Iraq: How do we get out?

[Swift]

Don't put words in my mouth. I advocate national defense, not invasions. What's stopping us from being blown away when our borders are wide open?

My fault. You were pushing the Ron Paul mantra so hard I simply concluded you were with him in all matters of national defense. You do know that he just wants to go into isolationist mode and not "Defend" the country until we're directly attacked? Of course, I'm not sure how we'll know who it was with the CIA and other federal intelligence agencies dissolved.

Also, what about my other statements about the Iraq war being constitutional?

 

[Danoff]

Don't put words in my mouth. I advocate national defense, not invasions. What's stopping us from being blown away when our borders are wide open?

It's doubtful to me that the situation in Iraq is actually hurting our military significantly. We can strike hard at any point on the globe in a moments notice because our air force is not tied up in Iraq. Our submarines and battleships are also not tied up in Iraq.

I think the US is well defended against invasion, and we could easily mount a serious offensive against Iran or North Korea. It's doubtful to me that we could occupy any territory, but that's not really necessary to cripple another nation's military capability.

 

[Omnis]

My fault. You were pushing the Ron Paul mantra so hard I simply concluded you were with him in all matters of national defense. You do know that he just wants to go into isolationist mode and not "Defend" the country until we're directly attacked? Of course, I'm not sure how we'll know who it was with the CIA and other federal intelligence agencies dissolved.

Also, what about my other statements about the Iraq war being constitutional?

Lol. Don't put words in his mouth either. There's a difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. All he's said is that he doesn't like the bureaucracy of the agencies. That's why the FBI and CIA didn't pay attention to the warnings of the 9/11 hijackers, isn't it? All the intelligence in the world doesn't do much good when interpreted incorrectly. This isn't about Ron Paul, though.

It's doubtful to me that the situation in Iraq is actually hurting our military significantly. We can strike hard at any point on the globe in a moments notice because our air force is not tied up in Iraq. Our submarines and battleships are also not tied up in Iraq.

I think the US is well defended against invasion, and we could easily mount a serious offensive against Iran or North Korea. It's doubtful to me that we could occupy any territory, but that's not really necessary to cripple another nation's military capability.

True on the AF and Navy, but we're not really worried about countries invading us. I thought the latest trend was to be afraid of terrorists. Why does it then make sense to prioritize Iraqi security over our border security? I'm not saying that Iraq is unimportant, but we have to take care of home first. I think I can predict your rebuttals on this one, and that's okay. I'm not saying you are wrong on the issue, I just have a different opinion.

It's like I said before, things would be great if we could afford it. This war is not hurting the military significantly because the people are getting raped instead. The dollar is tanking, yo. All the borrowing and printing to fund the military and wall street is catching up with us. Oh, and we couldn't mount an offensive against Iran because it would cause WW3 with us and Israel against the rest of the world. China would dump our dollars and we'd be belly-up.

 

[Danoff]

True on the AF and Navy, but we're not really worried about countries invading us. I thought the latest trend was to be afraid of terrorists. Why does it then make sense to prioritize Iraqi security over our border security? I'm not saying that Iraq is unimportant, but we have to take care of home first. I think I can predict your rebuttals on this one, and that's okay. I'm not saying you are wrong on the issue, I just have a different opinion.

Are you suggesting that we put 100,000 troops on the mexican border?

 

[Swift]

Lol. Don't put words in his mouth either. There's a difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. All he's said is that he doesn't like the bureaucracy of the agencies. That's why the FBI and CIA didn't pay attention to the warnings of the 9/11 hijackers, isn't it? All the intelligence in the world doesn't do much good when interpreted incorrectly. This isn't about Ron Paul, though.

It's not? Even though he's your avatar and your first few posts were his response to the Iraq situation at the latest debate almost verbatim?

You're not going to get an argument from me that the bureaucracy is a problem. But that doesn't mean the agencies don't have a use and a place in the security of our nation.

There was a wall put up between the FBI and CIA on purpose by the Clinton administration leading up to 9/11. Had this information hurdle not been put there, who knows what may have happened.

 

[Omnis]

It's not? Even though he's your avatar and your first few posts were his response to the Iraq situation at the latest debate almost verbatim?

Nope. It's about me and what I'm saying. I advocate the guy but I don't represent him.

You're not going to get an argument from me that the bureaucracy is a problem. But that doesn't mean the agencies don't have a use and a place in the security of our nation.

There was a wall put up between the FBI and CIA on purpose by the Clinton administration leading up to 9/11. Had this information hurdle not been put there, who knows what may have happened.

Then we are agreed.

