Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[metadigital]

EdD'Oh!'s equation is too simple, because the amount of opposition will not necessarily increase with the increase in allied forces.

More US troops in Iraq = more people to piss off Iraqis and make them into insurgents?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... Because that is the one-to-one ratio and simple equation of the process.

[thepixiesrock]

They are going to try and kill each other anyway.  Is it better for them do so with our soldiers getting caught up in the crossfire or not in the crossfire?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you even aware that you're doing that? I mean, I don't want to believe that you don't know that you're doing it.

[Dark Moth]

EdD'Oh!'s equation is too simple, because the amount of opposition will not necessarily increase with the increase in allied forces.

 

More US troops in Iraq = more people to piss off Iraqis and make them into insurgents?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this some simplified math equation you worked out yourself, or what? It's not like every new soldier in Iraq spawns off an insurgent.

 

As has been said, more troops = more people to kill the other guys in battle, and less casualties for us.

[Eddo36]

EdD'Oh!'s equation is too simple, because the amount of opposition will not necessarily increase with the increase in allied forces.

 

More US troops in Iraq = more people to piss off Iraqis and make them into insurgents?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is this some simplified math equation you worked out yourself, or what? It's not like every new soldier in Iraq spawns off an insurgent.

 

As has been said, more troops = more people to kill the other guys in battle, and less casualties for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So there are less insurgents now than there was in 2003?

Edited January 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[Sand]

What? Taking a pragmatic view on the situation over in Iraq? Do I like the fact that we started a civil war? Of course not. However if two sides, may it be factions or individuals, want to mix it up in a full on fight nothing is going to stop them. You can either get out of the way or be a casualty in the middle.

[Rosbjerg]

let me ask you both a set of question Sand and Eddo.. I just want to boil your opinions down to tangible answers..

- what do you believe would be the most beneficial course of action at this point?

- what outcome would you hope to achieve in Iraq?

- how do you think this is best achieved (to both of the previous questions)

[Sand]

What I would like to see in Iraq that all sides realize they are all Iraqis. That they need to work together if they want to move forward. However until they realize that and focus on their differences there will be violence. Until that violence and that need for bloodshed is excised from their system there will be civil war. We won't be able to stop that and those who try will get hit in the crossfire.

 

We need to stand back, make sure other countries such as Iran, Turkey, Syria, and the such stay out of Iraq and let the Iraqis go through this difficult times themselves. When they are finally finished killing each other, once they are sick of the bloodshed, and the such we come in and help them get back on their feet if they wish us to aid them.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Sand

[Laozi]

The people of Iraq didn't decide what is Iraq, the British did

[WITHTEETH]

Hmmm, I wonder if genocide is possible between the shiites and sunnis, if that is what could happen, then maybe its better to get rid of a problem before it starts...

 

Its a tough moral choice for sure now. The United States has been responsible for making such an instable government what it is today. Maybe the United States Gov does owe the the Iraqi Gov support to prevent a genocide.

 

edit: I do believe the people who started the war in Iraq should be held completely responsible for their actions and all the lives they ruined, and hardships everyone is going through and will go through in the future. its a real shame...

Edited January 10, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Sand]

The Bush Administration owes the Iraq government. The current US Congress does not.

[Eddo36]

let me ask you both a set of question Sand and Eddo.. I just want to boil your opinions down to tangible answers..

- what do you believe would be the most beneficial course of action at this point?

- what outcome would you hope to achieve in Iraq?

- how do you think this is best achieved (to both of the previous questions)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How about we allow Iraqi troops to come to USA and patrol our streets so we would know how it's like to be occupied and get our doors kicked in every now and then, since we got American citizens taking arms via the God-given right of the 2nd Amendment to defend our country, having the santity of our private homes taken away. Since USA got tons of WMD's piled up in bases all over the country, isn't USA guilty in that sense that is the reason Iraq was invaded? Or overthrowing and hanging a dictator (Bush) and get one hundred thousand American citizens killed, as Iraq suffered with their own people? Our water sources, agriculture, military and industries destroyed, our own country being pushed back years. And have 180,000 Muslims patrol our streets (plus 30,000) more to come. With those 30,000 troops coming, we sure won't fight back as insurgents. Kinda how they would feel, no?

