Iraq: Stay or Leave? - Page 6

Byrdie714 · 05-21-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCBassist

Another One! 10 years from now, not a solution? Do you know what the demand will be then? Do you understand the expense and technological difficulties to develop stable and reliable alternative fuel resources? By the way, I'm talking about Alaska, not Washington or Oregon.

It still won't bring the prices down.

Secondly, Alaska has to ship the oil somewhere and they will likely ship it into Washington and Oregon for processing.

Third, Alaska is considered the Pacific Northwest along with Washington and Oregon. That is basic Geography 101.

Fourth, the resources for reliable and alternative fuel is already here, let's utilize it instead of depending on foreign oil.

IslandGal · 05-21-2008, 10:44 AM

I voted get the hell out of Iraq.
Too many people have died in this war

webexplorer · 05-21-2008, 04:36 PM

I wanted them to come home NOW before they made a mistake staying there too long.

Our Gov't broke the promise to take care of our health and school systems with billions of dollars. OMG, look at Bush's hairs. His hair turned gray which obvious that he lied so much going on.

I heard on the news that our billions dollars were sent to Iraq for a better living, but American soldiers found out that Iraqi people are buying the weapons from Iran with our money. What a big fool!

SCBassist · 05-21-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Byrdie714

It still won't bring the prices down.

Secondly, Alaska has to ship the oil somewhere and they will likely ship it into Washington and Oregon for processing.

Third, Alaska is considered the Pacific Northwest along with Washington and Oregon. That is basic Geography 101.

Fourth, the resources for reliable and alternative fuel is already here, let's utilize it instead of depending on foreign oil.

We both know where its at right down ti its GPS coords LOL, but yeah, we should be integrating alternative fuels til it takes over oil completely. I wish they'd find a way to safely contain Hydrogen, its use would be ideal for the entire environment and everyone's health.

jenni-m · 05-29-2008, 02:30 AM

It is a tossup.
If we leave there, it will be like we started some stuff that we couldn't finish, and Iraq may collapse again.

If we stay, there will likely be more fighting yet, and it will still take time, and again, it still looks bad.

I also feel that the oil argument is not viable, it is counterintuitive to me. Any 'benefit' from it is lost due to expenditure and a hurting economy, for one. Second, it is not beneficial to the oil market, it is actually a hindrance. It would have been better off leaving Iraq alone and gaining it through diplomacy... if this move was for oil, it was a very stupid move, almost like "shooting yourself in the foot". It did drive up oil prices, but that has diminishing returns, and eventually has a negative effect rather than a positive one... if the oil is -too- expensive, you actually will lose more money than a point on the curve where it would be cheaper (because people would be insane to pay for it after a certain point, therefore sale volume drops, along with profit).

Cowpuppy · 06-07-2008, 10:52 PM

rme...wimp voters

August · 06-09-2008, 08:38 PM

let's look at the sequence of events:

1. terrorists, mostly Saudis, kill thousands of Americans on 9/11
2. with anti-Muslim sentiment at an all-time high, Bush finds a great opportunity to invade Iraq under shaky pretenses of alleged weapons of mass destruction.
3. the intelligence is quickly found to be unfounded. no wmd's anywhere.
4. Cheney rattles off his stupid mouth trying to convince people of an absurdly fictitious connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
5. hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, combatants, and American troops die over 5+ years while hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars are spent blowing shit up and doping up American troops on antidepressants to treat post-traumatic stress (see the cover story on this week's Time magazine)
6. John McCain and Americans who still support the war think we can stay in Iraq indefinitely, add like $4 trillion to the national debt and not rest until every man, woman and child in the middle east who will not conform to American empiricism is killed.

JClarke · 06-10-2008, 12:34 AM

Australia has begun withdrawing our soldiers for the first time in 5 years. The war's over for us.

Bottesini · 06-10-2008, 03:35 PM

I dislike the war, but I also fear more terrorist attacks.

Liebling:-))) · 06-11-2008, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bottesini

I dislike the war, but I also fear more terrorist attacks.

me, too... We need troops to protect us against enemies attacks... I only against troops for go and attack enemy countries.

PowerON · 06-13-2008, 09:44 AM

I believe there need to be a phrase plan to get troop leave out of Iraq instead. I liked Hillary's idea than Obama.

