Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 6:31:09 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline 		McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War

Even if we accept the assertion that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, our presence there is the reality of today.  Given that, is there a moral reason for staying, despite the error that put our troops there in the first place?


_____________________________
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 6:47:39 PM   
cjan


Posts: 3513
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline 		Yanno, despite my opposition to the war and desire to bring our troops home, McCain and you, celticlord ,have a point. I suppose since "we" broke it, we have a moral ( and national/global) responsibility to at least try to help fix it. Goddamn this administration for painting us into this untenable corner.

_____________________________

"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A bird will fall ,frozen , dead, from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself."- D.H. L

" When you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks in to you"- Frank Nitti



(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 6:53:52 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Yanno, despite my opposition to the war and desire to bring our troops home, McCain and you, celticlord ,have a point. I suppose since "we" broke it, we have a moral ( and national/global) responsibility to at least try to help fix it. Goddamn this administration for painting us into this untenable corner.


Indeed, for if the rationale for continued US presence is preventing civil war, it follows directly that the invasion set the forces in motion that lead to civil war. 

By any yardstick one cares to use, Bush's decision to invade Iraq was about as wrong as wrong can be.  Unfortunately, we don't get do-overs. 


_____________________________



(in reply to cjan)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 7:02:19 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		        We are well and truly stuck there.  Metaphorically speaking, we not only shoved people who don't know how to swim into the river, we also stocked the river with crocodiles.

      A withdrawal without a stable government securely in place (and promoting some brutal Iraqi Colonel to dictator counts) would be disastrous.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 7:21:51 PM   
MissSCD


Posts: 1185
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline 		There is only one problem that no one seems to adhere to.   We are headed for our own civil war.
It is evident in the news and everything we are seeing.
 
Regards, MissSCD
 
Not the North and the South this time, but the worst possible situation of all-
 

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 7:23:54 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

There is only one problem that no one seems to adhere to. We are headed for our own civil war.
It is evident in the news and everything we are seeing.


How do you figure?


_____________________________



(in reply to MissSCD)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 7:53:18 PM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		The other possibility is, that as an occupying force, we could be standing in the way of their progress.

Civil war? Yes. It's happening now. If we weren't there, ready to shoot anyone who gets out of line, the place would have erupted already. They've been at each other's throats since 1935... the tribal conflicts go back several hundred years. Besides, why would they stand up for themselves, if there's an army there from another country, willing to take the bullets for them? As George S. Patton pointed out, "War (Civil or otherwise) isn't about dying for your country. It's about makeing the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Funny, it works even if you're on the same side... supposedly.

We did what we set out to do: we got rid of Saddam, and helped them organize an elected government. If we stay, then we're just there to dictate to that government. So much for the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" marketing slogan.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 8:04:14 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


Even if we accept the assertion that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, our presence there is the reality of today.  Given that, is there a moral reason for staying, despite the error that put our troops there in the first place?



......there may be a moral reason for some kind of peace keeping force, but why does it have to be American? Admittedly they (first among others) cocked up, but perhaps that moral obligation could be sorted out by paying for a neutral or regional force to do the peace keeping/making.....i mean, the oil contracts must have been sorted out by now......oh yes, and it would involve US politicians trusting the UN or similar.......

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 8:10:34 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

.....there may be a moral reason for some kind of peace keeping force, but why does it have to be American?

At this juncture, who else would it be?  I don't see any nations clamoring to lead any sort of coalition that would replace American troops in country.


_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 8:12:31 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


Even if we accept the assertion that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, our presence there is the reality of today.  Given that, is there a moral reason for staying, despite the error that put our troops there in the first place?



......there may be a moral reason for some kind of peace keeping force, but why does it have to be American? Admittedly they (first among others) cocked up, but perhaps that moral obligation could be sorted out by paying for a neutral or regional force to do the peace keeping/making.....i mean, the oil contracts must have been sorted out by now......oh yes, and it would involve US politicians trusting the UN or similar.......


