Printable View
I have no idea whether Iraq will be better off with or without US presence. I just don't see how any of this is improving the lives of any American who doesn't have an interest in whatever reconstruction contracts we have over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliander
Don't you know? It's our burden. It's not supposed to help us.. it's to help them! Our burden.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's not how administrations operate. We don't send young men out to die completely for the sake of another country. It's obvious that there's something here for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
It's our BURDEN you see.
OH....THAT kind of burden. I get you now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer
If we leave now, what sort of government do you think will develop in Iraq?Quote:
I have no idea whether Iraq will be better off with or without US presence. I just don't see how any of this is improving the lives of any American who doesn't have an interest in whatever reconstruction contracts we have over there.
What sort of foreign policy will that government have towards America?
How will the government use its oil money in regards to that foreign policy?
Honestly, Burgundy, you think the country would be better off without us there? Can you posit a situation where a lack of US presence in Iraq would improve the country?Quote:
I have no idea whether Iraq will be better off with or without US presence.
Moving our bases out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq (and on Syria's border, heheh) is a better tactical situation for us to be in.
Democratic capitalist countries don't attack other democratic capitalist countries. 1 more democratic capitalist country means 1 less country that would like to attack us.
Manufacturing actually went up about 2% in November. Better jobs are being created to replace the jobs being sent overseas. The idea that emigration of crappy jobs to lower skilled workers in China is some sort of massive problem or threat to Americans is a low-level myth that got blown out of proportion by uneducated right-wingers who listen to talk radio and educated left-wingers people who read Noam Chomsky, IMO. Despite our disagreement, I respect your opinion and honor your inner Buddha.Quote:
On a side note, did anyone see that report on the number of companies that are exported jobs overseas? That's what I'm talking about when I say there are more important issues than disposing of some two-bit dictator.
Fair criticisms, although I'd argue that the domestic economy has been turned around significantly, that saying Bush had "alienated the rest of the world" is a gross overexaggeration (look at France forgiving Iraq debt even though we shut them out of reconstruction contracts), and that pulling out of Iraq now would be a colossally stupid mistake.Quote:
I'd be much more forgiving of Mr. Bush's failure to find bin Laden or confirm his death if he found the WMD, he had a viable long-term plan for Iraq, he was willing to pull out of Iraq now, he hadn't alienated the rest of the world, he wasn't connected to corporate failures that have cost Americans their life savings, he managed to turn the domestic economy around significantly, or his adminstration stopped attacking civil liberties at home.
Outside of that, imagine a time when we do find Bin Laden. I'm guessing you'll make a post somewhere along the lines of:
Right?Quote:
I'd be much more forgiving of Mr. Bush's failure to find WMDs if he had a viable long-term plan for Iraq, he was willing to pull out of Iraq now, he hadn't alienated the rest of the world, he wasn't connected to corporate failures that have cost Americans their life savings, he managed to turn the domestic economy around significantly, or his adminstration stopped attacking civil liberties at home.
s successes since his "election" include the successful invasion of a totally inferior nation, and finding two former tyrants in ratholes.
Well, now that US occupation of Iraq is a fait accompli it's obviously better for the country if we stay there. We did remove their entire governmental infrastructure by waging an unprovoked war, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
But that's not the point burgundy was trying to make. He thinks that neither the invasion nor the US mission in Iraq holds any benefit for Americans, and I'm inclined to agree.
"Better" in that it pushes the region closer to war? What's your logic here?Quote:
Moving our bases out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq (and on Syria's border, heheh) is a better tactical situation for us to be in.
Yes, and is it worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a decades-long reconstruction project without foreign help, and with no guarantee of success, to remove a threat that never existed in the first place? Not in my opinion.Quote:
Democratic capitalist countries don't attack other democratic capitalist countries. 1 more democratic capitalist country means 1 less country that would like to attack us.
Wait. Aren't those two descriptions somewhat somewhat redundant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stone
I would imagine their infrastructure now is stronger than it was the week before we attacked. Saddam wasn't exactly a master civil politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Saddam violated about 18 different UN treaties/decisions/fiats, all of which authorized war - whether or not the UN voted for war, the US was following through on previously agreed-upon UN resolutions. The country was defying US requests and defying UN requests. I still don't understand why people think we ought've waited until a bomb with "Iraq's" engraved on it fell on an American to get rid of the bastard.
We need a military base in the area, removing our bases from Saudi Arabia gives us one less reason to cater to the Saudis, and a base next to Syria exerts more pressure on Syria than a base in Saudi Arabia.Quote:
"Better" in that it pushes the region closer to war? What's your logic here?
Fair enough. Are we debating about cost now? What if we could've done the mission at half the price? Accomplished all of the things we've accomplished by liberating Iraq at half the cost?Quote:
Yes, and is it worth spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a decades-long reconstruction project without foreign help, and with no guarantee of success, to remove a threat that never existed in the first place? Not in my opinion.
Do you mean "redundant" or do you mean "noncompatible" or something like that? I don't know how the descriptions could be "redundant"; even I wouldn't go so far as to say that the two groups are wittingly buddies of each other.Quote:
Wait. Aren't those two descriptions somewhat somewhat redundant?
However, the two groups are definitely compatible - go read a copy of "Counterpunch" alongside "The American Conservative" and see how many issues they agree on. Listen, force Noam Chomsky and Pat Buchahan to not talk to each other god, guns, and gays, combine them, and you'd have a hell of a 1-2 ticket if you needed the frontispiece of a new American political party.
We're moving towards a world where candidates like John McCain and Dick Gephardt run against a ticket consisting of guys like Buchanan and Chomsky.
Liberty vs Authoritarianism.
Stone: I'd be more excited about a bin Laden capture because unlike Saddam he has attacked America in the past and he remains a threat to do so. Would that change my opinion of Bush's terrible domestic policies or my priorities? No.
Perhaps the neoconservatives are really just nice guys who want nothing but a bright future for Iraq. Last I checked, though...0% of Iraqi citizens are American voters.