Out of Iraq

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I normally don't get involved in political discussions online but what the hey

It is my opinion that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible-
these are my 7 reasons
1.We waged a war based on false intelligence
2.We don't have the leadership to run our country and rebuild Iraq simultaneously
3.We can't afford to borrow money to wage a war and rebuild a country
4.We had very little world support before we decided to invade and occupy
5. Our country was founded on the premise that America would be free. why do many think we had to make the rest of the world free too?
6. the war in Iraq isn't making america safer, The new laws and increased national security budget is
7.We have more important issues to deal with on the homeland(energy crisis, healthcare crisis, what to do with all of the illegals)

If I'm wrong please tell me why

You are sooo wrong, definitely brainwashed, yes brainwashed, turn on Charlie Sykes pronto![/code]

OMG. The liberal media got to GoPackGo. Good, normal americans are being swayed by those evil media bastards.

I ask again, what can I do to protect myself from the media. I am worried that one day i too will be brainwashed by them.

I feel that one day I will awake and be like Brooke Adams in Invasion of the Body Snatchers...i will be talking to a good normal american and he will start screaming at me like Donald Sutherland.

Clearly Tex and the rest of the republicans have managed to avoid being brainwashed...what is the secret? Don't hold out. Save me!!!

[GoPackGo]

you guys are killing me

[Gunakor]

Have you guys not heard the rumors that Powell is likely to endorse Obama?

Yes, Colin Powell indeed has been sounding like a leftist lately--after a career as a good loyal American, but he's threatening to undue all that now.

Basixally, though, what you guys are doing is what you always do: AVOIDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DISCUSSION--the availability and readiness of our troops--and trying to divert things.

If Powell has that take on things for any reason at all other than demagoguery, it is the idea that we can't pull troops out of Germany--which, of course, we did during the Gulf War--when, by the way, we had over 700,000 troops committed to the middle east. Now you guys are whining that we can "sustain 140,000"? Come on!

How long was the first gulf war and what country did we occupy? How many tours of duty did the National Guard do?

Great point. However, as you should have come to understand by now, Tex is not concerned at all with the fact that we have been at war for over 6 years. As a point of reference, World War 2 was over in 6 years (1939-1945). He would drag this war out twice as long as that one as long as the Republican party suggested we do so.

He blasts at all of us for listening to the media, calling us anti-American for forming our own opinions about this war. He simply does not have the ability to think for himself, so he calls anyone who DOES have this ability a cowardly leftist prick who hates America. To me, he simply sounds like one of GW's puppets.



Tex, I am not a left-wing extremist. I don't wholeheartedly believe in ALL of the Dems' policies or suggestions. I'm not suggesting everything is going to be perfect either way - it never is. What I am suggesting is that we need a leader who will be more concerned with AMERICA than IRAQ. A leader who will spend more time and money on DOMESTIC issues than foreign ones. Things like the housing/mortgage situation, unemployment, education, things that will help OUR economy. And these things must be tended to RIGHT AWAY, not first thing AFTER Iraq. No right-wing war monger like yourself or GW has ever had their priorities in order, so how could we expect anything different in this years election?

I am all for the security of America. But we have to maintain that security AND the economical health of our country at the same time. I have agreed with you about how Bush has ensured the security of our country, BUT HE HAS DONE IT AT THE COST OF OUR ECONOMICAL HEALTH. We are entering into economic recession right now. Mortgage rates are way up, consumer spending is way down, and nothing has been done recently to combat unemployment. The war movement has not hit the average American working man. We are buying foreign fuel and foreign supplies to fight this war, so for all the money we are spending, the American working class citizens sure aren't reaping any kind of benefits.

We are borrowing money at a mind boggling rate, something our children and grandchildren will end up paying for. Maybe you will never have children or a family of your own, but for those of us who do this is VERY worrisome. I wonder how our grandkids would feel about GW dragging this war out for so long, knowing that the costs of this war would fall upon them as well? I'm sure you don't care.

[Freak Out]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

[texaspackerbacker]

I salute you, GPG, for having the balls to do what others leftist or anti-war types or whatever you would label yourself fail to have the courage to do--that being DISCUSSING THE ISSUES.

As for your points:

1. Who says the intelligence was flawed? Are you talking about WMDs and Saddam supporting terrorism? There's is just as much proof that WMDs existed as that they didn't--probably more. If OUR intel was flawed in that area, then so was that of Britain, Russia, Israel, and a few others. As for Saddam and terrorism, his support for Hamas and Hezbollah--bounties for suicide bombers, etc. is indisputable. But I suppose you are thinking of al Qaeda. Two items there: Zarqawi, the famous al Qaeda leader, was in Iraq long before we invaded; There was an al Qaeda training camp at Ansar al Islam within Iraq which our troops overran in the early days of the invasion.

