNEW FOR A FACT THAT IRAQ WAS NO THREAT TO ANYONE.

You let yourselves be strung along into thinking that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, then that would directly contribute to 9/11 happening again, even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest that would be the case. So essentially, you base your entire argument for support of the war on some looney hypothetical view of the world, and then have the gall (born out of ignorance, not a compliment), to accuse others of basing their stances on "SHOULD WOULD COULDS" -- reverting, of course, to the middle school level of debating or arguing a point.

If you want to keep on being ignorant, then go right ahead. But don't act all self-righteous because your self-imposed, half-assed attempt at a world-view doesn't play well to intelligent audiences.

[R00k]

BTW, for the ones claiming Pearl Harbor was the only reason we got involved in WW2, or bombed Japan, or firebombed Dresden:

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103

This was news 4 years ago people.