Edited January 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[Rosbjerg]

so let me get this straight, you believe the best course of action is to leave Iraq and let the different factions fight it out amongst themselves?

 

Now let's just theorize on this for a moment.. The Coalition pulls out and full blown civil war preceeds. What do you think will be the outcome of this? knowing which factions are most likey to sue for control - and what kind of goverment do you think will take control? I believe we will see religious extremists or a new facist faction "winning" .. is this favorable? I don't think it is..

 

somtimes - even if it's hard, we must assume the role of the "responsible" party. Since we, willingly or not, are mainly responsible for the current situation in Iraq, it's therefore irresponsible for us to simply let them fight it out amongst themselves.. In the western world, most of our countries have moved through a civil war prior to democracy - but is that necessary?

I believe we must help the transistion, no matter what the cost is to us at this point. Much like we would step in and resolve the conflicts between two factions within our own society, we must remain and keep the agression focused on us (as Iraq have stepped into our circle of allies now) - it's a sacrifice that would most likely ensure the stability of Iraq for long time .. and I would rather have a democracy that is a bit ambivalent towards us, than an extremist or facist leadership that needs to vent agression outwards to keep itself stabile.

 

In short, it's what would be most beneficial to the most people in the long run.

[Eddo36]

Since we, willingly or not, are mainly responsible for the current situation in Iraq, it's therefore irresponsible for us to simply let them fight it out amongst themselves.. In the western world, most of our countries have moved through a civil war prior to democracy - but is that necessary?

 

Who do you mean by "we"?

 

All Americans, or the minority who support the war? I say that whoever wants to go fight there go do it themselves, leave the rest out of it.

[Rosbjerg]

^ in response:

We = all the countries involved in the occupation of Iraq.

 

let me ask you both a set of question Sand and Eddo.. I just want to boil your opinions down to tangible answers..

- what do you believe would be the most beneficial course of action at this point?

- what outcome would you hope to achieve in Iraq?

- how do you think this is best achieved (to both of the previous questions)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How about we allow Iraqi troops to come to USA and patrol our streets so we would know how it's like to be occupied and get our doors kicked in every now and then, since we got American citizens taking arms via the God-given right of the 2nd Amendment to defend our country, having the santity of our private homes taken away. Since USA got tons of WMD's piled up in bases all over the country, isn't USA guilty in that sense that is the reason Iraq was invaded? Or overthrowing and hanging a dictator (Bush) and get one hundred thousand American citizens killed, as Iraq suffered with their own people? Our water sources, agriculture, military and industries destroyed, our own country being pushed back years. And have 180,000 Muslims patrol our streets (plus 30,000) more to come. With those 30,000 troops coming, we sure won't fight back as insurgents. Kinda how they would feel, no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You didn't answer my questions..

I wouldn't like that to happen though - you're right there.. But if the opposite is that a dictator runs my country - who kidnaps and tortures my neighbours, family and friends - I think I would welcome as many tropps it takes to take him out.. especially if these forces were there to only remove him and then help rebuild my country (even if they weren't very good) .. I would also do all in my power to help them out - in order for them to leave the country as fast as possible.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Rosbjerg

[Baley]

Even ignoring the safety of the citizens of the USA from global thermonuclear strike, look at all the former-USSR countries (a lot of which have now joined or are about to join the EU) for one example; I would say their populations are pretty pleased with the outcome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All three of them?

[WITHTEETH]

This topic is starting remind me of freedom and responsibility. Sartre and how we need a matching Responsibility statue. Didn't Sartre once say something about "we got the war we deserved" Can someone find this quote or a similar one because i've been scouring the internet so i could reexamine it

[Dark Moth]

So there are less insurgents now than there was in 2003? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's simply because there are more US troops in Iraq. I figured even you'd be able to figure that out. "

Edited January 10, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Eddo36]

So there are less insurgents now than there was in 2003? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's simply because there are more US troops in Iraq. I figured even you'd be able to figure that out. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh it's because the invasion, and initial and previous troop buildup for occupation started pissing them off? With all those "friendly" fires demolishing homes with smart bombs and soldiers from a country of a much different religion and implying new and unwelcomed sets of ideas to their country's culture, government and social way of life, led by a bible thumping conservative start raping a few of them and kill much more Iraqis, either those who are innocent or those who wants them out for that same exact reason?