2. That's too ridiculous to reply to, except to ask, what are your grounds for even making such an assertion?

3. Again, you're just parrotting false leftist mantras about the economy being harmed by the war. The economy is NOT in recession. We do NOT have a crisis over mortages any more than we have had 5 or 6 times since 1970. Unemployment is still at near record lows. Interest rates and inflation both are at very low levels. Essentially, any economic problems, even if assumed to be caused by the war, are very mild, and are trumped up by the leftist media in a desperate attempt to prop up leftist politicians--something which forum leftists, incredibly, seem to be in denial of.

4. You may be right about that, but so what? Do you want Eurowimps or whoever you might be referring to, to determine American security policy? I guess that wouldn't be surprising, considering such is the stated position of Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, virtually all of the politicians of the left.

5. Don't you think the better question should be why do some/most on the left think the rest of the world SHOULDN'T be free? GPG, don't you realize that the key to a peaceful stable prosperous educated healthy world--which obviously is in our own best interest too--is the spreading of American-style freedom and representative democracy. Would you actually disagree with that?

6. No disputing that enhanced security, surveillance of terrorist communications, and harsh treatment of prisoners, etc. are also large parts of the formula, but we have the words of Bin Laden himself that Iraq is his central front--prioritized over hitting America at home. You really don't think that is a factor? The huge percentage of our troops certainly think their service and sacrifice is a factor in preventing terrorism here.

7. How can these issues NOT be dealt with effectively regardless of the war? The truth is, the same leftist politicians whining about the war are the ones obstructing effective action and/or pushing wrongheaded and irresponsible action on these issues. Energy: who is preventing drilling in ANWAR, building new refineries and nuclear power plants, drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts? Healthcare: There is no crisis. Everybody who needs lifesaving treatment now gets it. With the all out disaster of a single-payer Canada-style plan pushed by the Dems, many would not. Illegals: no way the war is preventing a fence; No way even if our troops were all withdrawn that they would or should be put on the Mexican border; And the worst way to go, amnesty, is being pushed by whom? Right, mostly your guys, the left--although admittedly, you've got Bush and McCain with you on this one.

So have I responded satisfactorily to your points, GPG? Unlike that gutless leftists who are so ASHAMED of leftist positions that they are AFRAID to express them, I'm always happy to make perfectly clear the differences between OUR positions and THEIRS.

[texaspackerbacker]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

Didn't I just cover that point--with the 140,000 compared to 700,000 thing?

[texaspackerbacker]

Gunakor, I have taken great pains since being in this forum to AVOID calling any other posters "America-haters" or "anti-Americans". If people are referring to my labeling of posters that way in other forums, yeah, I won't deny it--and rest assured, anybody I labelled that way deserved it. The fact is, though, I haven't seen anybody in this forum so far gone that I would ascribe anti-American motives to them--horrible wrongheadedness, yes, but anti-Americanism, no. Others in other forums, I wouldn't give that benefit of the doubt too. Many in the mainstream media I wouldn't give that benefit of the doubt too. And definitely with several of the leading politicians of the left, I wouldn't conclude that they are NOT haters of all things American.

You mentioned WWII. If you want to compare apples to apples, VE Day was the equivalent to the fall of Baghdad and Saddam. The rest of the time we have been in Iraq? You could make a case by that standard for saying WWII is STILL going on--at least until the point where Europe was stabilized and our troops were no longer needed. You could also make a case for comparing the troops left in Germany due to the Soviet Union to leaving troops in Iraq due to the threat from Iran.

[GoPackGo]

I salute you, GPG, for having the balls to do what others leftist or anti-war types or whatever you would label yourself fail to have the courage to do--that being DISCUSSING THE ISSUES.

As for your points:

1. Who says the intelligence was flawed? Are you talking about WMDs and Saddam supporting terrorism? There's is just as much proof that WMDs existed as that they didn't--probably more. If OUR intel was flawed in that area, then so was that of Britain, Russia, Israel, and a few others. As for Saddam and terrorism, his support for Hamas and Hezbollah--bounties for suicide bombers, etc. is indisputable. But I suppose you are thinking of al Qaeda. Two items there: Zarqawi, the famous al Qaeda leader, was in Iraq long before we invaded; There was an al Qaeda training camp at Ansar al Islam within Iraq which our troops overran in the early days of the invasion.

2. That's too ridiculous to reply to, except to ask, what are your grounds for even making such an assertion?

3. Again, you're just parrotting false leftist mantras about the economy being harmed by the war. The economy is NOT in recession. We do NOT have a crisis over mortages any more than we have had 5 or 6 times since 1970. Unemployment is still at near record lows. Interest rates and inflation both are at very low levels. Essentially, any economic problems, even if assumed to be caused by the war, are very mild, and are trumped up by the leftist media in a desperate attempt to prop up leftist politicians--something which forum leftists, incredibly, seem to be in denial of.

