When Should U.S. Troops Be Pulled Out Of Iraq?

[rccar328]

I feel the need to mention once more that Europe has been politicking since before America was even discovered (By Europeans, what's more. America is in fact one of these so called 'colonies we left a mess in'. Hang on a minute, let's look at America. Hey, you are right after all. We left one hell of a mess behind us). Anyone who wants to attack Europe on these sort of grounds should really read the history first.

The Brits did leave quite a mess here in the US, but the main reason they couldn't hold on to the American colonies was because they couldn't run their own government efficiently (read The Long Fuse: How England Lost the American Colonies by Don Cook for more info)...and besides that, they had agreements with the American colonies that they kept changing (which is why America has a Constitution that is difficult to ammend). All in all, America's Founding Fathers did a pretty good job cleaning up the mess that England left here.

 

What disgusts me about the setup of the Iraqi government is how PC we're being about it. After WWII, we gave Japan a constitution, and they had to work with it...and they have done so, with great success. Of course, the religious aspect of that situation was quite different, seeing as how we were able to remove the religious element of the Japanese government by simply getting Emperor Hirohito to admit that he was not, in fact, a god. It's gonna take a lot more than that to get the jihadist Muslims to stop their acts of terrorism...and the only government that's gonna get them to do that in Iraq is a hard-line Islamic state based entirely around the shari`ah...which would be an extremely bad idea (check out The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer, or other books by the same author, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith and The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims for more info on the dangers of Islamic law).

[riceplant]

Don't try and blame us for your constitution. It was written after you seceded from the Empire. Part of your problems appear to me to be a result of your attitude towards it. When we don't like one of our laws, we change it. You say something like 'That's a terrible law. What a damn shame, but it's part of the Constitution.'

About Iraq: we're not being Politically Correct, we're simply not forcing our laws down their throats.

About Islam: It's not the religion, it's the people. Christianity (mentioned because it's the dominant religion in the west) also has many ridiculously strict laws, but we are (mostly) sensible enough not to treat every tenet of our religion as the ultimate law.

[El Sitherino]

Not to mention Islam is pretty much in it's inquisition - crusade stage. All religions go through it at nearly the same age. It's like puberty for religions. Angsty and pissy.

[rccar328]

Don't try and blame us for your constitution. It was written after you seceded from the Empire. Part of your problems appear to me to be a result of your attitude towards it. When we don't like one of our laws, we change it. You say something like 'That's a terrible law. What a damn shame, but it's part of the Constitution.'

And yet, when faced with a law that truly was terrible, we managed to change it...and our government (when it works like it's supposed to) isn't left to the whim of the legislature or any other body other than the people. And anyway, whether you like it or not, the format of America's Constitution was in part a reaction to the format of Britain's constitution. Our Founders didn't just throw together a government - they had actual reasons for their choices.

 

And personally, I'd say that 'not forcing our laws down their throats' is the very definition of being PC about it. Like I said, we gave Japan a constitution, and they've done pretty well with it.

 

And it's not just the people - discrimination against all unbelievers is built in to Islamic law. Islamic law states quite clearly that conquered unbelievers (or, unbelievers living in any Islamic territory) are to be given this choice: either convert, pay the jizya (tax), or be put to death. Furthermore, unbelievers are to be treated as dhimmi, essentially, second-class citizens. The poll tax was to be paid by the dhimmi in such a way as to make them feel subjugated and inferior; all that is left up to interpretation is the method of humiliation the dhimmi would be put through when paying the jizya. Historically, non-Muslims living in Muslim lands were forced to convert or tried to flee due to the extreme burden of the jizya. Islamic law has not changed since that time.

 

Finally, Islam has essentially been going through its crusade stage since its inception. Muhammed himself led Muslim troops into battle, and while it would be inaccurate to say that Islam has constantly been at war since the beginning, the vast majority of Islamic history is either that of armed conquest of new territory or violent defense of that territory. In fact, the Muslim terrorists who are so bent on killing Americans are hardly doing it due to any hatred for American foreign policy, as has been claimed over and over - they are following the religious mandates of the Koran, their holy book, to kill unbelievers.

