funnygirl03 (funnygirl03) wrote in debate_politics,
funnygirl03
funnygirl03
debate_politics

  • Mood:

Iraq

Alright. I keep hearing so many people say that we don't need to stay in Iraq any longer. People are getting mad that Bush is keeping troops there who lose at least two men a day. I want to know everyone else's opinion. Personally I think that it is needed that we remain there until the attacks die down and everyone is set up. If we leave then the terrorists will become stonger and 9/11 will hapen all over again. I know everyone is missing their families, but if we pull out now then terrorists could sneak into our country again. If we don't stop them in Iraq then we are eventually going to have to stop them here. Bush is doing the right thing choosing to fight there because he is supposed to protect us and fighting over there protects the rest of the innocents here. Would you rather they attck our home again?
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 8 comments
Mr. Bush spoke to the nation Tuesday night about the war in Iraq. He offered no new solutions and he reaffirmed his belief that the best response to hatred and violence is more hatred and violence. The most critical questions remain unanswered: did the Bush Administration invade this country in order to establish US control over Iraq’s natural resources, and to transfer billions of dollars from US taxpayers to selected military contractors? Again in these remarks, Mr. Bush steadfastly refused to reassure Iraqis and the world that permanent occupation is not his aim. He again sought to conflate his war in Iraq with the Al-Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001. Five times he reiterated that killing people in Iraq was necessary because of Iraq’s relationship to 9/11. It was as if the 9/11 Commission and the Congressional inquiries hadn’t long ago conclusively demonstrated that there was no relationship between these conflicts. He said, “Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home.” No evidence was offered that killing insurgents in Iraq makes Americans any safer anywhere. By seeking to conflate all the enemies that Mr. Bush has made into followers of a single irrational and hateful ideology, he has done what all invaders through the ages have done: dehumanize the opponent and legitimize killing them. He insisted, “We are fighting against men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001.” Mr. Bush seemed to forget the extent to which he had himself broken all the laws of warfare and morality by unilaterally invading and occupying a country that posed no imminent threat to the citizens of the United States, despite the united and unprecedented protests of tens of millions of people around the world.
ok that was a very long comment but don't worry, i was able to finish it. I might of missed a couple of the words though. j/k. thankx for the comment though.
What you say, sir, seems to have very sound logic. I'm trusting that your quotes of the President are exatly that, quotes, as I was unable to view his speech.

Under the leadership of Sadam Hussein, Iraq was a known supporter of terrorist activities. Many people, and it seems to be mostly democrats, seem to forget what we are trying to accomplish. This is a war on terror. Thats why its called "The War on Terror". We are trying to liberate regions of the world that are under the influence of terrorists. One such region is (drum role please) *drum roll* Iraq. As far as reassuring the Iraqi people that control over Iraq is not his aim, well, thats already been done. Also, if we went into the middle east to take control of there natural resources (mainly oil, of course) then why don't we have control of them. Why am I still paying $2.25 for a gallon of gas?

According to you, Mr. President said "There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home." You seem to disagree. Do you really want to wait until they attack again for you to say "Well, they just attacked us. I think its time we got them." I'm a firefighter. Do you know what we do to prevent fires? We teach people things like not to play with matches, and don't leave flammable items near an open flame. My point is: what we are doing over there now, is preventing another fire. If you follow my analogy.

"Mr. Bush seemed to forget the extent to which he had himself broken all the laws of warfare and morality by unilaterally invading and occupying a country that posed no imminent threat to the citizens of the United States, despite the united and unprecedented protests of tens of millions of people around the world." As far as the last quote is concerned well, if you find out what these laws of warfare are, please tell me. And for the morality? We are at war. We do many things that under "normal" circumstances are considered "not moral" For example: World War II. I'm sure you familiar with the use of an atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Let me ask you. Was that moral? Perhaps, perhaps not. The bottom line is, it was necessary in a time of war, to end the threat of Japan's attempt to conquer parts of, if not all of the US. Back to invading Iraq. Did they pose an imminent threat? You say no. Why? Is it because you didn't see it on the news? Or perhaps it was that you didn't read it online, or in the paper? You may think you do, but you don't for a 100% FACT that they weren't going to either A) attack us directly as a nation, or B) supply weapons, ammo, etc to a terrorist organization so they could attack us, whether it be a full-blown invasion or another suicide run like the twin towers. But don't take that personally, no one knows anything for a 100% fact.

Let me put it this way: There is a robber loose in your neighborhood. He has robbed your neighbor and she asks you for help in finding him. If I apply your reasoning to this situation, its like you saying no to your friend because, according to you, that robber poses no imminent threat to you or your family. Is that moral?
"Under the leadership of Sadam Hussein, Iraq was a known supporter of terrorist activities."
No, actually he wasn't, and there never was any convincing evidence in the first place. If you mention 9/11 and Saddam Hussein enough times in the same sentence, people will start to believe it.