If 60% of Americans dont trust the UN, why should the politicians?

Plus the UN already screwed over the Iraqi people once with the Oil for Food scandal. So they dont have that much higher moral ground than we do.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 8:18:30 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Plus the UN already screwed over the Iraqi people once with the Oil for Food scandal. So they dont have that much higher moral ground than we do.


...a question of degree. Oil for food was a partial cock up in that while money was siphoned off, food did get through. Operation Iraqi Liberation was a somewhat more substantial cockup.

Oh, and i'm not sure i ought to let this pass....
"If 60% of Americans dont trust the UN, why should the politicians?"
....when, on the Cheney thread, the great man argues for ignoring 66% of the US population.

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 8:20:53 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


Even if we accept the assertion that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, our presence there is the reality of today.  Given that, is there a moral reason for staying, despite the error that put our troops there in the first place?



......there may be a moral reason for some kind of peace keeping force, but why does it have to be American? Admittedly they (first among others) cocked up, but perhaps that moral obligation could be sorted out by paying for a neutral or regional force to do the peace keeping/making.....i mean, the oil contracts must have been sorted out by now......oh yes, and it would involve US politicians trusting the UN or similar.......


If 60% of Americans dont trust the UN, why should the politicians?

Plus the UN already screwed over the Iraqi people once with the Oil for Food scandal. So they dont have that much higher moral ground than we do.


Not to mention that, with Rwanda and Darfur on the UN's list of significant peacekeeping operations, confidence isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind.


_____________________________



(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 9:01:27 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Guess the pro stay in Iraq forever folks haven't been paying attention to developments of the last couple of weeks. We paid the sunni militias to stop attacking us with the promise of pay and government jobs. We haven't delivered and they're attacking us again. Sadr's militia is splintering with many of his unit commanders wanting to abandon the cease fire and start attacking the sunni's and us again. These shi'ite radicals fought the shi'ite government's troops overnight.
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-32689820080326
This included rocket and mortar attacks at our forces:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080326082938tsop.nb/newsblaze/IRAQ0001/Iraq.html

I'm not happy that we'll be leaving these people to what is certainly for some to be death and suffering but our presence prevents any sort of conclusion to the civil war and prevents the emergence of a central government actually in charge of the nation. Getting out, possibly after dividing Iraq along sectarian lines, may be best solution available to us

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 10:23:32 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline 		There is some perception out there that by electing Obama, he will be more likely to change the government. But what people dont understand is the President is not a dictator. He is very limited in what he can do because of congressional politics. It is one of the disadvantages of democracy. Change of any kind is very very slow. And it is usually a brokered compromise.

Yes the president can change foreign policy....BUT...again he is going to be limited. We have a problem in this country with oil. We are consuming about 20 million barrels of oil a day. We only produce 8 million a day on our own. Which means we need to import 12 million a day just to keep our economy afloat. So we can't pack up and leave and hope for the best. What happens in the mid-east has a massive effect on the world oil market. Most of our oil comes from Mexico, Canada, and Venezuela. So you say, "well, we don't need the mideast so lets give it up..." well the problem is if the mid-east falls apart, oil production drops which means supply plummits and everyone who has taken a basic class in economics knows what that means....prices soar. And our economy falls into depression.
So we are stuck in the mid-east unless some other power comes in and starts policing it for us. The only country that might even remotely be interested in doing that is China....the problem is we dont want the Chinese in there. China is too buddy-buddy with Ahmadinejad.

So if any candidate says they are going to pull out of the mid-east and change our foreign policy....I'm very suspect of that kind of promise. I think the Democrats are pandering for votes when it comes to the Iraq war issue. Remember that LBJ made the campaign promise that he will never send combat troops to Vietnam. Little did the voters know....he had not only already made the decision to escalate the war, but he already drew up the plans even when he made that promise. He just needed an excuse (Gulf of Tonkin incident) to start it.

