The war in Iraq is officially over! Thoughts?
Not to be rude, but this seems a bit more like "Ditch Iraq for PR reasons" than "We won the Iraq War". We left Iraq a total mess, and its gonna be an issue.
It is going to be an issue. I'm tired of politicians feeding us a bunch of (I'm not really gonna say) just to win another election. Sometimes I just want to (I'm not going to say here either). Sorry bout the implied language. Iraq is a mess, and most of it is our fault. People are starting to like Obama less and less if my sources are correct.
Glad I'm european. :)
Lucky you. I think. I'm not sure. Hmm.
Quote from: MikeW781 on August 31, 2010, 08:25:12 PM
"We won the Iraq War"
Just to point out, Duskling never said anything about "winning" the war- it is simply "over", which I find a very good and most appropriate way of putting a label to the situation. Let the time pass (say 20 years) to first start making judgementes about who won, or whether there was any real winner at all there.
I may be mistaken, but I think the US still has 50,000 soldiers in Iraq. Personally, I think we need to keep those soldiers in Iraq for longer then Obama's timeline. Those soldiers are in charge of training and supporting the Iraqi military, while Iraqis are in charge of all military operations. The Iraq military may have the capablity to fight the insurgency on thier own, but they are not equipped enough to fight states like Iran or Saudi Arabia. I think we need to stay in the country to support Iraq like we have soldiers support South Korea and Colombia. The US soldiers in the country would prevent foreign nations from invading and it would allow us to support the government in fighting rebels with advise, training, and air support.
I know Obama said he wants to bring the soldiers home, but is moving soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan accomplish that?
We supported Colombia? The US is a bunch of hypocrites? First, we take a bit of Panama (the canal zone) in exchange for helping them with their end of the civil war, and then abt. 70 yrs. later or so, (I'm guessing) we support Colombia's side of things. Hm... I love my country.
Quote from: Duckling on September 04, 2010, 07:02:41 PM
We supported Colombia? The US is a bunch of hypocrites? First, we take a bit of Panama (the canal zone) in exchange for helping them with their end of the civil war, and then abt. 70 yrs. later or so, (I'm guessing) we support Colombia's side of things. Hm... I love my country.
That was over a hundred years ago. It was all US money that built the canal and Panama heavly benefited from it economically. Even though we spent great amounts of both money and lives to build it, we latet gave it to Panama for free. Plus, it is not hypocritical to support the government of Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia), when we didn't support the government of Gran Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Colombia). Is the US a bunch of hypocrites for supporting Afghanistan's new government when we didn't support the Taliban controled Afghanistan?
The second example is different in that we took town the Taliban government installations, whereas as far as I know, we did not have an active role in replacing Colombia's government. It's pure chance that Colombia's government happens to be more likeable by the US than before, because as a country, they are rather cussed up.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll stop posting in this thread, because I have no idea what I'm talking about.
I think it is a little funny that we still have troops in Germany, and have had troops there since the end of WWII, troops in Korea since the end of the Korean War, but Obama wants all troops out (the 50,000 that Im2smart4u mentioned) by 2011.
I don't think we should have a permanent military base in Iraq unless the Iraqis really want us to (which they don't). Korea wants our troops there to protect them from China and North Korea. Japan and Germany need our troops there because they are not allowed to build a sizeable military after WWII, so we have to take on that role for them. I think we should pull out completely as soon as Iraq is powerful enough to defend themselves from their neighbours. Plus, a permanent military base would further piss off middle easterners, because they see the American military bases as a way for the "American Empire" to control the world.
There's a fine line between a military base and an embassy with a guard.
Quote from: Duckling on September 17, 2010, 10:36:20 PM
There's a fine line between a military base and an embassy with a guard.
I am not talking about embassies with guards. I am talking about many foreign military bases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_the_world.svg).
I think we should have an embassy in Iraq. (Even though it will be more of a target, then a military base)
For those who don't know what they are talking about: DON'T POST!
I totally saw the DON'T POST thing, it frankly, isn't that unconstitutional?
I do know what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to say that if violence escalated, the U.S. could always say they needed more soldiers/guards to protect the U.S. Embassy, and perhaps those guards could be dispatched to do other things in service of their country...
Quote from: Duckling on September 18, 2010, 01:28:24 AM
I do know what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to say that if violence escalated, the U.S. could always say they needed more soldiers/guards to protect the U.S. Embassy, and perhaps those guards could be dispatched to do other things in service of their country...
You don't use Embassies as military bases. It is just wrong. What if Hugo Chavez decides to sends hundreds of soldiers to protect his embassy in the United States? Embassies are for diplomatic purposes only.