Fear if instant leave the whole troop and the thing will go very bad.

Texan Guy · 06-13-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IslandGal

I voted get the hell out of Iraq.
Too many people have died in this war

Really? Go see Vietnam War casualties.

Pacman · 06-14-2008, 12:04 AM

Now, it's really not easy to end the Iraq war, however it will take few to several years for processing of war in Iraq to be done, such as need withdrawal, clean or rebuild.

I wish that 9/11 will never happen, same goes to Al Qaeda to be never exist in the world.

***~SG~*** · 06-15-2008, 12:50 AM

Hey ya all,

I have cleaned up this thread off topic posts as they are not related to Iraq debate.

PowerON · 06-15-2008, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacman

Now, it's really not easy to end the Iraq war, however it will take few to several years for processing of war in Iraq to be done, such as need withdrawal, clean or rebuild.

I wish that 9/11 will never happen, same goes to Al Qaeda to be never exist in the world.

Yeah, it would take a long time. Look at German how all UK, US, France (East Germany) and Russia (West Germany) been handle on them until they allow to give them back on control become all Germany as good boy and girl.

jenni-m · 06-17-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

me, too... We need troops to protect us against enemies attacks... I only against troops for go and attack enemy countries.

Waiting for someone to attack is not the best option.

"Boots on the ground" are very valuable, yes, but you don't need them to attack anyone directly... therefore others don't need theirs to attack directly either.

There is such a thing as interdiction. Like in the WMD example (the fact it was a screwed up situation does not change the theory)

If Saddam actually DID have WMD, and was going to use them, stopping the WMD before they ever leave the launch site is key. This involves attack (or interdiction, you can -try- to do it without casualties). It's a little late when the bombs are already flying, until technology to shoot them down -safely- becomes more viable and common, anyway.

War, the way we think of it, is not only about killing. Some have used it for that, yes, but overall... it is only escalated conflict. There will always be conflict, conflict will always escalate to some extent, therefore war is not going away. Maybe one day we can have war without killing people as much.

There is ALWAYS some form of conflict or disagreement. War tries to resolve these in a more physical manner. A silly example is like... let's pretend you are one particular 'faction'. Another faction you don't particularly get along with (and who doesn't get along with you) has a base very close to you, and it suddenly increases in activity.

You can either watch that base closely, and wait for a possible attack so you can suppress it, or you can stop it before it begins. You can try diplomacy first, but if they have a hostile attitude and won't negotiate, the best option may be to take that base before anything happens.

You don't necessarily want to kill anyone in that situation, you just want that base to go away or at least be less of a threat. So the point is to capture or damage it, but the people operating that base are not likely going to let you do that, they are willing to die, and kill you, to protect their base. That is where combat and killing comes in... two parties who have different ideals clash, and neither wants to give in. The attacker may not want to kill, but they WANT that base, the defender may not want to kill, but they don't want to be attacked. The defender will kill and die defending, and the attacker will kill and die attacking, because that is what the defender is doing too. It is a mutual thing.

Secretblend · 06-17-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jenni-m

Waiting for someone to attack is not the best option.

"Boots on the ground" are very valuable, yes, but you don't need them to attack anyone directly... therefore others don't need theirs to attack directly either.

There is such a thing as interdiction. Like in the WMD example (the fact it was a screwed up situation does not change the theory)

If Saddam actually DID have WMD, and was going to use them, stopping the WMD before they ever leave the launch site is key. This involves attack (or interdiction, you can -try- to do it without casualties). It's a little late when the bombs are already flying, until technology to shoot them down -safely- becomes more viable and common, anyway.

War, the way we think of it, is not only about killing. Some have used it for that, yes, but overall... it is only escalated conflict. There will always be conflict, conflict will always escalate to some extent, therefore war is not going away. Maybe one day we can have war without killing people as much.

There is ALWAYS some form of conflict or disagreement. War tries to resolve these in a more physical manner. A silly example is like... let's pretend you are one particular 'faction'. Another faction you don't particularly get along with (and who doesn't get along with you) has a base very close to you, and it suddenly increases in activity.

You can either watch that base closely, and wait for a possible attack so you can suppress it, or you can stop it before it begins. You can try diplomacy first, but if they have a hostile attitude and won't negotiate, the best option may be to take that base before anything happens.