[riceplant]

As I said before, it is the people, not the religion. The bible also decrees that unbelievers be put to death, but like I said before, in the west we have learned not to blindly follow our religion at the expense of sanity.

[SkinWalker]

The irony of reading one cult follower quibble over the cult practices of others is amazing to the point of hypocrisy.

 

Its not as if Xian missionaries didn't travel the globe offering food, medicine, clothing, and shelter to anyone willing to listen to sermon and convert. They've been doing this forced-proslytization/extortion for centuries and still do.

 

The problem is religion, not individual cults.

[rccar328]

There's quite a difference between offering food, medicine, clothing, and shelter to people willing to convert and giving them the choice between death, subjugation, and conversion.

 

There is no command in Christianity to subjugate or kill unbelievers - quite the opposite. However, these things are fundamental parts of Islam - they are written into the Koran.

[ET Warrior]

There is no command in Christianity to subjugate or kill unbelievers - quite the opposite. However, these things are fundamental parts of Islam - they are written into the Koran.

 

Intriguing....I'll take this excerpt posted by Toms in the Tolerance thread that you started and perhaps haven't had the opportunity to read yet...I'm not sure what chapter of the Bible this comes from...but you can ask toms

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

 

16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy [a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you.

[Rogue15]

what rccar328 said was right, there is no command in Christianity to subjugate or kill unbelievers. Love your enemy as you love youself is what Jesus commanded us.

 

And that scripture you quoted is from the old testament when you had to sacrifice your livestock to attone for your sins, before Jesus was sent down from heaven to attone for the sins of the world.

[rccar328]

Yes - there are two Covenants with God mentioned in the Bible - the one with Abraham, in which God pledged to give the Israelites the Promised Land (and part of gaining access to the Promised Land included driving out the Gebusites, Hittites, Amorites, etc), and the New Covenant under Jesus Christ.

[ET Warrior]

Which has always seemed a convenient sort of confusion. since we're apparently supposed to take SOME of the old testament as literal and truth, but the stuff that you don't like is cool to ignore.

[rccar328]

There are moral laws in the Old Testament that we should still follow (Exodus 20:1-17), and Jesus' words in Luke 10:19 tell us that these Commandments should still be followed. The command to drive out and kill the people living in the Promised Land, however, was terminated when the Israelites were disobeyed God (Judges 2:1-3), and no longer applies.

 

It's not just a matter of selecting those commands that we agree with - the New Testament is the main guide for Christian morality, along with those parts of the Old Testament that the New Testament tells us still apply.

[riceplant]

But there are so many different versions of the Bible, it really is a case of selecting the one you like. And there are many commands that weren't revoked, but are still ignored today.

[ShadowTemplar]

1) I fully agree with you, EU troops should be removed from Iraq. One problem, the EU doesnt have an army.

 

That is indeed a problem...

 

To have them remove forces just because you disagree with the US government is a great way to stablize a country...

 

Iraq is going to hell anyway. 5% more or less forces aren't going to matter when the fecal matter hits the rotating air impeller. 5% extra forces drawn from an already overextended US army might, however, insure that the US doesn't go ahead and turn Iran or Syria to warzones too for at least a couple of years.

 

2)Cowboying around the world...I always view it as going around and cleaning up the mess you Europeans left around the world with your glorious empires...I say tomato you say tomatoe.

 

OK, European Imperialism was a Bad Thing. We can agree on that. But do you seriously think that American Imperialism is the solution?

 

3)While I'm all in favor a strong EU [...] I dont think it should be advesarial to the US.

 

That, mein Freund, would be for the US to decide. If the US decides to keep riding roughshod over NATO, UN, and Human Rights and keeps treating the EU as a protectorate, then hostility will ensue. And if present political and economic trends in the US continue, the US will be a liability, politically, economically, and morally, to the EU within the next few decades.

