What would happen to them if we pulled out?

[ganeil]

Sunni Muslim sheikhs join US in fighting Al Qaeda
Iraqi tribal support is linked to drop in violence in Anbar Province.
By Sam Dagher | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Ramadi, Iraq - Amid fields of wheat and barley, dozens of armed men emerged along a dirt road leading to the fiefdom of the Bu-Fahed tribe in Hamdhiyah, an idyllic corner of restive Anbar Province, just north of Ramadi. "Welcome to our proud sheikhs. Down with terror," read banners on the road.

Dozens of sheikhs and tribal elders in flowing gold-trimmed camel-hair cloaks, many clutching colorful worry beads, streamed into a conference hall. Each was frisked by tribesmen to guard against suicide bombs.

The meeting looked to be a typical gathering, but its true purpose was for top sheikhs to issue an ultimatum: quit supporting Al Qaeda and turn in relatives belonging to the group.

Like dominoes, tribes reeling from a campaign of killing and intimidation by Al Qaeda have been joining, one by one, the US-led fight against Al Qaeda in Iraq in this Sunni Arab province. Last month, US Gen. David Petraeus told Congress that violence was down significantly here and that the tribes were key to the transformation.

Continued

What do you think would happen to these people if US forces were withdrawn?

[dr335is]

what happened in Somalia? Ruwanda? many places that we did not even go in... Are you confirming that we are responsible for the mess in Iraq, therefore the obligation to stay???

And, are you concerned what will happen to them or our soldiers (if we stay)?

Many if's and what's there...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

what happened in Somalia? Ruwanda? many places that we did not even go in... Are you confirming that we are responsible for the mess in Iraq, therefore the obligation to stay???

And, are you concerned what will happen to them or our soldiers (if we stay)?

Many if's and what's there...

I am saying we have a legal and moral obligation to the people of Iraq.

Soldiers are tools of national policy and if the proper national policy is to meet our moral and legal commitments then it is proper for them to remain.

There is only one "what" and one "if."

What will happen if we leave prematurely?

[Max_!]

> I am saying we have a legal and moral obligation to the people of Iraq.

Aw, come on.

You (well, the government you did not overthrow eventhough you have the right to bear arms for just this kind of thing) did not have a legal or a moral obligation (or even god-given right) to go there in the first place.

But you (your government) made the mess and you (your government) can't pull out without bringing the war home.

Seriously, I think you (personally) were better off with the cheating, sigar-sopping saxophone player.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

There is only one "what" and one "if."

What will happen if we leave prematurely?

Actually, there is more of them:
If the "prematurely" was 5 years ago???
If another life of our kid is worth it?
If another dollar out of my taxes is worth it?
What will happen when Bush is out?
If we reduced/stopped or provoked more terrorism in the World by doing it?
If, what...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by Max_!

You (well, the government you did not overthrow eventhough you have the right to bear arms for just this kind of thing) did not have a legal or a moral obligation (or even god-given right) to go there in the first place.

But you (your government) made the mess and you (your government) can't pull out without bringing the war home.

You see Neil -- this is what I am talking all along -- people from Europe, Asia...everywhere automatically connect me to W and my Government... That is such a shame... I don't want that. I don't want to be identified as "the same as" someone who barely has 30% of people's support in the country he was elected to lead...

And that is all I see on my travels...

[FirstClass]

Originally Posted by Max_!

You did not have a legal or a moral obligation (or even god-given right) to go there in the first place.

That's debatable, but you can't change the past. The fact is that now we're there we need to finish what we started. Pulling out before things are stable would spell disaster for the entire region.

Originally Posted by dr325i

You see Neil -- this is what I am talking all along -- people from Europe, Asia...everywhere automatically connect me to W and my Government... That is such a shame... I don't want that. I don't want to be identified as "the same as" someone who barely has 30% of people's support in the country he was elected to lead...

And that is all I see on my travels...

See the bold. He's doing what he was elected to do.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by Max_!

> I am saying we have a legal and moral obligation to the people of Iraq.

Aw, come on.

You (well, the government you did not overthrow eventhough you have the right to bear arms for just this kind of thing) did not have a legal or a moral obligation (or even god-given right) to go there in the first place.

But you (your government) made the mess and you (your government) can't pull out without bringing the war home.

Seriously, I think you (personally) were better off with the cheating, sigar-sopping saxophone player.

We (and I do not shirk from accepting the legitimate actions of my government) did have a moral and legal justification for removing Iraq's previous regime. As a result of that legitimate action, we imposed on ourselves moral and legal responsibilities.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

You see Neil -- this is what I am talking all along -- people from Europe, Asia...everywhere automatically connect me to W and my Government... That is such a shame... I don't want that. I don't want to be identified as "the same as" someone who barely has 30% of people's support in the country he was elected to lead...

And that is all I see on my travels...

Ahhh... so US foreign policy should be predicated on you enjoying your time abroad. I got it now. I am sure the President will adjust it accordingly as soon as it is explained to him.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by FirstClass

That's debatable, but you can't change the past. The fact is that now we're there we need to finish what we started. Pulling out before things are stable would spell disaster for the entire region.

See the bold. He's doing what he was elected to do.

That is why 30% of people support him now from 51% 2.5 years ago -- because he's doing what we asked him to do

The guy is a plain hick, not a diplomat and that he's shown many times...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Ahhh... so US foreign policy should be predicated on you enjoying your time abroad. I got it now. I am sure the President will adjust it accordingly as soon as it is explained to him.

he would not understand it even if you drew it for him...

And obviously you have the same (brain) syndrome -- it is not me -- it is 300M Americans that are viewed that way...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

We (and I do not shirk from accepting the legitimate actions of my government) did have a moral and legal justification for removing Iraq's previous regime. As a result of that legitimate action, we imposed on ourselves moral and legal responsibilities.