Edited January 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[Gorgon]

Once Osama seemed quite unatainable the US sensibly went out and created some more terrorism to fight, since the desire for military intervention was not quite spent with Afghanistan. Now they are out there protecting America from another 9/11 by dealing with the hornet's nest they stirred up.... In Iraq.

[Eddo36]

Iraq didn't have anything to do with Osama bin Laden. Why do some people not know that?

[Gorgon]

It was a pretext, same as WMD, they did it because they wanted to.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Gorgon

[WITHTEETH]

You've changed my mind Rosberg about responisbility but its such a clusterfu## that what can we do! Its a lose-lose situation. A middle ground would be great, but where is it really?

[Eddo36]

Hang Bush and make the violence stop a little bit?

[Dark Moth]

Oh it's because the invasion, and initial and previous troop buildup for occupation started pissing them off? With all those "friendly" fires demolishing homes with smart bombs and soldiers from a country of a much different religion and implying new and unwelcomed sets of ideas to their country's culture, government and social way of life, led by a bible thumping conservative start raping a few of them and kill much more Iraqis, either those who are innocent or those who wants them out for that same exact reason?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Still spouting out the same asinine drivel, I see. Admit it, the only reason you started this topic, like so many others, was so you could have a stage to voice your anti-Americanism (and get others to do the same).

 

First off, the Iraqis wanted Saddam out to begin with. He wasn't well-liked. Even most of those who hate us over there didn't like him any more. His followers in Iraq were very few and are decreasing still.

 

Secondly, if that's your line of reasoning, how come it didn't happen in Afghanistan? Why don't you see Afghans slaughtering themselves on the same level? Simple. We are not solely the cause of the conflict. It's because unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was already the victim of a tribal division within its borders. The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. Watch Black Hawk Down sometime if you want to get an idea of why things are so bad. We basically have three groups of people who are distrustful and/or hateful of one another, and you have the clerics or terrorists who are daily convincing the ordinary guy to go out and fight the other Iraqi. Saddam, though I hate to admit, actually kept things stable in Iraq, though he did so with an iron fist. The Iraqis were too repressed by him to actually be able to do things to each other. Don't believe me, look at the casualties. How many victims of terrorist attacks are US troops and how many are Iraqis? Case closed.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Eddo36]

"See spouting out the same asinine drivel, I see. Admit it, the only reason you started this topic, like so many others, was so you could have a stage to voice your anti-Americanism (and get others to do the same). "

 

 

Best way to lose an argument is to label your foe. In this case, a voicer anti-American, especially since he states real facts. Because it is you who view the argument one-dimensionally.

 

"First off, the Iraqis wanted Saddam out to begin with. He wasn't well-liked. Even most of those who hate us over there didn't like him any more. His followers in Iraq were very few and are decreasing still."

 

They wanted Saddam out. They also want the US. We aren't well like there. They want us out. Their followers are increasing and increasing.

 

"Secondly, if that's your line of reasoning, how come it didn't happen in Afghanistan? Why don't you see Afghans slaughtering themselves on the same level? Simple. We are not solely the cause of the conflict."

 

If we aren't, then why don't we get out? Nothing to do with us right? Why stay in Iraq? :crazy:

 

"Saddam, though I hate to admit, actually kept things stable in Iraq, though he did so with an iron fist. The Iraqis were too repressed by him to actually be able to do things to each other."

You hate the truth. Understandable. Truth hurts, as does real life. Maybe a part of the reason is that we helped Saddam decades earlier, then after hating him we put economic sanctions on the country and let the people starve. Also an example is the failed Kurddish revolt we "encouraged" to support result in massacre and resent.

 

 

"Don't believe me, look at the casualties. How many victims of terrorist attacks are US troops and how many are Iraqis?"

 

As of this time 3000 US killed, ten times that number more wounded/maimed/aputated for life, more suffering from PTSD of killing innocent kids. As for Iraqi deaths, a LOT probably. Especially those who help out the USA to feed their families after we F'ed up their countries infrasturcture and economy with economic sanctions long before the war. You're only an oxymoron.

 

"Case closed."

 

So insecure of your stance that you try to place a last word statement? Ain't that easy when you're on the losing side.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Eddo36