Danoff, I wish we didn't have to have any troops at all. If we're going to have a welfare-warfare state, though, we might as well beef up border security. Unless people can arm themselves, it doesn't make sense to send your army overseas to combat nations, especially those sponsoring terrorism, when their sponsored terrorists could easily slip into our country.

 

[Swift]

Nope. It's about me and what I'm saying. I advocate the guy but I don't represent him.

You're doing a heck of a job representing him. I thought you were a press manager for a second.

Then we are agreed.

On the bureaucracy yes. But not on the fact that not "liking" something makes it unconstitutional.

 

[Omnis]

On the bureaucracy yes. But not on the fact that not "liking" something makes it unconstitutional.

👍 I'll cede the unconstitutional bit. I still don't think the framers would've meant for things to happen like they did, though.

 

[KSaiyu]

^Much like Britain I bet.

 

[Swift]

👍 I'll cede the unconstitutional bit. I still don't think the framers would've meant for things to happen like they did, though.

I do, everything was done well within the rules of the constitution. It's welfare, medicare, medicaid and other entitlement programs that are what the founders didn't mean to happen.

 

[joeypic112]

.

 

[homeforsummer]

America is the most free country.

Well, that's what they want you to think...

 

[Sureboss]

What works in the west won't work in the middle and far east. Been there done that.

 

[Joey D]

And NEVER forget.

About what? The Alamo? Dr. Dre?

And isn't Sweden or something the most free country according to some index? I feel like I was having this conversation the other day. I could be off, but I'm pretty certain the US isn't the most free country in the world since there are a lot of things we can't do. I mean look at all the censorship we face, it's just one example about how we aren't free.

On topic, I still have no idea what Iraq did in relationship to September 11th, unless there is some glaring evidence that proves Saddam pulled the trigger. As far as I can tell the US acted on bad intelligence, it's time to admit the mistake and move on. To me Iraq seemed like it was Bush finishing things up that his dad was unable to do.

Now we have Obama, who said he'd get us out, but instead is leaving everyone in there and planning on more military actions.

 

[Touring Mars]

Why not help out a country who needs it? We have alot to offer to them to help them reestablish order. Im all for it.

The Iraqi people deserved justice and Saddam deserved to have justice served upon him by them, and this probably wouldn't have happened without US-led intervention... but this is only one instance of justice that has come from the war. You say that the war was about justice and freedom, but on the whole, the Iraqi people are seeing precious little justice, and the jury is still well and truly out on the freedom/democracy front. Also, are we expected to believe that the Iraq War was an act of altruism, led by the US, on behalf of the Iraqi people? The harsh truth about the Iraq War is that it wasn't an act of altruism at all, but a selfish act designed solely to serve our own interests - the safety and security of the Iraqi people was desirable but non-essential, just so long as we got what we came for. By the same token, 'justice' and 'freedom' for the Iraqis was also desirable, but equally non-essential for us.

The war in Iraq has served several purposes and produced several outcomes, not all of which were intended, and not all of which are desirable, but so long as some of our objectives were achieved to some extent, we can forget about the annoying details. But while our combined efforts continue to fail in restoring security in Iraq, and while the Sunnis and Shi'ites continue to knock seven shades of Islam out of each other, "democracy" will be a largely irrelevant charade that the West can use as a convenient excuse to justify itself. Meanwhile the costs are staggering, and the ultimate outcomes of the war put this act of so-called altruism firmly into perspective. The war has cost thousands of US soldiers their lives, tens of thousands of soldiers have been injured and/or permanently maimed or traumatised; it has cost tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians their lives, with hundreds of thousands injured and millions being displaced or losing their livelihoods. It has already cost every household in the US several thousand dollars each - far from a 'blank check', the US taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. All told, both ourselves and the Iraqi people have paid a very high price for what is in reality a very mixed bag of outcomes.

While we may not be responsible for sectarian hatred in Iraq, we are responsible for creating the conditions under which such hatred has been allowed to thrive and at times closely resemble civil war, hence it is our responsibility to restore peace, regardless of our loftier claims of creating an Iraqi democracy. Hence we can expect to be in Iraq for many more years to come in one capacity or another, and yet there are no guarantees that the ultimate outcome will be to our advantage, despite the enormous costs.

 

[Danoff]

The Iraqi people deserved justice and Saddam deserved to have justice served upon him by them, and this probably wouldn't have happened without US-led intervention... but this is only one instance of justice that has come from the war. You say that the war was about justice and freedom, but on the whole, the Iraqi people are seeing precious little justice, and the jury is still well and truly out on the freedom/democracy front. Also, are we expected to believe that the Iraq War was an act of altruism, led by the US, on behalf of the Iraqi people? The harsh truth about the Iraq War is that it wasn't an act of altruism at all, but a selfish act designed solely to serve our own interests - the safety and security of the Iraqi people was desirable but non-essential, just so long as we got what we came for. By the same token, 'justice' and 'freedom' for the Iraqis was also desirable, but equally non-essential for us.

