Do you support the U.S. setting a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq? (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

The label doesn't matter. Argue in terms of net effect on Iraq, kthx.

Lets try net global effect. See how that works out.

 

[withoutaface]

Lets try net global effect. See how that works out.

That's what I meant. So far this thread reminds me of the Labor Left tools at uni who manage to spend 1000 words attacking full fee places that generate more HECS spots while still failing to articulate why being "unfair" trumps a net utility gain for everyone.

 

[banco55]

Everyone stop with the fucking buzzwords. If occupiers would lead to less deaths, a better economy and greater freedom for the Iraqis, we should support them. If liberators would cause more death and destruction, we should oppose them.

The label doesn't matter. Argue in terms of net effect on Iraq, kthx.

America's interests aren't necessarily the same as Iraqi interests. It may well be in America's national interest to cut their losses and leave the iraqis to their fate.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Your position is that we should withdraw from Iraq immediately and stop interfering in Middle Eastern affairs, yes? Instead of "imperialist" this and "featherweight" that (note: your use of buzzwords is as bad as the neoconservatives arguing in favour of the war) perhaps argue what practical benefit is to be gained by America and Iraq by withdrawing, because at the moment all you've got is rhetoric.

I don't like playing liberal politics. If the US wants to invade other countries, they can. It only stretches out their military even more resulting in more national liberation of other neo-colonies. I am not for America or their puppert governments, I don't want to see them benifit in anyway. I want what the majority of the world wants, military defeat of the USA.

 

[Atilla89]

I don't like playing liberal politics. If the US wants to invade other countries, they can. It only stretches out their military even more resulting in more national liberation of other neo-colonies. I am not for America or their puppert governments, I don't want to see them benifit in anyway. I want what the majority of the world wants, military defeat of the USA.

Somehow I don't think the majority of the world wants that...but anyway, what you're saying is ridiculous, wanting the destruction of a state that prevents many countries from being invaded is stupid.

 

[withoutaface]

I don't like playing liberal politics. If the US wants to invade other countries, they can. It only stretches out their military even more resulting in more national liberation of other neo-colonies. I am not for America or their puppert governments, I don't want to see them benifit in anyway. I want what the majority of the world wants, military defeat of the USA.

You have just summed up exactly why Marxist ideology is so dangerous, because it seeks to bring others down even if there is absolutely no benefit to be gained for anyone else.

 

[Atilla89]

You have just summed up exactly why Marxist ideology is so dangerous, because it seeks to bring others down even if there is absolutely no benefit to be gained for anyone else.

Too true.

 

[Season]

I'd like to know what is "winning" for the US, I mean its comparable to declaring a "war on terror" I mean wtf. Are they waiting for all the Iraqi's to rejoice and embrace this democracy that has killed so many people? Or are they more likely to retreat into being conservative and reject change?

America claims it wants to instill democracy after the last dictatorship, good for them, now unless America is there to support it with its army its almost guaranteed to fall to pieces, because unless the people are willing to embrace it, it's sort of doomed.

It was lunacy to try and change a country's government unless they planned to stay. Plus after all the western countries took centuries to become democracies, what the hell made Bushy think that they could do it in a few years.

If the Iraqi's are willing to support their democracy, then that's great, America can leave. If they can't beecause they're not ready, then they probably won't be for another few decades or more. Either way, America should interferring in the country's politics unless they decide to stay on for the next 10-20 or so years.

I know that removal=civil war= death/slaughter=US defeat, but tough, it'll look bad, and it'll hurt America and terrorists might rejoice at America admitting that yes it made a colossol mistake, but can that really be avoided? Isn't it a question of when rather than if?

 

[Comrade nathan]

You have just summed up exactly why Marxist ideology is so dangerous, because it seeks to bring others down even if there is absolutely no benefit to be gained for anyone else.

It seeks to bring down imperialism/capitalism, not some broad "other" people. The 3rd world benifits from imperialist retreat so they can build their own nations.

Meanwhile who excactly has benifited from US imperialism in the middle east? Not the Iraqi and Afghanistan citizens, and not even the imperialist themselves. They can't even control the nations the invade and so fail to extract super-profits from their neo-colonies. Now that is a dangerous ideology.

 

[Atilla89]

It seeks to bring down imperialism/capitalism, not some broad "other" people. The 3rd world benifits from imperialist retreat so they can build their own nations.

Meanwhile who excactly has benifited from US imperialism in the middle east? Not the Iraqi and Afghanistan citizens, and not even the imperialist themselves. They can't even control the nations the invade and so fail to extract super-profits from their neo-colonies. Now that is a dangerous ideology.

No it seeks to bring down any country that isn't communist. The whole notion of Communism is based upon spreading its ideology to the masses everywhere in the world to rise up and take over, that is empire building in my opinion. Trying to put the world under the sway of an ideological system is imperialism.

 

[bshoc]

Unsure.

On one hand, setting up the timetable would get the troops out quicker, leading to less coalition death and perhaps less Iraqi death.
On the other hand, not setting up the timetable would leave them there, leading to more coalition death and definately more Iraqi death (although probably to a lesser degree).

Oh the pain. How sweet would life be had the coalition of our beloved world leaders not invaded Iraq in the first place. Hold our leaders accountable, ladies and gents.

I'll hold morons like you accountable if we ever leave Iraq in the state it's currently in.

 

[bshoc]

That said I believe we should set some kind of timetable, with say a long projected time of effect, say 5 years, which will take abit of the heat off the military, and then simply not follow it, poor terros.

 

[bshoc]

Communism is for people whose life can be summed up with the word "fail" ..

 

[Aryanbeauty]

It seeks to bring down imperialism/capitalism, not some broad "other" people. The 3rd world benifits from imperialist retreat so they can build their own nations.

Meanwhile who excactly has benifited from US imperialism in the middle east? Not the Iraqi and Afghanistan citizens, and not even the imperialist themselves. They can't even control the nations the invade and so fail to extract super-profits from their neo-colonies. Now that is a dangerous ideology.

Afghanistan is a billion times better off now than under taliban. By the way America is not looking for profit, it is rather trying to stabilize a country. it is a charity act, that you refused to do.

 

[Iron]

Communism is for people whose life can be summed up with the word "fail" ..

If that was a joke on me, I was replying to Brogans posts which he later deleted.

 

[Iron]

And you shouldnt disrespect the veterans