Whether you agreed with the war in Iraq or not is irrelevant. We are there now, and if we were to withdraw we would lose all credibility in that region for a generation. The fragile Iraqi government would collapse, creating a satellite state for Iran to control and would turn the state into a breeding ground for terrorists. People liken the Iraq War to Vietnam, but think about it. We lost over 60,000 lives in Vietnam; we have lost less than 4,000 in Iraq. In Vietnam we were fighting the Vietnamese people as we propped up our own pro-American dictator, while in Iraq we are fighting Syrian, Saudi Arabian, and Iranian terrorists who are trying to topple a government elected by the Iraqi people. And what most people do not know is that when we left Vietnam, 2 million people were then slaughtered by the Communist government, and it is likely that something similar would happen in Iraq should we withdraw.
On a side note about the invasion. Think about what you would have done if you were president. Intelligence sources from the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey all said that Saddam had restarted his WMD program. Hussein had kicked out weapons inspectors four years earlier and, when they were allowed to return, they were not allowed into certain "restricted" areas. We had just been attacked on 9/11 and there were known connections between Saddam and al-Quaeda, though he had not participated in that particular terrorist act. No president in good conscience could have done nothing.
And the argument that we invaded for oil? Iraq is currently producing 30% of what it was producing before it invaded, so I'm not sure Bush's "oil buddies" are getting much out of their investment. On top of that, do you really think that Bush would lie to the American people, hurt our alliances across the globe, risk the lives of thousands of American soldiers, start an unpopular war which lead directly to his parties defeat in 2006 and maybe 2008, and risk his legacy as a president all to make some extra cash for some oil companies? Really? Its about more than that. This war is about whether a region which has been stifled in intellectual backwardness for centuries can survive as a democracy, where government kneels to the people, and not vice-versa.
And unlike the democrats who are falling over themselves to withdraw from a war they once supported [it's interesting to see that only when the public is against the war effort do they speak against it], the republicans have a winning strategy. I don't know if you have noticed, but news organizations aren't reporting on Iraq as much anymore. Why? Because success stories don't sell. At the end of 2006 it really did look like we would leave Iraq in defeat. There was a raging civil war, we were losing a hundred troops a month, and the Iraqi government was making little political progress.
That's when President Bush finally accepted a new strategy which the current republican front-runner, John Mccain, had been calling for for years. The Surge. There would be a surge of troops in troubled provinces, a surge of money, manpower, and technology to help rid many of these terrorist strongholds of their occupants. At the time Democratic House Majority leader Harry Reid said that "the war is lost". Democratic presidential front runner Hillary Clinton said that she would have to "suspend disbelief to believe that the surge was working."
But you know what? It worked. In May there were 126 troop deaths, by August 84, September 65, October 38, November 37, December 23. For the first time in years more Iraqis returned to Iraq than left. The local and federal governments in Iraq began making progress in oil distribution and voting rights. There is still much work to be done, but now, more than ever, it is imperative to stay in Iraq and keep it stabilized so that the Iraqi people can keep control of their government and not lose it to Islamic extremists.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
OK, 1, I would say that Iraq has already become a breeding ground for anti-american sentiments and terrorist. Our presence has, in fact, unified the three sects in a way. They all want us to leave. Also, our presence is already destroying our credibility in the region. Why? We invaded the wrong country, botched it up and are claiming to spread democracy when we back several dictatorships in the region!
And as for "But you know what? It worked." in regards to the surge. Well, yeah, it's reduced violence, but that's not the end goal. That cannot be the end goal unless we want to stay in Iraq forever. There has been no political solution, or even a beginning of one.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
no, invading iran is exactly what you do NOT want to do lol
unlike iraq, iran isnt a manufactured country. it has a fiercely loyal populous that would rally around the flag if anyone invaded. the people will be unified against the US should we invade. rather than doing that, we should do what we are doing, hurting their economy through divestment and sanctions. the people do have limited say in that country, and domestically almedinijad is very unpopular. they have double digit inflation and unemployment, even with the large revenues they get from oil. hes on his way out, and with him gone we will be able to deal with a more moderate iranian leader [like his predecesor]
us being there has not unified the three sect. what are you talking about? most of the violence is due to conflict between the three groups in iraq. and although reducing violence is not the end to the objective, it is the way we reach it. by pumping troops into the country and dramatically reducing the violence, we are able to get the three groups to sit at the table and negotiate. before the negotiations would be broken up by further violence which would then polarize the ethnic regions, as was seen when that golden mosque was bombed in 2006 [which is what sparked the civil war].