So, moral regime to remove (ONE) dictator...
Where are our morals when 3M Somalis are replaced, or when 1/2 mil of Ruwandans are killed, or when NK dude builds crap and dictates his people 10000000000000 worse than Saddam did to his people, and I could go on.

Please do not mention Bush and "moral" in the same sentence...

[ATG]

Originally Posted by ganeil

We (and I do not shirk from accepting the legitimate actions of my government) did have a moral and legal justification for removing Iraq's previous regime.

What a bunch of conservative big brother bullshit! Iraq was the only secular state in the Middle East, and was at least free from religious fanatism (unlike the U.S.). Now, thanks to the unilateral decision of the U.S., not sanctioned by the U.N., there is a very realistic chance that Iraq will turn into a carbon copy of Iran -- a muslim fundamentalists country. is that the desired outcome? That 200 people were killed 25 years ago does not justify invasion of another country that occurred in clear disregard of the decision of the majority of the U.N. member countries. G.W. may have wanted to play the role of "exorcist" and justify the intelligence's failures that led to 911 (don't start blaiming Clinton here) or, as one of my friends nicely put it (a republican BTW), Iraq was just a "low hanging fruit" that we could and did grab.

When will the people in this country stop living by fairy tales and believing that we are the "spiderman" of the world?? Where did that "duty" to invade Iraq come from? Actually, "justification" as you put it, is a much better word, because it's possible to justify almost everything, especially after the fact. It's simple: just put the batman and spiderman rhetoric together, spice it up by the horrific story of what could have happened, and learn to skillfully use words "may," "if," "reasonable belief," "axis of evil," "probable," etc.

[ATG]

Originally Posted by dr325i

So, moral regime to remove (ONE) dictator...
Where are our morals when 3M Somalis are replaced, or when 1/2 mil of Ruwandans are killed, or when NK dude builds crap and dictates his people 10000000000000 worse than Saddam did to his people, and I could go on.

Please do not mention Bush and "moral" in the same sentence...

Good point about North Korea. Definitely not a low hanging fruit.

it's funny that now the supporters of the war try to focus on the "evil" nature of Saddam's regime. I clearly remember that back in 2002 and 2003 the main reason for the invasion was "credible evidence that Iraq may possess weapons of mass destruction." But see "justification"....

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ATG

Good point about North Korea. Definitely not a low hanging fruit.

it's funny that now the supporters of the war try to focus on the "evil" nature of Saddam's regime. I clearly remember that back in 2002 and 2003 the main reason for the invasion was "credible evidence that Iraq may possess weapons of mass destruction." But see "justification"....

and then they turn it into us that oppose W are Saddam and terror supporters... That is what the "uniter" did to us...

I can put any money down that if W came out in 2002 and said I want to remove a dictator because he's bad and nothing else, no one would not support that and vote for it. Instead, he lied, he lied to everyone and when he could not lie any more he tried to blame it on French and German intel, then on our own... Instead, he used the 9-11 events to inject a fear into the population and to control the nation and Government as he said -- "You're either with us (me) or with the enemy"...

Same as he put all the blame on Libby, and many others...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

That is why 30% of people support him now from 51% 2.5 years ago -- because he's doing what we asked him to do

The guy is a plain hick, not a diplomat and that he's shown many times...

I see you do not understand the difference between leading and following.

Sometimes leadership is unpopular.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

he would not understand it even if you drew it for him...

And obviously you have the same (brain) syndrome -- it is not me -- it is 300M Americans that are viewed that way...

While I am sure his degrees from Yale and Harvard do not compare to yours, he is smart enough to make millions of dollars and get himself elected President of the US twice.

I will again bring your attention to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Please stop attempting to justify your beliefs by stating how many people you think agree with you, it is illogical and adds nothing to the discussion.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

While I am sure his degrees from Yale and Harvard do not compare to yours, he is smart enough to make millions of dollars and get himself elected President of the US twice. .

Actually, I am not sure if you're really so narrow minded or just pretend to be...
But it is really not uncommon that people graduated from top-notch schools (with C-average), and that had daddy make money for them... I am sure W made his money -- give me a f'n break...

As for being re-elected -- right -- he did it all by himself. He looked like a 2nd grader during the debates...

Originally Posted by ganeil

I will again bring your attention to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Please stop attempting to justify your beliefs by stating how many people you think agree with you, it is illogical and adds nothing to the discussion.

Actually, that is the reality that you miss to understand and show over and over...

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I see you do not understand the difference between leading and following.

Sometimes leadership is unpopular.

Leadership as you (wish) to describe means producing success.
GW has not produced a single one so far -- in 6 years.

That is not my definition of leadership...

[rudyg]

Originally Posted by ganeil

We (and I do not shirk from accepting the legitimate actions of my government) did have a moral and legal justification for removing Iraq's previous regime. As a result of that legitimate action, we imposed on ourselves moral and legal responsibilities.

Remind me, what was the legal justification?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by rudyg

Remind me, what was the legal justification?

Let me guess -- he's going to pull the UN resolution from 1991 that supposedly applies here and 12 WMD leftovers found somewhere...

Bush should go to the war crimes tribunal and rotten with Saddam, Milosevic and other world's manipulators...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dr325i

So, moral regime to remove (ONE) dictator...
Where are our morals when 3M Somalis are replaced, or when 1/2 mil of Ruwandans are killed, or when NK dude builds crap and dictates his people 10000000000000 worse than Saddam did to his people, and I could go on.

Please do not mention Bush and "moral" in the same sentence...

This is one of my favorite dubious arguments:

If you are unwilling or unable to correct all of the world's problems, it therefore follows that you should not attempt to solve any.