Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gabrielle

When will it end?

Recommended Posts

We have goals in Iraq.  Anyone actually involved with the whole affair, or potentially involved, could tell you what they are.  We're staying and allowing the Iraqi defense forces to gradually take on more and more responsibility in dealing with the insurgency, while phasing our own guys out.  Our plan isn't to "beat" the insurgency, it's to hand the problem to the Iraqis when they're capable of handing it, and then high-tail it out of there to let them run their own security, and their own country, for that matter.

 

It would be a much better plan if there were timetables set; the entire strategy over there depends entirely on perception.  I was never taught to tell my boss, "Well, I have no idea when I'll get this done, to tell you the truth; it'll get done when it gets done."  It's also seeming more and more like Iraq's going to end up something of a theocracy, which could very well push it right into Iran's open arms, so it's entirely possible we massively screwed up.  Nothing really to do now save wait and see.

 

Defenders of this strategy will tell you that it's been working, since we haven't had a successful attack on the United States by terrorist elements.  They've been too busy in Iraq.  Detractors will tell you that, despite al-Qaeda's definite involvement in Iraq, they've still managed to hit Spain and the UK - ignoring the fact that the UK's problem was home-grown, of course.  I don't know which point of view is correct, though I suspect it's a mix of both. 

 

I also don't think we can perform an immediate pullout, like many seem to be calling for.  We broke it, and therefore we bought it; we're under an obligation to leave the country capable of fending for itself.

 

That's kind of a faulty analogy , comparing a war to a work project- War is to unpredictable

 

I agree the U.S. can't perform an immediate pullout and people who believe otherwise are foolish- This is not Vietnam - Vietnam did not create a domino effect- Having an unstable Iraq will- It will be used as a base for Al qaeda just like Afganistan and then they will have free range to direct Terrorist attack against all western countries- not just the U.S. anymore and when then what happens when a nuclear bomb is activated in the heart of a U.S city its not far off idea at all.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never heard of him.

 

I am just saying you need to look out for number one.  The purpose of government is to look out for the lives of its own citizens first and foremost.  When a government fails to do so then it is up to the people to remove that government and put one in its place that will.  It isn't up to another country to do that. 

 

If the Iraqi people wanted to remove Saddam from power then they would have if they were strong enough.  If they weren't then to bad for them.

 

Well the U.S is looking out for themselves on how they project there foreign policy on the rest of the world - and then U.S politicans have the nerve to say to nations and supposed allies that they are selfish for not joining in there wars or not playing fair in trade <_< but that is another issue.

 

Of course it is the job of government to look out for its citizens but really how many governments that haven't been elected actually do that. That 's not there fault that they weren't strong enough and plus who created the Iraq state in the first place - it should have been created after ww1

 

Mistakes happen when countries interfere and mistakes happen when you don't you are dambed if you do and dambed if you don't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the problem. The US is looking at other countries to support itself which is wrong. If a country cannot be self sufficient then it has no right to exist. We shouldn't be fighting other peoples war, we shouldn't be dependent on foreign oil, we shouldn't be sending US jobs to other cuntries, and so forth.

 

I have no problem in continuing trade to other countries but we need to stop fighting wars for other nations and people, we need to stop giving foreign aid to other countries, and we need to make the other nations of the world pay back their loans and we need to pay ours back as well.

 

The government needs to take care of its own first. When we still have millions of people without proper healthcare, millions of people below the poverty line, the education system of our country is in complete shambles, and so forth it is the responsibility of our government to ensure that these problems are taken care of. It shouldn't waste resources in Iraq when those resources are solely need here. The gopvernment needs to be responsible for US citizens, not Iraqi citizens. Let the iraqis take care of their own.

Edited by Judge Hades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the middle east is the beast of hell that will hail in world war three in the for seeable future if events stay as they are. The end will come in hellfire and brimestone as the human population burn in the flames of the great Apocalypse.

 

the End is near.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a country cannot be self sufficient then it has no right to exist.

Hey Hades, usually I have no problem with you being all doom and gloom, but that is just rubbish. Autarchy as a political doctrine has been proven a failure, in the real world. Things just don't work that way.

 

Get a clue, man. :)

Edited by 213374U

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not promoting autarchy, numberman, you are just not understanding what I am saying.

Edited by Judge Hades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not promoting anarchy, numberman, you are just not understanding what I am saying.

As a matter of fact, I said autarchy. It's a different thing. :)


- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I am not prom oting that either. Man, it is way too early for me to be awake.

 

All I am saying that each nation, aside from trade, neeeds to take care of their own. That is all. Before a nation should feed and take care of the homeless of another country it should eliminate that problem at home first. Before we go and take down a dictator who might have WMDs we need to eliminate the healthcare problems we face. Before we go and give money to other countries we need to use those resources to help ourselves to rebuild places like New Orleans who gets hit by natural disasters.

