if the US pulls out of Iraq after the election

[JoesHO]

Do you think we acomplished our objective?

or do you think the critics were right the whole time and Bush was lying just to settle a personal vendetta?

what do you think this does to our security, and the world in genral from a security standpoint

are we winning the war on terror the same way we uh hum... won the war on drugs?

[Titan]

i dont like bush .. never have .. always gets stuck in my teeth ..

[NickPapageorgio]

We have to pull them out after the elections. Who else are we going to send into Iran? :rolleyes:

[Rolo]

The US will not pull out after the election, risk of Iraq failure on its own is too great - instead there will be a new goverment who will get more of the security issues handed over, but US military will be there for years.

Now, I´m not sure that the election will mean instant peace, since the Sunni muslims will loose power to the Shi‘a muslims, which is the main reason behind the current insurgent problem. We can hope that Shi‘a politicians will try and unite the country, but I´m sure insurgents will hit them hard in trying to destablise Iraq after the election.

Now the scary thought is that Iran, which is ruled by Shi‘a muslims, probably are trying to pull all strings in Iraq for their their own agenda, and might win no matter what the outcome is of the election...

If Shi‘a muslims win the election and succeed in uniting Iraq, then Iran have already influenced the iraqi Shi‘a politicians via the Shi‘a priests in Najaf, and other parts of Iraq - this could leed to a less "friendly" Iraq for both the US and other countries/groups (maybe a mini Iran model, where the real power is with the priests, and not the politicians)

If Shi‘a muslims win the election but do not succeed in uniting Iraq, then we might see a war between Sunni and Shi‘a muslims, which will mean problems for the US, and probably wipe out a big "possible free" democratic middle east country.

So far the Iraqi Shi‘a muslims have been trying to avoid escalating the problems in Iraq, however not too long ago Shi‘a cleric Muqtada al Sadr caused problems in Najaf, and I´m sure that if the "good" Shi‘a muslims do not watch their backs, then problems will show again (too many fanatics with AK47s)

Its important that whoever wins the election will unite the country - it is also important that Iran will be "pinned down", so their influence will be minimal.

The US pulling out of Iraq in the near future is not important - unless their destination is Tehran :ph34r:

[grimm]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@Jan 16 2005, 04:21 PM
Do you think we acomplished our objective?

or do you think the critics were right the whole time and Bush was lying just to settle a personal vendetta?

what do you think this does to our security, and the world in genral from a security standpoint

are we winning the war on terror the same way we uh hum... won the war on drugs?
logically if you say that the war in iraq was dually part of the war on terror (WMD), and for the freedom of the iraqi people. Then logic dictates that the stated misssion was a failure. There were no WMD or immexdiate threat to national security, and the region is unstable and rejecting democracy. so based on the facts, its an ABJECT failure.

But it will be spun as the primary action in an "ongoing war on terror". or at least an ongoing war on terror until Bush is out of office. the perfect way to backpedal his way out of it.

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch.. we are looking at a half a trillion deficit, and an inevitable tax increase.

Sounds like win/win to me.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 16 2005, 05:33 PM
logically if you say that the war in iraq was dually part of the war on terror (WMD), and for the freedom of the iraqi people. Then logic dictates that the stated misssion was a failure. There were no WMD or immexdiate threat to national security, and the region is unstable and rejecting democracy. so based on the facts, its an ABJECT failure.
Ofcourse battles in Iraq can be lost, but that does not mean that the war is lost. There have been and are countless mistake made by Bush & Co., but its not too late to change things. The election will be an opportunity to make iraqis responsible for their country, something they have not been for decades.
Why should Iraq be any different than any other democracy in the world? Those who have power will not just give it away - you have to fight to get it.

Democracy is the product of revolution - not peace!

[grimm]

Anybody ever stop to think that maybe they don't want Democracy over in Iraq, maybe another system of government? maybe they just didnt like being slaughtered by a tyrant. doesnt mean they want a Democracy instilled.

And what kind of democracy, a representative democracy like the one we try to imitate here? Or a republic with an elected leader.

who says that Iraq needs a revolution. and if so, Isnt it their choice to have one? We tried to instill a democracy for our own reasons. We toppled a dictator for our own reasons. Iraq will never be a free representative democracy. give me a break. There is way too much religion at the basis of the beliefs of power. and when the fundamental root of your existance is not freedoms and peaceful coexistance with other religions, sects, tribes or ethnicities.. but rather your way or the highway..the end result of civil war will inveitably be another dictatorship, with a different shape and a different system of belief. The only thing that makes Iraq different than afghanistan is the Trillions of dollars in oil they are sitting on.


But thats not the argument. We did not accomplish our stated objective (Iraqi "Freedom" and WMD removal and destruction). So the mission, purely on facts, was a failure. from a tactical and political standpoint. There is no arguing about that. We said we were going to do something and we did not. For or Against, it is as simple as that.


but we get a second chance in Iran?;)


GO BUCKS!!!