You don't necessarily want to kill anyone in that situation, you just want that base to go away or at least be less of a threat. So the point is to capture or damage it, but the people operating that base are not likely going to let you do that, they are willing to die, and kill you, to protect their base. That is where combat and killing comes in... two parties who have different ideals clash, and neither wants to give in. The attacker may not want to kill, but they WANT that base, the defender may not want to kill, but they don't want to be attacked. The defender will kill and die defending, and the attacker will kill and die attacking, because that is what the defender is doing too. It is a mutual thing.

Vixia4 · 07-11-2008, 12:26 PM

The Bush-Cheney's military occupation of Iraq is doubly illegitimate, besides having been illegal from day one according to international law. First, most Americans want American soldiers out of Iraq. Second, most Iraqis also want American soldiers out of their country. The irony is that the Bush-Cheney regime pretends to be in Iraq for the sake of "democracy", while they trample on people's demands both in Iraq and in the United States. Some "democracy" indeed. How about fascism and imperialism!

And not to mention that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died under US occupation from March 2003 invasion to present.

Get the F**k Out of Iraq!

SCBassist · 07-11-2008, 01:20 PM

The US is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, in fact successfully, but very slow progress. This is because of two differing beliefs (sunni and shiite) vying for power to control Iraq, the coalition ends up in the middle of it and have no choice but to put down insurgents involved in no good. I agree about the fact we kicked Hussein's regime's ass out of power, but I disagree about sticking around to babysit these idiots. Iraq ought to be paying us back in oil to finance their protection. Matter of fact, Iran has their eye on taking over and establishing a cleric/mullah type of government not only in Iraq, but the rest of the mideast. The once troublesome gulf states sees Iran as a threat and now see a reason for the US to stick around. Iran may be developing nukes, and if they use them, can very well start WWIII. Now not only do we have Iraq to babysit, Iran is gonna need a spanking too for their stupid nuke ambitions. Either way, whether we are in the mideast or not, someone will want to disturb the peace and we end up going back to whup some sense into them. At least the US and most of the western hemisphere cares about world stability, what doesn't make sense is that Russia and China are only interested in selling arms to rogue nations or indirectly to insurgents while giving no hoot about stability there.

webexplorer · 07-11-2008, 04:47 PM

Actually, Russia was the first and big responsibility to secure its nuclear facility or labs near Turkey, Iran, Syria, and others.

Russia was in a grave financial problem so they were in a black market. Some foreigns bought some nuclear parts, radioactive materials, and many others because some Russian families (lab employees) were desperate for their survival foods and mortgage. The security employees were such a mess. The U.S. Gov't came to help the Russian Gov't, but it was too late. That was on 20/20 news or Frontline news about five years ago.

Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country. Another example, in 1960's, one company sold millions of landmine bombs to all over the world that made in America. What a shame!

jiro123 · 07-12-2008, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country.

lol they sold junks aka "cold war era" stuff to them. ever seen Chinese's naval force? such a relic ships they have....

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

Another example, in 1960's, one company sold millions of landmine bombs to all over the world that made in America. What a shame!

because the USA President did not sign the landmine ban treaty - because we need those landmines for DMZ in Korea.

Texan Guy · 07-12-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

Actually, Russia was the first and big responsibility to secure its nuclear facility or labs near Turkey, Iran, Syria, and others.

Russia was in a grave financial problem so they were in a black market. Some foreigns bought some nuclear parts, radioactive materials, and many others because some Russian families (lab employees) were desperate for their survival foods and mortgage. The security employees were such a mess. The U.S. Gov't came to help the Russian Gov't, but it was too late. That was on 20/20 news or Frontline news about five years ago.

Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country. Another example, in 1960's, one company sold millions of landmine bombs to all over the world that made in America. What a shame!

Poland? Poland are one of the US's best allies and diplomatic.

SCBassist · 07-12-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by webexplorer

Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country.

There is no concern in that area. Only civilian aircraft have ever been sold to these countries, no military aircraft or military grade engines were sold to these countries. The closest thing would be Poland's aircraft upgrades to NATO standards.