and yes, there has been the beginnings of political solutions. as i said, they are beginning to come to an agreement concerning oil wealth distribution, which is a big deal there. and the sunni are being brought back into the government. the tribal leaders are, more and more, beginning to support the us and throwing their support behind a political solution. its slow, yes. but it took us 8 years till we finalized our constitution. japan took about 7 to get their government up and running after ww2. weve only been in iraq for 5 years. have some more patience. democracies are not created overnight.
"no, invading iran is exactly what you do NOT want to do lo"
I don't want to invade Iran.
"us being there has not unified the three sect. what are you talking about?"
I was joking. They all agree on one thing. They want us out. Other than that, we've just polarized them even more.
"by pumping troops into the country and dramatically reducing the violence, we are able to get the three groups to sit at the table and negotiate."
But they aren't talking! Political progress is not being made! How can it be when the only reason the government exists is at the grace of what the people consider an invading power?
"democracies are not created overnight."
No, and they're not created out of war-torn former dictatorships either.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
you said that we "invaded the wrong country". i assumed you were talking about iran. if not, then who were you talking about?
and no, the three sects dont want us out. they know that would lead to the countries utter collapse. remember. during the 1st gulf war most of the nations surrounding iraq [syria, saudi arabia, kuwait, jordan, egypt...] all wanted us to stop iraq from invading kuwait. the people in that region want it stabilized. yes, there are radical groups, but most muslims are not like that. most just want to live their lives peacefully, and its not like if we leave theyr just going to start slaughtering each other
and political progress IS being made haha. you have your head stuck in the sand. in 2006/early 2007 the country was in a civil war. the sunni were enraged and attacking the shia, and one of islams most holy mosques was bombed. they were taken to the brink. but during all that violence the sunni tribal leaders realized that the violence was counterproductive, and that it would never end. so they turned on al queda and made peace with the shia. at this time the US conducted the surge, which then brought down the violence while the tribes began uniting against al queda.
these same old talking points that you have are pointless. a year ago you would have been right. but the situation on the ground HAS changed, and you have to understand that. sure, you might not "agree" with the war, but using supposed "failures" as an excuse for why we should withdraw is ignoring reality. we have begun to win. yea, bush [and rumsvelt] screwed up at the beginning. but patreaus and the surge have brought new life to that region.
and yes, they are created from war-torn dictatorships haha. germany? japan? italy? any of those ring a bell??? lol
The wrong country is Iraq because Iraq didn't do anything to us.
"and no, the three sects dont want us out."
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf
For your enjoyment
"most just want to live their lives peacefully, and its not like if we leave theyr just going to start slaughtering each other"
Exactly, so we should leave. Most people also want to not have a force medling in their affairs.
"we have begun to win."
Only if we stay in Iraq forever. The government clearly doesn't have the support of the people and the progress they make is negligible. (I admit no progress was an overstatement).
"they know that would lead to the countries utter collapse. "
Great. It's a made-up nation anyway. Remember what happens when western powers just draw lines on a map, regardless of ethnicity? Rwanda, anybody?
"germany"
Had democratic institutions in place before WW2. Also, there wasn't much resistance to the allied forces.
"italy"
Same deal
"japan"
They've still got their emperor you know? And, they did have a brief era of democracy before WW2. Obviously, it didn't work, but the ground-works were in place. Further more, it followed a more natural order, being a highly capitalistic nation before democracy was introduced.