The war in Iraq has served several purposes and produced several outcomes, not all of which were intended, and not all of which are desirable, but so long as some of our objectives were achieved to some extent, we can forget about the annoying details. But while our combined efforts continue to fail in restoring security in Iraq, and while the Sunnis and Shi'ites continue to knock seven shades of Islam out of each other, "democracy" will be a largely irrelevant charade that the West can use as a convenient excuse to justify itself. Meanwhile the costs are staggering, and the ultimate outcomes of the war put this act of so-called altruism firmly into perspective. The war has cost thousands of US soldiers their lives, tens of thousands of soldiers have been injured and/or permanently maimed or traumatised; it has cost tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians their lives, with hundreds of thousands injured and millions being displaced or losing their livelihoods. It has already cost every household in the US several thousand dollars each - far from a 'blank check', the US taxpayer will be paying for this for years to come. All told, both ourselves and the Iraqi people have paid a very high price for what is in reality a very mixed bag of outcomes.

While we may not be responsible for sectarian hatred in Iraq, we are responsible for creating the conditions under which such hatred has been allowed to thrive and at times closely resemble civil war, hence it is our responsibility to restore peace, regardless of our loftier claims of creating an Iraqi democracy. Hence we can expect to be in Iraq for many more years to come in one capacity or another, and yet there are no guarantees that the ultimate outcome will be to our advantage, despite the enormous costs.

You know, I probably couldn't disagree with your take on the war any more than I do. I think we were justified in going in (based on treaty violations), and that it was important we do so (for multiple security-based reasons). I supported the war from the start and I still support what has been done. So I'm not entirely sure we could come from more different viewpoints.

But somehow, I don't disagree with anything you posted. You chose to examine the costs and not the benefits (which have been realized), but your examination was accurate.

Good post. 👍

 

[Touring Mars]

Good post. 👍

Thanks 👍

You know, I probably couldn't disagree with your take on the war any more than I do. I think we were justified in going in (based on treaty violations), and that it was important we do so (for multiple security-based reasons). I supported the war from the start and I still support what has been done. So I'm not entirely sure we could come from more different viewpoints.

But somehow, I don't disagree with anything you posted. You chose to examine the costs and not the benefits (which have been realized), but your examination was accurate.

I guess it is much easier to assess the costs, since they are tangible quantities, whereas it is very difficult to measure the success of installing a democratic regime, especially on top of a complex and divided country like Iraq.

One thing is for sure, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to label the war simply as a success or a failure, when in reality it is probably going to be both to some degree or other (hence why it is easy for two people to agree and disagree at the same time!), depending on what we are talking about. So far, one of the most important metrics has been the degree of violence in the country since the invasion, and that has varied alot... Perhaps the biggest test is whether Iraq can avoid descending into civil war once the last of the US troops have gone. Current trends are optimistic, but a reversal is still very possible, even likely...

 

[Omnis]

I'd say the war part was a success. But war is just destruction. Saddam Hussein was destroyed. Unfortunately, Iraq has also been destroyed and its people are still under our boot. There are some places governments-- no matter what form-- don't work. Iraq will never be rebuilt by using violence and subjugating the people to live under a new form of coercive force. You can't rebuild a shattered country by pounding it into dust. War is never ever productive, and now, especially, since the "objectives" have been realized, it's time to bring the troops home and introduce trade to the country. Read people like Mutadhar al-Zaidi... Iraq is in desperate need of a constructive force and could do without the occupation in a heartbeat.

 

[joeypic112]

.

 

[Gil]

I'm starting this thread because even though GT Planet is basically a gaming website, there are plenty of intelligent sorts who post here, so i pose the question to you: How do we get out of Iraq? What are your opinions?

I've always been torn on this issue. When we invaded Iraq, i remember thinking we had plenty of good reason to do so, with the whole weapons of mass destruction argument brewing. At the time, i totally believed what Bush & cohorts were telling us and even though he's a republican, i got behind him (as did Hillary and many other lawmakers who would normally disagree).

My father (who knows just about everything on these matters--he works in government communications) disagreed, however. Although he can't tell me exactly what he does (Top Secret stuff) he outlined exactly why Bush was lying--but on this issue i parted ways.

And it turns out...Bush was lying. Cheney was lying. I felt foolish once the truth came out..that there were no wmd. Of course, the US government knew all this beforehand. The way surveillance is nowadays, they had to know...