Our government has been playing this game for many, many years. Simply switching the political party will have absolutely no effect. There are many forces at play here that the voters do not control. Of course our politicians dont tell us this nor do they tell us the real reasons we go to war. The Democrats are lying and not telling you the truth. McCain is being a bit more honest. His quote about being in Iraq for 100 years is a hell of a lot more accurate than you will ever know. That's not McCain's plan to be there 100 years. He just knows that is what is most likely to happen whether we like it or not. He's just telling you the truth. The problem is people dont understand the truth. They think we are over there only so Exxon-Mobil can score more profits. Not really. Oil companies may be over there scoring some big profits...but that's not the reason we are there. We are there to secure our national interests.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 10:32:41 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

We are there to secure our national interests.

It is the ultimate perversion of foreign policy that US troops continued presence in Iraq is in this country's best interests, while the initial invasion was not.

Saddam Hussein was unquestionably contained and posed little immediate threat even to his neighbors in 2003.  He did not have weapons of mass destruction.  Iraq was not a destabilizing influence in the Middle East.

We need to stay in Iraq.  We should not have entered Iraq.


_____________________________



(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 10:50:28 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline 		Let's say you go to a friend's house for dinner. During dinner a small dispute breaks out between your friend and his wife. You enter the fray with the suggestion that obviously tensions are high but that as you there right now as a guest maybe some kind of truce can be reached and the argument put aside for another time. The dinner party continues but you get the odd feeling that the minute you leave some harsh words will be exchanged, maybe worse. But eventually you leave anyway, as you cannot stay forever. Come what may.




(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 11:00:03 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


We need to stay in Iraq.  We should not have entered Iraq.




          YEAH!  What he said!

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 11:01:16 PM   
cyberdude611


Posts: 2596
Joined: 5/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

We need to stay in Iraq.  We should not have entered Iraq.



We actually invaded the wrong country. We should have invaded Iran. We now realize that mistake. That is why we are now waiting for an excuse to bomb Iran.

Iran is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. They have some nice attractive oil fields next to Caspian Sea. They dont have control of their air nor their sea. They have US troops on both their borders. So yes....they are scared. And they should be scared. That's why they are trying to make friends with Russia and China. That's why they are trying to buy every defense system they can get their hands on. And that's why they are trying to get nuclear weapons.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 11:02:23 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Hey look it's the domino theory! Did somebody forget to put a steak through its heart when it was buried back in the late 70's?

Oil production in Iraq last year appears, no hard figures for the whole year are available, to have been no better than 2.4 million barrels a day, the oil ministry released a press release on that. Before the invasion we let them export 2.58 million barrels a day as a comparison
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/02/business/ME-FIN-Iraq-Oil-Industry.php

OPEC says world wide demand in 2007 was 85.75 million barrels per day.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-10/16/content_6888840.htm

Therefore a disruption of supply from Iraq could be made up in the short term by selling oil from the strategic reserve, 700+ million brrels we all own that is just sitting around doing nothing. There is also the fact that if the oil industry really believed these prices were likely to last there are a number of oil reserves in the US that were abandoned over the years because they were low grade or too expensive to pump when oil was $30 a barrel but some of that should be profitable at $100 a barrel.

In the long term a partitioned Iraq would likely return to stability and increased oil production faster without our people guarding the infrastructure which draws attacks against the infrastructure. No matter the political bent of the successor states any that can pump oil will simply to enrich themselves so I'd be shocked that Iraq oil production would rop to zero for long.

So the only way pulling out of Iraq would somehow destabilize the surrounding the oil producing states. Which seems unlikely in the extreme.

The other option means leaving my brothers and sisters in arms over there being killed so you can drive gas guzzlers which is revolting.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War - 3/26/2008 11:22:35 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

We actually invaded the wrong country. We should have invaded Iran. We now realize that mistake. That is why we are now waiting for an excuse to bomb Iran.

Invading Iraq was a mistake

Not invading Iran was not a mistake.


_____________________________



(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> McCain Asserts Iraq Withdrawal Could Mean Civil War Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078