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft
iraq was a growing threat that had been destabilizing the region. they had invaded both kuwait and iran, and were funding and supplying al queda
that poll was taken in late 2006, when things were at the worst. at that time yes, people wanted us out and were fighting amongst themselves. but now those same people have allied themselves with us against the jihadists and terrorists. political and military successes are being made, and to deny them is to deny reality
how does the government not have the support of the people? with an election participation rate of 67%?
it is a made up nation. but that doesnt mean that we should break up the nation [as suggested by biden]. if we did that the kurds would go to war with turkey over turkish provinces with significant kurdish populations, the sunni would become a satellite state of iran, and the shia would have ethnic cleansings as they got rid of significant sunni poulations in baghad. besides, there needs to be another large, stable middle eastern country to offset irans influence
germanys "democracy" was imposed upon it by a foreign power when the previous government had the support of the people [that is the key difference. the iraqis never supported saddam]
italy had very weak democratic institutions prior to ww2, and even afterwards had some communist elements that almost lead it down that path [theonly reason it didnt is because of the marshal plan]
and japan? democratic institutions? haha. what history are you looking at? they had little, if no, democratic institutions prior to 1945. and yea, they still have an emperor. but england still has a king/queen. does that mean they are undemocratic? the royal figure has absolutely no power, theyr there only for traditions sake
and the japanese werent capitalistic. they were an imperial power, and followed much more of a mercantilist economic policy than a capitalistic one.
go here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/democrats_unwavering_i...
maybe youll learn something about whats going on in iraq
"iraq was a growing threat that had been destabilizing the region. they had invaded both kuwait and iran,"
Had being the key word. They weren't doing much of anything when we invaded.
"and were funding and supplying al queda"
There is no evidence to support that.
"that poll was taken in late 2006, when things were at the worst. at that time yes, people wanted us out and were fighting amongst themselves. but now those same people have allied themselves with us against the jihadists and terrorists. political and military successes are being made, and to deny them is to deny reality"
Well, all you cited was that oil bill, and that's been on the table for years. I heard something more recently then that poll (two months ago) on a radio show, but I don't know the name or the channel and have had a hard time digging it up. It said the same thing as that poll.
"how does the government not have the support of the people? with an election participation rate of 67%?"
Bush had over 50% of the vote for his reelection. Now most people hate him.
"it is a made up nation. but that doesnt mean that we should break up the nation [as suggested by biden]. if we did that the kurds would go to war with turkey over turkish provinces with significant kurdish populations, the sunni would become a satellite state of iran, and the shia would have ethnic cleansings as they got rid of significant sunni poulations in baghad. besides, there needs to be another large, stable middle eastern country to offset irans influence"
The Kurds are already fighting with Turkey and don't want to be part of Iraq, the Shea are already practicing ethnic cleansing (as are the others) and the Sunni are already being backed by Iran. How do you propose we change that?
"germanys "democracy" was imposed upon it by a foreign power when the previous government had the support of the people"
It had democratic institutions before WW1. They weren't powerful, but they were in place.
"italy had very weak democratic institutions prior to ww2, and even afterwards had some communist elements that almost lead it down that path"
Again, they were present.
"and japan? democratic institutions? haha. what history are you looking at? they had little, if no, democratic institutions prior to 1945. and yea, they still have an emperor. but england still has a king/queen. does that mean they are undemocratic? the royal figure has absolutely no power, theyr there only for traditions sake"
http://www.japan-101.com/history/taisho_period.htm
No, it doesn't mean they're undemocratic that they have an empire, but the popular figure (and I admit this differs from Iraq) was allowed to remain in power. That helped.
"and the japanese werent capitalistic. they were an imperial power, and followed much more of a mercantilist economic policy than a capitalistic one."
One does not exclude the other. The point is, they had a very powerful economy, and economic freedoms tend to proceed social freedoms in the 'natural' order of such things. Look at China and look at Russia. Which one is more fucked up? The one with a sudden resurgence of democracy or the one making that gradual progression?
"maybe youll learn something about whats going on in iraq"
Fascinating. But the question remains, will the peace last without our presence? If no, how long must we commit ourselves to being there? If yes, then why are we there?
"What a man does for pay is of little significance. What he is, as a sensitive instrument responsive to the world's beauty, is everything!"
H. P. Lovecraft