4. You may be right about that, but so what? Do you want Eurowimps or whoever you might be referring to, to determine American security policy? I guess that wouldn't be surprising, considering such is the stated position of Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, virtually all of the politicians of the left.

5. Don't you think the better question should be why do some/most on the left think the rest of the world SHOULDN'T be free? GPG, don't you realize that the key to a peaceful stable prosperous educated healthy world--which obviously is in our own best interest too--is the spreading of American-style freedom and representative democracy. Would you actually disagree with that?

6. No disputing that enhanced security, surveillance of terrorist communications, and harsh treatment of prisoners, etc. are also large parts of the formula, but we have the words of Bin Laden himself that Iraq is his central front--prioritized over hitting America at home. You really don't think that is a factor? The huge percentage of our troops certainly think their service and sacrifice is a factor in preventing terrorism here.

7. How can these issues NOT be dealt with effectively regardless of the war? The truth is, the same leftist politicians whining about the war are the ones obstructing effective action and/or pushing wrongheaded and irresponsible action on these issues. Energy: who is preventing drilling in ANWAR, building new refineries and nuclear power plants, drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts? Healthcare: There is no crisis. Everybody who needs lifesaving treatment now gets it. With the all out disaster of a single-payer Canada-style plan pushed by the Dems, many would not. Illegals: no way the war is preventing a fence; No way even if our troops were all withdrawn that they would or should be put on the Mexican border; And the worst way to go, amnesty, is being pushed by whom? Right, mostly your guys, the left--although admittedly, you've got Bush and McCain with you on this one.

So have I responded satisfactorily to your points, GPG? Unlike that gutless leftists who are so ASHAMED of leftist positions that they are AFRAID to express them, I'm always happy to make perfectly clear the differences between OUR positions and THEIRS.

thanks for answering my post texas,
I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 by the way....
1. Saddam Hussein stuck his middle finger up to the UN for years and they didn't do enough. rather that invade the guy ourselves, we should have threatened to leave the UN or at least cut them off from our money. The intel is flawed because he didn't have WMD's and thats what Bush used to sell the invasion to Americans.
2.What rediculous about it? I truly don't believe in McCain, Obama, or Hillary to run our country and rebuild another simultaneously
3.I'm not an economist and I don't claim to be. I can't ignore what is in front of my face though. The national deficit is huge, Gas prices are triple what they were 8 years ago, the influx of illegals puts a strain on everyone financially: Schools, hospitals, law enforcment, etc. our taxes pay for that.
4.I thought this is what the UN was for? So nobody gets bullied? Why do we have to fight the fight alone?
5.Its not our job to make the rest of the world free. Let them have their own revolution and look to us for inspiration and help. Right now it like we are doing their revolution for them.
6.i don't believe our military should have bases all over the world. bring the troops home and have them do something more useful to us. Like rebuilding New Orleans and securing the north and south borders.
7.My power company just agreed to raise my rates by 3.9%, gas is triple what it was in 2000, your average truck driver spends $9000 a month for diesel fuel, airlines are claiming to be going bankrupt. Healthcare costs are outrageous right now. Those of us who have company assisted healthcare don't really feel the crunch right now but there are millions of people in this country, legal and illegal who don't have insurance. When they get sick or hurt they go to the hospital, they get care, and we all pay for them anyway. I do not want universal healthcare for all but something has to be done.

[Freak Out]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

Didn't I just cover that point--with the 140,000 compared to 700,000 thing?

We had OVER 700,000 troops when we liberated Kuwait...I think over all we had 2.5 million troops with our allies. Of course many were non-combat troops but we won't worry about that. Now we invade and occupy with far less and people are surprised things are rough? The Military brass that wanted much higher troop numbers before the invasion were ran out of town or muzzled.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

What are you driving at, Freakout? What are your questions relevant to?

To the best of my recollection, that 700,000+ troops didn't even include National Guard and Reserves--which obviously are in the pool now. Are you trying to say that because we didn't occupy Iraq to any significant degree back then that it takes more troops now? Yes, that's a valid point, but 140,000 compared to 700,000? Not even counting Guard or Reserves? That's more than 5 rotations! I'd call that sustainability, wouldn't you?

The first Gulf War was a relatively short affair with most of the action consisting of us bombing the piss out of the Iraqi ground forces in Kuwait/Iraq, the Iraqi air defenses and anything else we could find to blow up. We did not occupy a hostile country for an extended period of time like we are doing now.

Didn't I just cover that point--with the 140,000 compared to 700,000 thing?

We had OVER 700,000 troops when we liberated Kuwait...I think over all we had 2.5 million troops with our allies. Of course many were non-combat troops but we won't worry about that. Now we invade and occupy with far less and people are surprised things are rough? The Military brass that wanted much higher troop numbers before the invasion were ran out of town or muzzled.