Report: U.S. Conducting Secret Missions Inside Iran

Jan 16, 12:33 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify potential nuclear, chemical and missile targets, The New Yorker magazine reported Sunday.

The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh, said the secret missions have been going on at least since last summer with the goal of identifying target information for three dozen or more suspected sites.

Hersh quotes one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon as saying, "The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible."

One former high-level intelligence official told The New Yorker, "This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign. The Bush administration is looking at this as a huge war zone. Next, we're going to have the Iranian campaign."

The White House said Iran is a concern and a threat that needs to be taken seriously. But it disputed the report by Hersh, who last year exposed the extent of prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"We obviously have a concern about Iran. The whole world has a concern about Iran," Dan Bartlett, a top aide to President Bush, told CNN's "Late Edition."

Of The New Yorker report, he said: "I think it's riddled with inaccuracies, and I don't believe that some of the conclusions he's drawing are based on fact."

Bartlett said the administration "will continue to work through the diplomatic initiatives" to convince Iran -- which Bush once called part of an "axis of evil" -- not to pursue nuclear weapons.

"No president, at any juncture in history, has ever taken military options off the table," Bartlett added. "But what President Bush has shown is that he believes we can emphasize the diplomatic initiatives that are underway right now."

COMMANDO TASK FORCE

Bush has warned Iran in recent weeks against meddling in Iraqi elections.

The former intelligence official told Hersh that an American commando task force in South Asia is working closely with a group of Pakistani scientists who had dealt with their Iranian counterparts.

The New Yorker reports that this task force, aided by information from Pakistan, has been penetrating into eastern Iran in a hunt for underground nuclear-weapons installations.

In exchange for this cooperation, the official told Hersh, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has received assurances that his government will not have to turn over Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, to face questioning about his role in selling nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Hersh reported that Bush has already "signed a series of top-secret findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as 10 nations in the Middle East and South Asia."

Defining these as military rather than intelligence operations, Hersh reported, will enable the Bush administration to evade legal restrictions imposed on the CIA's covert activities overseas.



--Looks like it:)

[Rolo]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 16 2005, 06:38 PM
And what kind of democracy, a representative democracy like the one we try to imitate here? Or a republic with an elected leader.
I think democracy in Iraq will be a "work in progress"... meaning at first it will probably be melding religion and politics, which would make most people in the west think that the "Taliban UltraLight" have gotten power, but this is the compromise that will work.

Now if they succeed in making a compromise, which will stabilize the country, then the foundation for democracy is in place, and the evolution process will begin, which will fragment larger groups due to many alternatives which are normal in a democracy. Ofcourse there are less alternatives in the begin of the democracy, but as the years go by, then larger groups will loose supporters to the smaller groups, and at some point the smaller groups will be the majority.

Sure our way of life is different to those in the middle east, but globalization are making the difference smaller... also there are already millions of Iraqi refugees living in Europe, and they will also vote in this election. Iraq is not another planet, heck Iraq is sharing borders with Turkey, which is in talks with the EU about membership of the European Union.

Islamist will look at Democracy as a cancer, and they will do anything to either isolate it or removing it, because they know that it will end up spreading thru out their world, once it has rooted.

Now why should the middle east have democracy? I think that democracy is the chance for real long lasting peace, and maybe the only way we will ever see "world peace".

[Rolo]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 16 2005, 06:38 PM
but we get a second chance in Iran?;)
I do not hope for a "shock and awe" war or striks in Iran, but I do hope that the US and other responsible countries put maximum pressure on Iran... this will help the people in Iran who are already fighting for change.

Picking out bomb targets sound stupid, unless its part of a greater plan to help the people in Iran throwing the mullahs in the gulf.

[PornoDoggy]

Only a commie would ask if we've acomplished our objective. George by-God Bush flew his happy ass to an aircraft fucking carrier and declared that we had accomplished our by-God mission some 1,000 American lives ago.

Did I read this right, or am I having a flashback?

Of course battles in Vietnam can be lost, but that does not mean that the war is lost. There have been and are countless mistake made by Johnson & Co., but its not too late to change things. The election will be an opportunity to make iraqis responsible for their country, something they have not been for decades.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Rolo@Jan 16 2005, 10:28 PM
I do not hope for a "shock and awe" war or striks in Iran, but I do hope that the US and other responsible countries put maximum pressure on Iran... this will help the people in Iran who are already fighting for change.

Picking out bomb targets sound stupid, unless its part of a greater plan to help the people in Iran throwing the mullahs in the gulf.
You do realize, of course, that the more "pressure" the U.S. and the West publically puts on Iran, the stronger the hand of the militants becomes?

[rhymer11]

Understanding this administration becomes very clear with a little word trick. Everytime they say "democracy" , just substitute "Christianity". Then it all makes such perfect sense. I know W slipped once and actually said crusade, but he "apologised".

