|
|
|
On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet.
There was no reason to invade in the first place, and there's no reason to stay.
I don't have a source and I'm open to correction, but isn't this what the Iraqi people want?
I know that the bilateral agreement, signed in '08 by Bush, mandates that all U.S. forces leave by December 31, 2011.
|
On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here?
The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason.
What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years?
Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered?
The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/
There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life.
The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
|
|
|
Nice ^^ Peace is goooooooooooooood!
|
Now if we could only do that in other places of the world.
|
On October 22 2011 13:41 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet. As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done. Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
|
On October 22 2011 14:14 QurtStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet. As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done. Just my take on it. With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
Going in there in the first place was what was going to hurt is on the long run, staying only makes it worse.
|
On October 22 2011 14:14 QurtStarcraft wrote:
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
It'll look like a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis.
When England chose not to waste money fighting America anymore, it didn't change the fact that England was the premier world power (that didn't come until WWII). It just meant that they saved money and lives better spent elsewhere.
|
On October 22 2011 14:14 QurtStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet. As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done. Just my take on it. With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
No. Wasting money while our economy is crumbling hurts the US in the long run. Creating terrorists hurts the US in the long run. Invading sovereign countries for NO REASON hurts the US in the long run. Getting American soldiers killed for NO REASON hurts the US in the long run. Killing innocent civilians anywhere hurts the US in the long run. Perpetuating pointless occupations because of some childish insecurities about our "image" hurts the US in the long run. Did I miss anything?
|
On October 22 2011 14:14 QurtStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet. As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done. Just my take on it. With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none.
Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
|
On October 22 2011 13:41 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet. As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done. Just my take on it.
Why are people so focused on the oil? We get the vast majority of our Oil from sources in the America's
|
US never learns. Abstinence is the best form of birth control. Pulling out? ugh.
|
On October 22 2011 14:34 Sceptor87 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 14:14 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 13:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet. As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done. Just my take on it. With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none. Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
|
After Obama gets re-elected he'll call the pullout a mistake and send them all back. This is an election year move, not a real policy change.
|
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote:On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote:well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country  It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime. American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally. The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East. Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post. OK then. I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from. If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts. If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me. And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
|
On October 22 2011 14:39 hp.Shell wrote:
After Obama gets re-elected he'll call the pullout a mistake and send them all back. This is an election year move, not a real policy change.
They have been planning the end of 2011 as the point for pull out for a while now. Stop making this about the election.
|
On October 22 2011 14:37 Slaughter wrote:I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
Well I don't think anybody is saying to do nothing, but pick the battles better. Having troops in South Korea makes sense since the North already tried to invade once and lord knows old Kimmy up there is itching to do it again. But going gung-ho "AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!" isn't needed. Be peacekeepers instead of war starters. Don't take shit, but also don't cause it either. You know.
We are literally living at a point in human history where we could kill ourselves with the press of some buttons and a fucking phone call. We need to watch what we do instead of spilling blood like we're in the Crusades.
|
On October 22 2011 14:35 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2011 13:41 Euronyme wrote:On October 22 2011 13:26 QurtStarcraft wrote:On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote:
Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing." Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet. As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done. Just my take on it. Why are people so focused on the oil? We get the vast majority of our Oil from sources in the America's
Sadam had announced shortly before the war that he was gonna start charging for oil in euros instead of dollars so that the country could get a better deal, i.e. he would have essentially lowered the value of the USD which is kinda reliant on oil prices, it could have put the US in economic turmoil depending on wether or not others decided to do the same, something that america has been hoping to avoid for a while now. The war probably wasn't for oil per say, it was probably to ensure that the american economy didnt crash (fat load of good that did).
|
i wonder how this influences Afghanistan/Libya and wherever else (in mideast) usa is still stuck in
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