...so all of this leads to the topic of this thread. Iraq is a sucky mess. I'll admit i'm not 100% well-read on the subject, i'm a guy who works an honest living and plays videogames, watching or reading the news in a casual manner. I have no idea what we should do..it seems irresponsible to civilians over there if we just leave, yet (honestly) no progress is being made by us staying there. What do we do about it? How do we get out, or do you think we even should get out?

In truth, and someone may have said this already, we ASSUME that Bush was lying because we didn't actually find the WMD's.
Now as much as I hate to admit it, Saddam was mad as a hatter, but he wasn't stupid.
Iraq has a butt-load of places to hide that kind of stuff, and a fanatical army. Even is we knew EVERY place available to hide stuff, the ONLY way to have found them would have been to hit every place, and I mean EVERY place at the same time.

A man that had hundreds of residences, and many look-alikes roaming around to hide his own movements, would ostensibly move his stockpile of all kinds of weapons, to keep the enemies in his own government from using them against him.

As far as getting out of the Middle east... we would have to be willing to essentially just pull out, and leave them and their resources to their own devices.

Thru the history of civilization, there has been war in the Middle East.
We are foolish to even think we can do much more than keep it poorly contained.

 

[YSSMAN]

I totally agree with Omnis' last point. Create some kind of stable economy, with jobs and education, and we're likely to see much of the violence stop. It won't be immediate, but it will work.

Now we have Obama, who said he'd get us out, but instead is leaving everyone in there and planning on more military actions.

If I'm understanding the SOF agreement correctly, troops are already on their way out (moving to the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan), but are otherwise regulated to camps that are outside of the metropolitan areas. As I recall, only the Iraqis can call us out for military action for backup, or whatever.

I believe in January, during the Iraqi election, there may be a vote to move up the SOF agreement further to have our troops out by the summer of 2010.

 

[Joey D]

If I'm understanding the SOF agreement correctly, troops are already on their way out (moving to the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan), but are otherwise regulated to camps that are outside of the metropolitan areas. As I recall, only the Iraqis can call us out for military action for backup, or whatever.

I believe in January, during the Iraqi election, there may be a vote to move up the SOF agreement further to have our troops out by the summer of 2010.

Hmmm, maybe a bit more research on this is in order for me.

 

[Omnis]

If I'm understanding the SOF agreement correctly, troops are already on their way out (moving to the "forgotten war" in Afghanistan), but are otherwise regulated to camps that are outside of the metropolitan areas. As I recall, only the Iraqis can call us out for military action for backup, or whatever.

Wrong. 1000 troops packed their bags for Iraq, and a couple thousand more have gone to Afghanistan. There is no withdrawl-- I linked the story in the Obama thread.

 

[YSSMAN]

I did forget about the extra troops going back into Iraq, in lieu of those going to Afghanistan. Whoops. Here's to hoping the Iraqis kick us out before we actually have to leave.

 

[Exorcet]

I just happend to click on this and read the opening post, this could have been said already, but I'll say it anyway.

I'm starting this thread because even though Of course, the US government knew all this beforehand. The way surveillance is nowadays, they had to know...

A dangerous claim, the kind of thing that can start a war.

 

[Omnis]

Did you guys see the new Wikileaks footage of the Reuters journalists getting murdered? Makes me sick.

 

[Dotini]

I saw it.
It must be recalled that in 2007 things weren't going terribly well and there was talk of the US actually losing. If it makes you feel better, you can fix on the following:

-Our country, right or wrong, is always right.

-The winners write history. We are winners, and exceptional too. Laws and rules don't apply to us when we're on a mission from God.

-They were hajis's and reporters, therefore doubly sub-human, and probably deserved it anyway.

-War is hell; especially for the other guy.

-All our crimes, sins, losses and expenses, also Bush's, are justified by the excellent results: We haven't lost (yet), Saddam is dead, some Iraqi women have some rights, and some Iraqi kids go to school. Too bad it didn't work that we haven't got the oil (yet), and that Iran is picking up many of the pieces.

-Most important of all: Might makes right. The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must.

Facetiously,
Dotini

 

[Omnis]

Facetiously and without tact.

 

[Dotini]

True, I'm angry about it. The original invasion lacked much in tact. I was in the street shouting in protest before the invasion. That lacked both tact and any effect. Now we are left with the consequences, no matter how blunt.

 

[Moglet]

-Most important of all: Might makes right. The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must.

The weak being innocent people be it children and reporters. What an excellent way to demonstrate justice; by mass murdering innocents from a helicopter.

It's clear from the video there was no PRG or AA device of any kind, and the van that turned up to pick up the bodies? What threat was that posing? Whoever gave the orders to kill them should be removed from military service immediately and sentenced for mass murder.