Vacating Hell: Iraq

[Windu Chi]

Well, ladies and gentleman and boys and girls, the democrats are finally or trying to grow some balls. They are hell-bent it seems, to get the troops outs out of that bloodbath and bring honor back to this country, for those of you who still care for honor.

 

But of course, with Bush and his delusional supporters of that dishonorable war still at the helm, their relentlessness in ending this war won't have a chance in hell in succeeding.

 

Hell is most likely to become a vacation spot, then this action becoming successful.

 

But there is always a possibility.

 

For those of you who has took up residence in neighborhood rock for the last couple months.

They, are trying to pass a war spending bill that require the troops to start to begin canceling their reservations in hell by Oct 1, 2007

and finaly get them out there by April 1, 2008.

 

But, lets be serious this is not happening.

 

But some will stay!

 

Under the bill, U.S. forces could remain in Iraq after the 2008 date, but would be restricted to three non-combat missions: protecting U.S. personnel and facilities, engaging in counterterrorism activities against al-Qaida and other similar organizations, and training and equipping Iraqi forces.

 

I would say Iraq will become the 51st state of the United States of America[ in the next decade or so.

 

Comments ?

[CLONECOMMANDER501]

I think that we can't win, Vietnam and Korea failed so why try a broken plan?

[Nancy Allen``]

For those that take a moral stance, how moral is it to leave the people of Iraq to die from the strife that had been created with the invasion? We're stuck in Iraq; stay and we anger the world further including Iraqis and terrorism, leave and the violence goes on unchecked and enemies can use it for point scoring and even demonstrate that America and it's allies are weak and can be defeated. We cannot win, no matter what we do.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

For those that take a moral stance, how moral is it to leave the people of Iraq to die from the strife that had been created with the invasion?

How moral is it to stay and let our soldiers die alongside the Iraqis the administration subjected to this war? No matter what we do the killings there will continue. A ~1400 year long conflict won't end just because we want it to.

[Nancy Allen``]

Exactly. So the difficult situation is do we try and atone for our crimes by trying to defend the people of Iraq by sacrificing our sons and daughters in an effort to limit the killing or pull out and just let the Iraqis die, failing them in their time of need? All the possible answers to this question are wrong.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Exactly. So the difficult situation is do we try and atone for our crimes by trying to defend the people of Iraq by sacrificing our sons and daughters in an effort to limit the killing or pull out and just let the Iraqis die, failing them in their time of need?

Because our attempts to do this so far have been oh so sucessful. The **** has already hit the fan in Iraq, there's no sense in continuing to stand in front of it.

[Nancy Allen``]

I want to bring the troops home, I do. How many more Iraqis will die than there already are if we do however? If we are wrong in invading, and we are, shouldn't we try and fix it?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

My point is that we can't fix it.

[Datheus]

So . . . do we try and atone for our crimes by trying to defend the people of Iraq by sacrificing our sons and daughters in an effort to limit the killing . . .

 

Why are you a glutton for punishment? It wasn't my mistake or any GI's mistake. Why not punish those who committed the crimes instead of punishing some lower middle class family from Kansas or North Carolina whose son is about to be blown to pieces?

[Nancy Allen``]

I was going to write a long piece on this but I think my thoughts can be broken down to simply this: If we do pull out from Iraq will the reaction be that we should sacrifice more to fix the problem we created?

[Windu Chi]

I was going to write a long piece on this but I think my thoughts can be broken down to simply this: If we do pull out from Iraq will the reaction be that we should sacrifice more to fix the problem we created?

Nancy, Iraq don't have a airforce or sufficient army to protect their country, I don't see the troops leaving no time soon; about two decades or so, maybe.

 

Also Nancy, that fool Bush and his idiotic administration created this mess.

They lied to start this war, for what?

I'm not sure, Nancy.

 

The bio weapons, no dice; the chemical weapons, no dice.

Lies!

 

 

I see us staying there for 50 yrs or so, unless the U.N. step in.

But the U.N. is a useless f**kup organization, so 50yrs, my vote.

 

How long do you think we will remain there, Nancy?

[Nancy Allen``]

Which is the point I'm making, Iraq cannot defend itself from Sunni and Shi'ite aggression. The forces we have there can barely contain it. Without aid Iraqis will die. The question remains whether or not we should? And there's all these factors to consider: should we stay and if the problem cannot be fixed then sacrifice the soldiers there, considering it's our fault? Is it pointless politically and economically to stay? What would the result be if we stayed? If we leave?

 

To answer your queston it seems the Democrats are organising an exit stratergy, last I heard March 31st next year is the date the soldiers will leave Iraq. Will it happen? Could it be sooner? March next year or before the elections next year would almost guarentee a victory for the Democrats, so from this point of view I think I can almost assure that it will happen and for those who are saying about the negatives of us staying I think as wrong as it is to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves I think it is less harmful than interfering any further and inciting further violence by being there. But I will say that we must make sure that whatever action is taken that Iraq will be able to stand.

[Windu Chi]

Which is the point I'm making, Iraq cannot defend itself from Sunni and Shi'ite aggression. The forces we have there can barely contain it. Without aid Iraqis will die. The question remains whether or not we should? And there's all these factors to consider: should we stay and if the problem cannot be fixed then sacrifice the soldiers there, considering it's our fault? Is it pointless politically and economically to stay? What would the result be if we stayed? If we leave?