"We are trying to liberate regions of the world that are under the influence of terrorists."
Not really- Saddam Hussein was an asshole, but not a "terrorist" threatening the U.S.

"Also, if we went into the middle east to take control of there natural resources (mainly oil, of course) then why don't we have control of them. Why am I still paying $2.25 for a gallon of gas?"
Because, just like the rest of the country, the U.S. hasn't been able to secure the oil resources. But ponder this: the first things that US forces TRIED to secure were Iraq's oil resources. That's partially why there was such widespread looting and destruction everywhere else- no one to try and enforce order.

"My point is: what we are doing over there now, is preventing another fire. If you follow my analogy."
I follow your analogy, but again, Saddam Hussein, who I repeat was an asshole, had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no Iraqis on any of the jets used in 9/11. Also, Osama B. and Saddam Hussein HATE each other- in the first Gulf War in 1991, actually, Osama B. tried to organize a Jihad against Saddam Hussein because he was worried that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia and occupy the Muslim holy land. And, if "preventing another fire" was the main concern, then the bulk of our armed forces would be concentrated in Afghanistan, where the terrorists are and where Osama B. was throught to be. 15 of the highjackers were Saudis. Should we invade Saudi Arabia? The big cheese in 9/11 was an Egyptian. Should we invade Egypt?

No specific response to your third paragraph, but the logic of it seems quite troubling- were we to attack EVERY SINGLE country that we weren't 100 per cent sure about, well, then we'd be pretty busy.

I leave you to think about this: just as the first generation of terrorists was born on the battlefields in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets (with American aid, incidently), so is the next generation of terrorists being trained in Iraq fighting the US. Every time we level a city (like Falluja), torture people (like Abu Ghraib), or murder civilians in cold blood (like Haditha), we are creating hundreds more people who hate us, who probably wouldn't have before. This is what I think is going to happen: Once Iraq does have a centralized government (if it ever does), it will be a shiite theocracy with close ties to Iran. I personally don't feel more secure.
Your putting words into my mouth.

I never said that Saddam was supporting terrorist activities that were directed at the US. Just that he was a known supporter of terrorism IN GENERAL. For example: Let’s start with money. At a minimum, we know that Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. How do we know this? Tariq Aziz, Hussein's own deputy prime minister, was stunningly candid about the Baathist government’s underwriting of terrorist killings in Israel.

That sounds pretty supportive of terrorism to me.

Your next paragraph: Look at what I said above. He was a terrorist and a known supporter of terrorism in general. So yes we are trying to liberate a region under the influence of terrorism. Just because he wasn't a terrorist against the US as you claimed, doesn't mean he isn't a terrorist.

The third Paragraph: It is the first thing you do when you are at war. You capture or destroy the enemy's resources. Well, we certainly don't want to destroy the most valuble resource in the Middle East if we are trying to establish a government, now would we? So we try to capture it.

Number 4: Using your logic and my analogy, I will put it to you this way. There is more than one way to start a fire. Lets call 9/11 an electrical fire. The next fire could be a grease fire in the kitchen. Each fire was started seperatly. They have nothing to do with each other. But they are both fires. Fires that firefighters, like myself, and our president (metaphoricaly speaking) are trying to fight and prevent.

As for my third paragraph. Our intelligence was wrong. I know this. You know it. The President himself said that we are there becuase of a flaw in our intelligence. However, at the time, we thought we knew for a 100% fact, because M16 in Britain said the same thing. Putan's people in Russia said the same thing. And so did Mubaric's intelligance in Egypt. Does it make it right? Absolutly not. But when you have that kind of support, you think the intelligence is right. Correct?

And finally, as for your "Shiite Theocracy": Experts from a year ago thought the same thing. It still has yet to happen. Does it mean it can't or won't happen? No. But Shiite leaders, assure us that a theocracy will not accure by insisting that the nation's new government will be decidedly secular and relegate Islam to a supporting role. Will they hold true to that in the years to come? Only time will tell.
Hey, thanks for the response. I only noticed that your posting took place about a year ago. Long time! When I have time, I'm going to post a response...if you would like to continue the debate. We're not going to change each other's minds, but if nothing else we can sharpen our arguments and broaden our knowledge. What say you?

Re: Iraq

Anonymous

July 10 2006, 04:05:10 UTC 10 years ago

sounds good to me
Find friends with benefits and Be Naughty! Go Here dld.bz/chwZG