Quote from: Duckling on September 18, 2010, 01:28:24 AM
I totally saw the DON'T POST thing, it frankly, isn't that unconstitutional?
You need to learn your constitution better.
A) Asking someone to not to post is diffrent then not allowing them too. Democrats telling the Tea Party people to 'shut up' isn't unconstitutional. Passing a law that says they have to shut up is unconstitutional.
B) The first admendment only applies to the government, so an public administrators can block you for not likely what you say.
QuoteB) The first admendment only applies to the government, so an public administrators can block you for not likely what you say.
true, but doing so makes you, in my eyes, a first rate a**hole.
Not really that true. A cafe can get in a lot of trouble for making black people sit in the back.
Asking someone not to post isn't unconstitutional. But the implied completion of your will would be unconstitutional, as you are suggesting that people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't post. What if people who didn't have a PhD in something couldn't write a letter to their congressman, or even were told not to?
And the U.S. does a lot of stuff that is wrong. Try Vietnam.
Quote from: Duckling on September 18, 2010, 12:11:42 PM
Not really that true. A cafe can get in a lot of trouble for making black people sit in the back.
What does that have to with freedom of speech? After Brown vs Board of Education, the Supreme Court said the government can't refuse people because of thier race, but the public is still allowed to. To solve that problem, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to say the public can't refuse people because of thier race. That means that a cafe that makes "black people sit in the back" isn't unconstitutional. It means they are breaking the law and being assholes.
Quote from: Duckling on September 18, 2010, 12:11:42 PM
Asking someone not to post isn't unconstitutional. But the implied completion of your will would be unconstitutional, as you are suggesting that people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't post. What if people who didn't have a PhD in something couldn't write a letter to their congressman, or even were told not to?
The "implied completion" of my will wouldn't be unconstitutional, because I am not a government official and you have the freedom to not listen to my suggestion. If I tell you to not write a letter to your congressman, then what is stopping you? I also don't think people should vote unless they are informed about the candidates, but my opinion doesn't stop people from voting for Obama because they saw him say "Change" on a commercial.
Try to stay on topic, even if you know even less about the Iraq War, then the US Constitution. It would be preferable for you to not to talk about anything unless you know what you are talking about.
While racism in private businesses is not technically against the Constitution, as you have so... obligingly pointed out, it goes against the spirit of the law, which is about as important as the letter when it comes the Constitution, as it is a living document. I only meant to say that your message encouraging me to shut up had an unConstitutional spirit, meaning, feeling, etc. to it. Comprendes, Kimosabe?
And you've so smartly omitted a response to the fact that the U.S. does dishonorable things.
Politics is just as much about what people think is going on as what is actually going on.
Quote from: Duckling on September 18, 2010, 12:58:42 PMAnd you've so smartly omitted a response to the fact that the U.S. does dishonorable things.
That was because it was random comment that didn't have any connection towards anything we were talking about.
Do you have an opinion on the Iraq War being '"over"?
Quote from: im2smart4u on September 18, 2010, 01:36:26 PM
Do you have an opinion on the Iraq War being '"over"?
Well, the point of this is that the
war is over, but I agree, as soon as the Iraqis have learned to defend themselves, every single American soldier should be pulled out immediately.
@im2smart4u: The context--
Quote from: you. Think before you speak.don't use Embassies as military bases. It is just wrong
Quote from: im2smart4u on September 18, 2010, 11:09:11 AMYou don't use Embassies as military bases. It is just wrong. What if Hugo Chavez decides to sends hundreds of soldiers to protect his embassy in the United States? Embassies are for diplomatic purposes only.
Duckling, stop being a jackass. Don't delete 90% of quote to make it look like a made thoughtless comment, when in reality the rest of the quote would have explained my reasoning.
Quote from: you. Think before you speak.I do know what I'm talking about, and I'm trying to say that if violence escalated, the U.S. could always say they needed more soldiers/guards to protect the U.S. Embassy, and perhaps those guards could be dispatched to do other things in service of their country...
Maybe you need to think before making comments. If you put any thought into what you posted, then you would have known how stupid it would be to use an embassy as a base for militray soldiers. Countries that want our soldiers in their country would allow US soldiers in miiltary bases or camps. To put soldiers in those countries anyway by using embassies as bases would cause international outrage.
We're already causing international outrage. And I honestly thought the rest of the context was implied; the intention was not to do you wrong. I don't care if Hugo chavez decides he needs more guards in his embassy. I'm not saying use it as a base per se, just using it as U.S. soil for soldiers. Embassies have every right to quarter soldiers of their own country.
[spoiler=rebuttal]THERE IS NO CALL FOR CALLING PEOPLE JACK(bleeep)ES!![/spoiler]