SGG's Pick the President Poll

[MTK]

Why is it our job to stick our noses into everyone else's problems??

I'll just never understand why people think the US needs to be the world police.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Why is it our job to stick our noses into everyone else's problems??

I'll just never understand why people think the US needs to be the world police.

Well that's an argument for never going into Iraq in the first place, but it's not a good argument for why we should just pack up and leave.

We were the ones who made that friggin mess (though not the only ones, thanks Iran and Syria). We'd absolutely DESTROY any remaining credibility we have in the international community if we just packed up and left a power vacuum in it's place. The Iraqi government is not nearly strong enough to stand on its own, and without our presence the insurgents/Iran would quickly move to overthrow the existing government.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Well that's an argument for never going into Iraq in the first place, but it's not a good argument for why we should just pack up and leave.

We were the ones who made that friggin mess (though not the only ones, thanks Iran and Syria). We'd absolutely DESTROY any remaining credibility we have in the international community if we just packed up and left a power vacuum in it's place. The Iraqi government is not nearly strong enough to stand on its own, and without our presence the insurgents/Iran would quickly move to overthrow the existing government.

I can appreciate the point of those who say we're there now, and there's nothing we can do about the mistakes our country has made in the past.

But for a moment, let's say what is not supposed to be said: They'll say we'll lose all of our credibility -- We have no credibility in the international community. They say Iraq will turn into a bloodbath when we leave -- Iraq IS a bloodbath. The only difference is that American blood will no longer be spilled there.

We were the ones who created the vacuum when we toppled Saddam. He was a Secularist, who quite obviously knew how to keep the Sunnis and the Shia separated and in line. Was he evil? Sure. But he kept order in what we now know to be a volatile environment, and he kept Iran in check. Now he's gone, the insane are running the asylum, and we are caught in the crosshairs of huge mess.

The old saying by Thomas Jefferson goes like this: The tree of liberty must be freshened from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants. At some point, the people of Iraq will have to discover their own destiny -- even if that destiny is paved with blood, even if it's a knock-down, drag out with Iran. The right thing to do, the ONLY thing to do, is get the hell out of their way.

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

the day hillary clinton takes over i leave this country

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

rudy rudy rudy

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Newjerseyredskinfan14

rudy rudy rudy

Um, welcome to the board?

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Um, ?Rhiana has a really big forehead...I would have to bag that

Big ass forhead!

yeah i agree with this guy and a fat ass lol



hell

[Newjerseyredskinfan14]

die hard skins fan

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Beems,

I like that you're honest and admit that you don't care about the sectarian strife. But, do you believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq? If not, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If so, why should we leave Iraq but stay in Afghanistan? Or do you believe we should leave both countries?

[RobH4413]

Here is an earlier post of mine from a couple of months ago that kind of applies to some of the debate that's going on.

Originally Posted by robh4413

I disagree with a lot that you're saying.

A very good friend of mine recently came home from his year long tour in Iraq and continues to think that there is a lot of promise there. The military objective isn't this abstract concept that your portraying it to be.

We're giving contracts out to the local population to help set up the infrastructure, and providing them security while they attempt to rebuild the country, while teaching the locals how to facilitate growth, and stability.

We're helping speed along the progress of businesses by making sure they have reliable resources (electric, water, gas, etc...). The thinking goes beyond beating down insurgents, beyond taking the "heads" of certain leaders.

The theory behind it is that as the economy grows, the nation will realize who are the good guys. Quite frankly, the country is sick and tired of all the fighting. They're yearning for stability, yearning for consistency. They don't deserve a surge of troops, and then a total bail out... resulting in widespread chaos.

We attacked initially, I didn't support the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that this is anywhere close to a parallel situation. We can't fix our mistake by bailing out, we can't let these people suffer because we ****ed up. It just isn't fair.

Ultimately, like I said earlier, It's about the economy:

If there are no places to work, no stability, no direction, then the youth will turn to what's in front of them. Instead of getting a job, raising a family, and working towards a better future, there will certainly be youths joining the insurgency. The problem will rise exponentially without economic success.

Conversely, if we do succeed, there is hope for a self sustaining democratic society. This isn't a lost cause. We aren't here dicking around. There is a clear cut plausible objective, and I think most people don't realize that. They watch the news, see the death, and lump it all into one big mess.

The biggest problem my buddy from Iraq had with the media, is that they don't report all the progress that's being made. We don't see the good, and get all fussy when someone suggests that it exists.

I'm not saying that the place isn't a war zone. I'm not saying that there isn't death and killing, because there absolutely is. What I am saying, is that there is a clear cut way to win, which is supporting the economic interests and hence produce stability and a self-sustaining government.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Beems,

I like that you're honest and admit that you don't care about the sectarian strife. But, do you believe that Al Qaeda is in Iraq? If not, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If so, why should we leave Iraq but stay in Afghanistan? Or do you believe we should leave both countries?

Yeah this is the whole thing. I'm quoting SGG here because he brings up a good point, this post is more directed at Beem.

Al Qaeda has been working hard to expand and establish a presence in Iraq. They sent Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi in there to set up shop. Luckily, we killed his ass. Then they sent in another guy, can't remember his name. They will continue to attempt to establish a HQ in Iraq to strengthen their influence on the Muslim community, recruit new members, and continue to wage war on the West.

Our goal should be not only to track them down and kill them, but to limit their influence on young, impressionable Islamic citizens. If we don't fight Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan, their influence will spread unabated, and soon enough could have the financing and network capable of striking us at home whenever they please.

We can't just stay out of "messy Mideast religious conflicts." The Sunnis and Shia are indeed ready to destroy one another, but that's not why we're there. We're there to keep our country safe from Al Qaeda. We're not at war with Iraq, or the Sunnis, or the Shia, or Iran, or Syria. We're at war with Al Qaeda, and they just happen to be working to establish themselves within Iraq (where there is a power vacuum) and in Afghanistan (where the regrouping Taliban offers a safe-haven for base operations).

[70Chip]

Here's a longer excerpt from Bob Shrum's new book:

Kerry's Regrets About John Edwards | TIME

[dmek25]

i agree. for me, Clinton was one of the best presidents we have had in a long time. alittle head shot is his personal business. i don't know where Allen stands on the issues, because just about all of his press was about his choice of one word

[saden1]

I don't think Allen knew what the hell Macaca meant and the crowd was more clueless than he was. So say Allen lost because of the Macaca incident would be a reach. Virginia is simply not a gimme state anymore and his opponent was a worthy opponent. Not to mention the fact that the country was ready to change the faces in congress.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

I don't think Allen knew what the hell Macaca meant and the crowd was more clueless than he was. So say Allen lost because of the Macaca incident would be a reach. Virginia is simply not a gimme state anymore and his opponent was a worthy opponent. Not to mention the fact that the country was ready to change the faces in congress.

I think you're right here. Allen might have won by a small margin without the whole macaca mess but he lost for the same reason most other republicans losts. An unpopular war and a culture of corruption fostered by the high-ups in Washington. It is tough for the base to mobilize for guys they don't trust and that affects all races. Webb did a good job of niching his way into the middle too.