 

Before our government help others we need to fix the problems at home first and become self sufficient. If a government can't take care of its own people then it has no purpose to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I am not prom oting that either.

No, that's exactly what you're promoting when you say:

That is the problem.  The US is looking at other countries to support itself which is wrong.  If a country cannot be self sufficient then it has no right to exist. We shouldn't be fighting other peoples war, we shouldn't be dependent on foreign oil, we shouldn't be sending US jobs to other cuntries, and so forth.

It's nice you still can rectify, though. :)


- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If thats they way you want to interpret it then so be it. Its not going to happen anyway. This damn war is going to continue on. The US will still poke its nose where it doesn't belong. Interfere in the doings of other nations for the self interest of those in power and not for the good for the rest of the nation. Peole will still suffer in misery in this country because the government doesn't give a shat and has the wrong priorities. Nothing is going to change.

Edited by Judge Hades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask, Hades, out of genuine curiosity, why given your statements that humanity cannot meaningfully be divided along the lines of race, and given your general despair about the crappy state of the single human race, you would bring up an argument like "They're not American"?

 

You've confused me somewhere along the line as to why you care more about some guy in Maine or California more than someone in Iraq. Surely, taking the position of self-interest you at least seem to be espousing, you should look after and care for only those people whom you directly care about or have an interest in (whether that is you alone, or you and your immediate family and friends), and needn't give a damn about anyone else regardless of whether they are Iraqi, Indonesian, Austrian or American? If a dictator torturing people in Baghdad is none of your business, why is one torturing people in Miami something you should care about?

 

I don't really see how a concept of nationality gels with a concept of uniform barbarity in humanity. :p


Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I take care of my own and mind my own business. That is me on the personal level. I don't go door to door bothering people. That is just me. On the government level, it is up to each individual government, may it be the US government, the Canadian government, Spain's government, Iraq's government, and so forth to take care of its own people. The purpose of government is to set order and structure that benefits all people within that structure and order.

 

The key word here is "within."

 

Yes, I have a healthy disdain for the human race in general but I don't value a person in New Orleans more than a person in Bagdad. What I am saying that the US government is responsible is responsible to the person in New Orleans first and foremost than a person in Iraq. The US government has a responsibility to US people just as much as U.K's government is responsible for its own people, or Italy's government to its own people, and so on. The US government is not responsible for Italy, Iraq, israel, Japan, Mexico and so forth. let the governments of those nations take care of themselves without interference, good or ill, from the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats rather a cynical view wouldn't you say?


"I tried the most potent Noise Amplification spell once upon a time. Mavellous spell. I could hear the birds speaking to one another in trees over the horizon, I could hear the rustlings as the clouds rubbed against each other in the sky. I could hear the sound a rainbow makes as it arches it's back over the world. Then a dog barked behind me and I burst my left eardrum."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I take care of my own and mind my own business.  That is me on the personal level.  I don't go door to door bothering people.  That is just me.  On the government level, it is up to each individual government, may it be the US government, the Canadian government, Spain's government, Iraq's government, and so forth to take care of its own people.  The purpose of government is to set order and structure that benefits all people within that structure and order.

 

The key word here is "within."

 

Yes, I have a healthy disdain for the human race in general but I don't value a person in New Orleans more than a person in Bagdad.  What I am saying that the US government is responsible is responsible to the person in New Orleans first and foremost than a person in Iraq.  The US government has a responsibility to US people just as much as U.K's government is responsible for its own people, or Italy's government to its own people, and so on.  The US government is not responsible for Italy, Iraq, israel, Japan, Mexico and so forth.  let the governments of those nations take care of themselves without interference, good or ill, from the US.

 

Ah, I see. Well, I don't think I agree with that position entirely (I do, but only up to a point), but I understand it now. Thanks.

 

As a final question, just to grasp a basic but fundamental subtlety of your position, do you believe that a promise to do something confers upon the promiser a responsibility to carry out the action they have promised to take? If so, then does a broken promise confer a measure of responsibility for the consequences of breaking that promise?


Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how long it would take the US to pay off its debt if it channeled its foreign aid into repaying its debt. On the other hand a lot of the aid's run by non-government organisations so things could take awhile.


Spreading beauty with my katana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how long it would take the US to pay off its debt if it channeled its foreign aid into repaying its debt.  On the other hand a lot of the aid's run by non-government organisations so things could take awhile.

 

Probably not long, but if the US ceased its foreign aid, that money would go into ineffective programs that please the public but worsen the debt. Democracy in the Western World is in its Largesse From The Treasury stage, and there is likely little that can be done to stop it now. The next stage is complete collapse and a slide into despotism.

 

I hope that was suitably pessimistic for the tone of this thread. :p


Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...