 

If anything the EU and the US should be working together more for the stability of the world

 

Unfortunately recent events have proven that a more stable world order would be one where the US holds radically diminished power.

 

4)Finally..illigetimate Bush regime..do you Europeans still have sour grapes over that?

 

That was not - quite - what I meant. When I said 'illegitimate' I was referring to the fact that he bases his power on fascist and near-fascist political groups, caters blatantly to special interests, employs GeStaPo tactics and an unprecedented level of smear campaigns against political opponents and has near-total control of all significant electronic media bar one.

 

But, in answer to you original question, yes we still have 'sour grapes' over the fact that he didn't win his first election legitimately, and that there is considerable room for doubt as to whether the second election was fair and honest. More to the point, we have grave concerns about that fact. 25000 grave concerns to be precise.

 

Get over it. He was elected legally twice. Tell me one election law he violated.

 

Why the one that says you aren't allowed to arbitrarily disenfranchise voters and stuff the ballot box.

 

After WWII, we gave Japan a constitution, and they had to work with it...and they have done so, with great success.

 

In WWII Japan happened to be an agressor...

 

and our government (when it works like it's supposed to) [my emphasis] isn't left to...

 

\snickers

[toms]

1) I fully agree with you, EU troops should be removed from Iraq. One problem, the EU doesnt have an army.

No, but its member states do. The EU isn't a country, in the same way that NATO isn't, and as such it doesn't have an army. Thats why some EU states still have troops there, some have had troops but since removed them; and some never sent troops in the first place.

The troops do tend to operate together under combined command structures regularly though.

 

There is talk of creating an EU rapid reaction force, but i think the anti-EU-as-a-state feelings may have put that on hold.

 

OT:

It's not just a matter of selecting those commands that we agree with - the New Testament is the main guide for Christian morality, along with those parts of the Old Testament that the New Testament tells us still apply.

Its amazing the illogical hoops people will jump through to justify their inconsistent beliefs. Jesus said the OT still applied, but apparently now only certain bits still applied?? Did he overide the part about women needing to keep their heads covered too? or te bit about stoning to death rape victims who don't cry out? I'm thinking he should have been a bit more specific about what he was overriding and what he wasn't, cos now i'm totally confused.

The catholic church of the crusades period definately read those parts as still applying when they tried to wipe out all other religions. I think you are applying your modern feelings to the bible as much as I do.

 

Aren't both muslims and christians basing many of their beliefs on the same texts? Its only AFTER Jesus that the split appears. Which means a lot of their beliefs are based on the Old Testament too... its just they are more consistent about enforcing ALL of them, not just the ones against gays...

 

Most muslims would claim that they aren't instructed to kill unbelivers anyway. As they would also argue that anyone who commits suicide would go to hell.

 

its only the small minority who make a lot of noise that believe differently.

50 years ago islam was a very moderate religion... that was before the post-war messing-up of the region and the creation of and defeat by Isreal lead to a lot of extremists who said "it was better in the old days before all these modern ways destroyed society and the family" and then got into power in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

The saudi royal family (allies of the US if we forget) believe in a far more extremist version of islam, and have spent billions exporting it around the globe (creating new hardline versions of the qur'an and insisting that any muslim project they funded around the globe took a teacher from their sect)

 

I heard it described like this once by a professor: Imagine if the KKK had gained control of all of Texas's oil revnue, and then had used that revenue to create schools and hospitals and pojects all around the christian world that propogated THEIR messed up version of christianity. Imagine that times 100. That is kind of what has happened to islam in the past 50 years.

[ShadowTemplar]

Again you imply that the Islamic so-called extremists are not faithfully representing their religion. I submit that this is not true, and that they - like the KKK - are actually founded on strong precedents in tradition and valid inferences from their respective Scriptures.