EPT
Iraq
| Blogs > RebelHeart |
|
RebelHeart
New Zealand722 Posts
| ||
|
Schones_Chaos
United States226 Posts
| ||
|
MarklarMarklar
Fiji1823 Posts
imagine the games we could get out of that war, the iraq war has produced NO GOOD GAMES iran VS usa has much more game potential | ||
|
Pressure
7326 Posts
people keep dying even if it seems like our efforts are wasted, at least more people arent dying | ||
|
azndsh
United States4447 Posts
like masturbation is bad | ||
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
|
Schones_Chaos
United States226 Posts
On September 01 2007 13:52 Kennigit wrote: YOU, should stay because you elected a president not once, but twice who wanted in the country. If you spill the beans, clean dat shit up what about those who did not vote for him? | ||
|
mcmascote
Brazil1575 Posts
Leave them. If they want a dictator thats their fucking problem. If they don't like Christians thats their fucking problem. Americans didn't like blacks in the past, yet nobody declared war to help the black people. Iraq society will evolve like the modern societies did, the problem is that their religion blinds them and they are doing in 2007 what Christians did centuries ago. Nothing more, nothing less. But a lot of African countries are in civil wars right now, why americans don't help them too? ^^ Pressure: MORE people are dying. But thats not the point. USA didn't invade Iraq to help them. Why USA didn't sent troops to fucking Haiti? They are at a civil war right now.. the answer? Haiti is one of the poorest country in the world, theres no benefits in invading a poor country. | ||
|
EpiK
Korea (South)5757 Posts
| ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
The US military leaving Iraq would alleviate the problems its causing by being there. Please articulate what problems you think the US presence in Iraq is preventing/limiting and maybe there could be a meaningful discussion on whether leaving is a bad idea. Here's the potential problems I've heard mentioned, they may not be the problems you're thinking of: The US Needs to Prevent Civil War-- 1) Iraq's civil war isn't any of the US' business. 2) I don't think the US presence is helping the situation even if it were their business. 3) Why should the US care about a civil war in Iraq unless... The US Must Gain Strategic Macro-economic and Military Control of the Region-- I suspect this is the primary reason the US has such a vested interest in Iraq, and why they won't leave. The issue here is that if this is the reason the US is there, they cannot allow democracy in Iraq to develop. A democratic Iraq would likely have a theocratic flavor, and would be friendly with Shiite Iran-- much to the disappointment of the US and their Sunni allies in Saudi Arabia. The US Must Dissuade Islamic Terrorism-- This is a joke concern. Its pretty clear that the US presence in Iraq is flaring terrorism, not dissuading it. If you've got other problems in mind. Mention them. | ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:31 EpiK wrote: People say there is violence because of the presence of US troops in Iraq. It is true that they might have caused it to escalate to its current state but pulling them out won't cause the violence/mayhem to get better. If they leave, the mess they've left will only worsen because the areas they had control over will turn into bloody battlegrounds. I don't think the US should have gone in to Iraq in the first place but they couldn't help their arrogant, greedy selves. They shouldn't just leave after causing such a big mess, its their responsibility to correct it. Agreed. What we need to do is STOP GIVING EVERYONE FUCKING WEAPONS. Let's face it, before the interference in the 80's of the world super powers, the middle east had SHIT weapons. And now with the US desperately trying to find allies in the middle east they are giving even more weapons to the people there who may or most fuckingly will shoot the shit outta their enemies. The US Needs to Prevent Civil War-- 1) Iraq's civil war isn't any of the US' business. 2) I don't think the US presence is helping the situation even if it were their business. 3) Why should the US care about a civil war in Iraq unless... Would this be where the UN would come in as a Peace Keeping force? | ||
micronesia
United States24756 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:35 Tadzio00 wrote: The US Must Dissuade Islamic Terrorism-- This is a joke concern. Its pretty clear that the US presence in Iraq is flaring terrorism, not dissuading it. Actually there turns out to be some logic to the argument that 'fighting them in their turf means we don't fight them here' although probably not for any of the originally provided reasons. If you want to know the exact reason why let me know and I'll explain tomorrow. | ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:38 micronesia wrote: Actually there turns out to be some logic to the argument that 'fighting them in their turf means we don't fight them here' although probably not for any of the originally provided reasons. If you want to know the exact reason why let me know and I'll explain tomorrow. yah, but you guys have went about the wrong way or are still going about the wrong way about it. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On September 01 2007 14:38 micronesia wrote: Actually there turns out to be some logic to the argument that 'fighting them in their turf means we don't fight them here' although probably not for any of the originally provided reasons. If you want to know the exact reason why let me know and I'll explain tomorrow. Except... Iraq wasn't "their turf." Al Qaeda's turf was Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The US is in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia is an ally in the region, so... the US fights them in Iraq? w.t.f. There's not logic there, brother. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
In fact, no governing nation has the right to police the world. And an international entity like the UN has proven itself to be ineffective, full of pompous hot air, unable to enforce its standards. The burden is too heavy for one nation. A confederation of sovereignties is too-loosely bound, and revealed as impotent in the ways of enforcement. To be plainly honest, the only viable long-term solution is to eradicate the followers of corrupt ideology, lest it further spread and cause countless more genocides, injustices, and acts of inhumanity. Fight fire with fire, cut it out like cancer. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
I don't think the US should allow a dysfunctional institution to influence her. | ||
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
| ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 15:00 HeadBangaa wrote: The US should not police the world. It is not the responsibility of the US to save religious minorities, or end civil wars, or even to stop genocide; we did not enter WW2 because of the holocaust. In fact, no governing nation has the right to police the world. And an international entity like the UN has proven itself to be ineffective, full of pompous hot air, unable to enforce its standards. The burden is too heavy for one nation. A confederation of sovereignties is too-loosely bound, and revealed as impotent in the ways of enforcement. To be plainly honest, the only viable long-term solution is to eradicate the followers of corrupt idealogy, lest it further spread and cause countless more genocides, injustices, and acts of inhumanity. Fight fire with fire, cut it out like cancer. Right...so who or what is going to eradicate these followers of corrupt ideology? What FIRE are you talking about? You've just rejected the idea of any ONE nation doing it or any groups of nations therefore WHAT is going to eradicate said evils? | ||
|
Phantom
Canada2151 Posts
On September 01 2007 16:10 Beyonder wrote: There's something terribly wrong with the concept of 'invading a country to spread freedom.' It makes no sense. But now that America is there, they have to fix it. If they do not fix it, then they lose little credibility they have and leave the country without any proper structure at all. Invading doesn't make a lot of since, liberating does, but the americans didn't liberate much =/ that's the only problem...i mean saddam had to go, just the americans weren't the right people to do it. =/ | ||
| ||