Texan Guy · 07-12-2008, 10:09 PM

Right.....but Lockheed-Martin Co. building the Falcons and send the fleet to Polish Air Force, a few months ago. They like the American-made fighter planes better than NATO standards.

We also send the fighters to Israel, Kuwait, Japan, Australia, and a few of the countries.

jasin · 07-16-2008, 11:11 PM

Get the hell out and now.

web730 · 07-17-2008, 12:00 AM

It's rather a tough one for me to answer... rather a tossup.

Just unfortunately things don't work out quick enough in the first place, and that it cost us billions and billions of dollars... rather an awful waste!

A quick war victory yet tough, long battle within! It was good to get rid of Saddam, oth

View Poll Results: Should we stay or should we go?
As long it takes, we stay	22	32.35%
Get hell out of Iraq	46	67.65%
Voters: 68. You may not vote on this poll

06-10-2008, 12:34 AM	#158 (permalink)
JClarke J-Boy Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Coming to America -- AUS. Posts: 10,500 Blog Entries: 3	Australia has begun withdrawing our soldiers for the first time in 5 years. The war's over for us. __________________

06-10-2008, 03:35 PM	#159 (permalink)
Bottesini AKA "The Furry" Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Land without time Posts: 3,086	I dislike the war, but I also fear more terrorist attacks. __________________ I love AllDeaf all in my heart!

06-13-2008, 09:44 AM	#161 (permalink)
PowerON Please don't click me! D: Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Would like to live at Fort Davis, TX Posts: 3,959 Blog Entries: 1	I believe there need to be a phrase plan to get troop leave out of Iraq instead. I liked Hillary's idea than Obama. Fear if instant leave the whole troop and the thing will go very bad. __________________ "If you trust every Web site but not a government ... There are so many Web sites, so much hearsay. These are not official. It is possible that all news on the Internet is accurate?" - Coach Lu

06-14-2008, 12:04 AM	#163 (permalink)
Pacman o_O Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 12,760	Now, it's really not easy to end the Iraq war, however it will take few to several years for processing of war in Iraq to be done, such as need withdrawal, clean or rebuild. I wish that 9/11 will never happen, same goes to Al Qaeda to be never exist in the world. __________________ Oh damn, don't mess with me

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

05-21-2008, 10:44 AM	#152 (permalink)
IslandGal Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sunshine State Posts: 4,168	I voted get the hell out of Iraq. Too many people have died in this war

05-21-2008, 04:36 PM	#153 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,283	I wanted them to come home NOW before they made a mistake staying there too long. Our Gov't broke the promise to take care of our health and school systems with billions of dollars. OMG, look at Bush's hairs. His hair turned gray which obvious that he lied so much going on. I heard on the news that our billions dollars were sent to Iraq for a better living, but American soldiers found out that Iraqi people are buying the weapons from Iran with our money. What a big fool!

05-29-2008, 02:30 AM	#155 (permalink)
jenni-m Registered User Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 598	It is a tossup. If we leave there, it will be like we started some stuff that we couldn't finish, and Iraq may collapse again. If we stay, there will likely be more fighting yet, and it will still take time, and again, it still looks bad. I also feel that the oil argument is not viable, it is counterintuitive to me. Any 'benefit' from it is lost due to expenditure and a hurting economy, for one. Second, it is not beneficial to the oil market, it is actually a hindrance. It would have been better off leaving Iraq alone and gaining it through diplomacy... if this move was for oil, it was a very stupid move, almost like "shooting yourself in the foot". It did drive up oil prices, but that has diminishing returns, and eventually has a negative effect rather than a positive one... if the oil is -too- expensive, you actually will lose more money than a point on the curve where it would be cheaper (because people would be insane to pay for it after a certain point, therefore sale volume drops, along with profit).

06-07-2008, 10:52 PM	#156 (permalink)
Cowpuppy Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: On The Road Again Posts: 375	rme...wimp voters

06-09-2008, 08:38 PM	#157 (permalink)
August Registered User Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 930	let's look at the sequence of events: 1. terrorists, mostly Saudis, kill thousands of Americans on 9/11 2. with anti-Muslim sentiment at an all-time high, Bush finds a great opportunity to invade Iraq under shaky pretenses of alleged weapons of mass destruction. 3. the intelligence is quickly found to be unfounded. no wmd's anywhere. 4. Cheney rattles off his stupid mouth trying to convince people of an absurdly fictitious connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. 5. hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, combatants, and American troops die over 5+ years while hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars are spent blowing shit up and doping up American troops on antidepressants to treat post-traumatic stress (see the cover story on this week's Time magazine) 6. John McCain and Americans who still support the war think we can stay in Iraq indefinitely, add like $4 trillion to the national debt and not rest until every man, woman and child in the middle east who will not conform to American empiricism is killed.