A difficult question to answer, time will tell I guess, Nancy.

There seem to be no way out.

 

To answer your queston it seems the Democrats are organising an exit stratergy, last I heard March 31st next year is the date the soldiers will leave Iraq. Will it happen?

I highly doubt it, hell is most likely to become a vacation destination then the

Democrats overriding that asshole's veto.

 

 

 

Could it be sooner? March next year or before the elections next year would almost guarentee a victory for the Democrats, so from this point of view I think I can almost assure that it will happen and for those who are saying about the negatives of us staying I think as wrong as it is to leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves I think it is less harmful than interfering any further and inciting further violence by being there. But I will say that we must make sure that whatever action is taken that Iraq will be able to stand.

 

I guess whenever the hell the sectarian bloodletting cease, then maybe they can stand up and take possession of their country's future.

Unless they want to become a part of the U.S. if they can't get their sh*t together by themselves, Nancy.

[ET Warrior]

Without aid Iraqis will die

With aid Iraqis are already dying, and will continue to die. The only difference is that we would no longer be there CONTINUING to fuel anti-western sentiment that is adding to the violence. At least if we leave we are giving them a chance to fix their problems, instead of standing around telling everyone that we know what is best for them, and if they'd just listen to us everything would end with rainbows and unicorns.

[Nancy Allen``]

If we leave, which we should, how would you react if the country erupts into total anarchy and Iraq's military and police force are completely overrun, killing millions of men women and children? I know I would have wished that we stayed and not opened the floodgates that could well happen if there is no one to stop the violence.

[swphreak]

I have no idea what the topic is about, but I'm guessing from the discussion.

 

 

The violence will continue whether US soldiers are there or not. If we don't have soldiers deployed there, we won't suffer any more casualties. We shouldn't have been there in the first place, and I hope our next President will withdraw troops if Bush hasn't.

[Nancy Allen``]

March 31st next year, I guarentee. It'll be the Democrats' trump card.

[Windu Chi]

March 31st next year, I guarentee. It'll be the Democrats' trump card.

Don't be too sure of that Nancy, they are not guarenteed to win the election.

Look what happen in 2004, with that ass being relected.

That led to this mess, now.

 

We would have to wait and see, if you are right.

[Nancy Allen``]

This shouldn't come as any surprise, Bush has vetoed any plan to pull troops from Iraq. Still look for the Democrats to use ending the occupation as their big campaign vehicle, to them this is what the Death Star is to the Empire: a can't miss trump card.

[Windu Chi]

This shouldn't come as any surprise, Bush has vetoed any plan to pull troops from Iraq.

Now, the Democrats need to grow some balls and veto his corrupt ass and Cheney lying ass out of office.

But they lack the spine to do it.

 

Still look for the Democrats to use ending the occupation as their big campaign vehicle, to them this is what the Death Star is to the Empire: a can't miss trump card.

Yeah, Nancy I understand what you mean but they will have to win this upcoming presidential election, this isn't a guaranteed certainly no matter how much a useless and corrupt Republican president will seem to make the next election for the Democrats to win it, effortlessly.

 

The Republicans just probably cheat their way back into the presidency, like they did way back in 2000.

So, I won't count on the Democrats becoming victorious until I see it happen.

Nancy!

[Prime]

The violence will continue whether US soldiers are there or not.

Yes, but at what scale? If the US pulls out, with the extent of the killing grow even larger to the point of genocide?

[Nancy Allen``]

That's the big fear I have with any planned withdrawal.

 

With the Democrats, they should fight Bush on this, and on their election chances I'd bet money, or if not money something else, that they'll win. Back in 2000 sure, you can say Florida was a cheat, and I can understand that seeing as the result was real close. But this is 2007, the world hates Bush and his Republican allies. The Democrats want to bring the troops home and they have an edge in two of their canidates being the first woman and first African\American. The Republicans as far as I can tell have nothing. When it does become time to vote I honestly believe the Democrats will win and because of the amount of votes they should win by there cannot be any Supreme Court ruling against it.

[Rogue15]

I believe we should stay there and help until they have a large enough army to combat the insurgents themselves.

[swphreak]

Yes, but at what scale? If the US pulls out, with the extent of the killing grow even larger to the point of genocide?

 

The Iraqis have guns don't they? Let them defend themselves. We went to war on BS claims, and we're wasting a crapload of money maintaining a presence there. Just pull out and fix our deficit, among other local problems.

 

The Middle East is never going to be a peaceful or stable place to live. Look at the Iran/Palestine situation. We weren't involved at all and they were shooting at each other. If we had the technology, I'd just say put up a quarantine force field around the area and let them have at it.

[Son of Skywalker15]

I believe we should stay there and help until they have a large enough army to combat the insurgents themselves

 

I generally agree. They have, despite what you hear in the main stream media, grown a pretty big Police Force and Army. Once we finish training them against terrorist war-fare, which they probably know better then us, we can let them defend themselves. We should really starts to focus on getting a way of getting of reorganizing the Middle East, and stopping the destructive conflict of the Sunnis and Shiites.