I dont' recall the Kuwaitis involved in a civil war/sectarian strife/terrorist activities.

Seems like we had way to many troops there.

[texaspackerbacker]

Exactly, Tyrone. That's what the people who wanted to do it with less said this time--and we are succeeding, albeit with delays.

Freakout, I still don't see your point. You seemed to be echoing the stupid leftist line that we can't sustain or whatever enough troops to finish the job in Iraq, when we easily put together such a hugely larger number for the Gulf War.

Sure, there is sectarian violence now. What stirred it up? Al Qaeda--by blowing up the mosque at Samarra, and subsequently killing large numbers on both sides--as I have said in several threads, prioritizing the screwing up of Iraq. Still, the leadership of the three Iraqi factions have steered clear of civil war. Civil war in Iraq exists only one place: IN THE SICK MINDS OF AMERICAN LIBERALS. Let forum leftists deny that, if they have the balls--which, of course, they can't and don't.

[Freak Out]

Exactly, Tyrone. That's what the people who wanted to do it with less said this time--and we are succeeding, albeit with delays.

Freakout, I still don't see your point. You seemed to be echoing the stupid leftist line that we can't sustain or whatever enough troops to finish the job in Iraq, when we easily put together such a hugely larger number for the Gulf War.

Sure, there is sectarian violence now. What stirred it up? Al Qaeda--by blowing up the mosque at Samarra, and subsequently killing large numbers on both sides--as I have said in several threads, prioritizing the screwing up of Iraq. Still, the leadership of the three Iraqi factions have steered clear of civil war. Civil war in Iraq exists only one place: IN THE SICK MINDS OF AMERICAN LIBERALS. Let forum leftists deny that, if they have the balls--which, of course, they can't and don't.

I think we should slowly start to reduce the number now because no matter what we try and do with force in the end the Iraqis are going to work things out amongst themselves with guns, knives and explosives. The Iranians will have their say,we'll have ours with our Embassy and bases and eventually things will work themselves out. We may not like the final outcome but should that be a big factor? It's a liberated Iraq and we tipped that first domino. Sadr keeps saying he wants no part of a government that allows it's country to be occupied by American forces so until he is killed or comes around that battle still has to be fought. I say let the Iraqis fight it. They can show how bad they want the vision we think they want.

[texaspackerbacker]

I say again, GPG, you are be applauded and respected for stating your positions, even if I don't agree with much of it.

1. How can you say, "The intel is flawed because he didn't have WMD's and thats what Bush used to sell the invasion to Americans"? There's no more proof that he DIDN'T have WMDs than that he did.

2. I'd say our military is doing a damn good job of rebuilding Iraq. You disagree with that? History will tell one way or the other.

3. What exactly do you see right in front of your eyes? Sure, gas prices are way up. That's undeniable, but do you really see people suffering? Or do you see the huge majority of people living better than ever before? And sure, there are whatever number of illegals. but do you really see anybody suffering because of it? I sure don't, and I'm down here in Texas, where the problem is undoubtedly worse than up there. I WISH people would judge things by what they actually see and experience instead of what they read/see in the left-biased media.

4 Get their help, maybe, but sure as hell don't let them have command and control or policy making power. For that matter, none of those other countries are anywhere near as competent as our own troops. The recent problems in Afghanistan with NATO flunkies is evidence of that.

5. It IS, however, distinctly to our advantage to have thriving free representative democracies like we see in most of Latin America. Leftists whine and rant about how they want peace and care about people, etc., yet they, incredibly, OPPOSE spreading American style freedom and representative government. I'm not in favor of doing it out of do-gooderism; I'm in favor because it's good for America.

6. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but what does that have to do with what I said? Isolationism went out with the 1930s. The best way to keep war from coming here is to go there and deal with things wherever "there" might be. That's my opinion.

7. Your original point was that the war was somehow preventing these things from being dealt with--just not true. The healthcare scenario you describe sounds very much like the Republican suggestions. The other problems are being obstructed from solution by the anti-war liberals.

[texaspackerbacker]

Glad to see you are participating in some serious discussion, Tyrone. I can respect that.

You make some valid points about what is gonna happen is gonna happen there, but success is a lot more likely now than a year or so ago, and just a little more patience will raise the chances for a good conclusion even more. And that isn't just good for Iraqis, it is good for America too.

[Freak Out]

Glad to see you are participating in some serious discussion, Tyrone. I can respect that.

You make some valid points about what is gonna happen is gonna happen there, but success is a lot more likely now than a year or so ago, and just a little more patience will raise the chances for a good conclusion even more. And that isn't just good for Iraqis, it is good for America too.

What you been smokin?