06-15-2008, 12:50 AM	#164 (permalink)
*~SG~* Super Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 3,125	Hey ya all, I have cleaned up this thread off topic posts as they are not related to Iraq debate. __________________

07-11-2008, 12:26 PM	#168 (permalink)
Vixia4 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 19	The Bush-Cheney's military occupation of Iraq is doubly illegitimate, besides having been illegal from day one according to international law. First, most Americans want American soldiers out of Iraq. Second, most Iraqis also want American soldiers out of their country. The irony is that the Bush-Cheney regime pretends to be in Iraq for the sake of "democracy", while they trample on people's demands both in Iraq and in the United States. Some "democracy" indeed. How about fascism and imperialism! And not to mention that more than 600,000 Iraqis have died under US occupation from March 2003 invasion to present. Get the F**k Out of Iraq!

07-11-2008, 01:20 PM	#169 (permalink)
SCBassist ...And your point is? Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Spartanburg, SC Posts: 654	The US is trying to establish a democracy in Iraq, in fact successfully, but very slow progress. This is because of two differing beliefs (sunni and shiite) vying for power to control Iraq, the coalition ends up in the middle of it and have no choice but to put down insurgents involved in no good. I agree about the fact we kicked Hussein's regime's ass out of power, but I disagree about sticking around to babysit these idiots. Iraq ought to be paying us back in oil to finance their protection. Matter of fact, Iran has their eye on taking over and establishing a cleric/mullah type of government not only in Iraq, but the rest of the mideast. The once troublesome gulf states sees Iran as a threat and now see a reason for the US to stick around. Iran may be developing nukes, and if they use them, can very well start WWIII. Now not only do we have Iraq to babysit, Iran is gonna need a spanking too for their stupid nuke ambitions. Either way, whether we are in the mideast or not, someone will want to disturb the peace and we end up going back to whup some sense into them. At least the US and most of the western hemisphere cares about world stability, what doesn't make sense is that Russia and China are only interested in selling arms to rogue nations or indirectly to insurgents while giving no hoot about stability there. __________________ Complaints Division Here

07-11-2008, 04:47 PM	#170 (permalink)
webexplorer I'm listening to everyone Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New England Posts: 3,283	Actually, Russia was the first and big responsibility to secure its nuclear facility or labs near Turkey, Iran, Syria, and others. Russia was in a grave financial problem so they were in a black market. Some foreigns bought some nuclear parts, radioactive materials, and many others because some Russian families (lab employees) were desperate for their survival foods and mortgage. The security employees were such a mess. The U.S. Gov't came to help the Russian Gov't, but it was too late. That was on 20/20 news or Frontline news about five years ago. Another subject, Pratt & Whitney sold some military airplanes to China, Poland, Russia, and other countries. This is really not new. It is very stupid for any American companies to do that to us, and they don't care to protect our country. Another example, in 1960's, one company sold millions of landmine bombs to all over the world that made in America. What a shame!

07-12-2008, 10:09 PM	#174 (permalink)
Texan Guy IRELAND FOREVER! Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Ireland Posts: 1,668	Right.....but Lockheed-Martin Co. building the Falcons and send the fleet to Polish Air Force, a few months ago. They like the American-made fighter planes better than NATO standards. We also send the fighters to Israel, Kuwait, Japan, Australia, and a few of the countries. __________________ I am infected with your stupidity!

07-16-2008, 11:11 PM	#175 (permalink)
jasin Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Puyallup, Washington Posts: 779	Get the hell out and now.

07-17-2008, 12:00 AM	#176 (permalink)
web730 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 962	It's rather a tough one for me to answer... rather a tossup. Just unfortunately things don't work out quick enough in the first place, and that it cost us billions and billions of dollars... rather an awful waste! A quick war victory yet tough, long battle within! It was good to get rid of Saddam, oth