[grimm]

Originally posted by Rolo+Jan 16 2005, 07:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jan 16 2005, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jan 16 2005, 06:38 PM
And what kind of democracy, a representative democracy like the one we try to imitate here? Or a republic with an elected leader.
I think democracy in Iraq will be a "work in progress"... meaning at first it will probably be melding religion and politics, which would make most people in the west think that the "Taliban UltraLight" have gotten power, but this is the compromise that will work.

Now if they succeed in making a compromise, which will stabilize the country, then the foundation for democracy is in place, and the evolution process will begin, which will fragment larger groups due to many alternatives which are normal in a democracy. Ofcourse there are less alternatives in the begin of the democracy, but as the years go by, then larger groups will loose supporters to the smaller groups, and at some point the smaller groups will be the majority.

Sure our way of life is different to those in the middle east, but globalization are making the difference smaller... also there are already millions of Iraqi refugees living in Europe, and they will also vote in this election. Iraq is not another planet, heck Iraq is sharing borders with Turkey, which is in talks with the EU about membership of the European Union.

Islamist will look at Democracy as a cancer, and they will do anything to either isolate it or removing it, because they know that it will end up spreading thru out their world, once it has rooted.

Now why should the middle east have democracy? I think that democracy is the chance for real long lasting peace, and maybe the only way we will ever see "world peace". [/b][/quote]
I guess you could see the silver lining in anything, if you look hard enough....


me too, for instance, if it wasnt for the holocaust, my ancestors would not have fled poland, and if it wasnt for stalin, other ancestors would not have fled russia.

so i have stalin and hitler to thank for my existance. where do i send the card? :blink:




The question was black and white. hence, the answer is black and white.


you can't run a country by the seat of your pants. Its obvious that our Administration did not see the outcome of this conflict being such a disaster. In my not so humble opinion, we should fix what we broke before we try anything new.

And invading or having any military action in Iran is a bad idea now. the "insurgents" active in Iran are far more moderate than the regime. any outside pressure may move the regime to quash the moderates... i think it is best to wait on Iran. they are not a clear and present danger by any means.

Putting everything under the umbrella "the war on terror" leaves actions up to interpretations. I don't see much effort going into domestic terrorism. The Administration has laid the groundwork for inumerable actions, wrong or right, under this umbrella. I am not for or against actions. I can see the benefit of strategy and occupation, but i dont like mitigated half-actions.

[rhymer11]

And if the mongols hadn't invented the stirrup, they would never have invaded Europe and we all might never be here. But we are. Personally, I don't think America will "invade" Iran. The US is way too weak to take on another opponent at the moment. When families are sending over radio shack walkie talkies to their kids, you gottat know something is running out of gas. Hell, if the US can't even fund a little theatre of operations like Iraq, just imagine if they went up against a real airforce....like maybe North Korea. Its the economic sword of Damoclese that is keeping the world safer at the moment. The supply lines are stretched way too thin.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 16 2005, 08:22 PM
Did I read this right, or am I having a flashback?

Of course battles in Vietnam can be lost, but that does not mean that the war is lost. There have been and are countless mistake made by Johnson & Co., but its not too late to change things. The election will be an opportunity to make iraqis responsible for their country, something they have not been for decades.
Its 2005, and IMHO Iraq and Vietnam can not be compared - unless you want to size numbers? :unsure:

[Rolo]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Jan 16 2005, 08:24 PM
You do realize, of course, that the more "pressure" the U.S. and the West publically puts on Iran, the stronger the hand of the militants becomes?
So you think the "west" handled the whole Nazi situation in the 1930s well?

[Rolo]

Originally posted by grimm@Jan 16 2005, 10:44 PM
I guess you could see the silver lining in anything, if you look hard enough....
The iraqis will be voting 3 times over the next year - the first one will be the hardest. This is for the national assembly who are going to debate and approve a new constitution and choose a new Iraqi government. Once the new constitution is ready, then it will be submitted to voters in October 2005, and then by December 31th 2005, there will be a new national election.

There will be alot silver lining in 2005, but ofcourse terrorists do not want that to be clear for people - they want to paint a dark world with no hope... something we also see in politics in the west, however in the west we do not use bombs, and AK47s, but michael moore movies, eminem rappers, and depressed anti bushies ;-)))

[grimm]

Originally posted by Rolo+Jan 18 2005, 03:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rolo @ Jan 18 2005, 03:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-grimm@Jan 16 2005, 10:44 PM
I guess you could see the silver lining in anything, if you look hard enough....
The iraqis will be voting 3 times over the next year - the first one will be the hardest. This is for the national assembly who are going to debate and approve a new constitution and choose a new Iraqi government. Once the new constitution is ready, then it will be submitted to voters in October 2005, and then by December 31th 2005, there will be a new national election.

There will be alot silver lining in 2005, but ofcourse terrorists do not want that to be clear for people - they want to paint a dark world with no hope... something we also see in politics in the west, however in the west we do not use bombs, and AK47s, but michael moore movies, eminem rappers, and depressed anti bushies ;-))) [/b][/quote]
I like AK-47s.