Republican Debate

Quote:

---

(2) We've confirmed there is no WMD (there never was but at least knowledge of this is benefiicial)

---

If we knew before then how is that an accomplishment? "Well, we knew before we went, but now we're really really sure."

Quote:

---

(4) Iran is preoccupied with the middle east

---

Unfortunately, we're in the middle east, so that doesn't really help us.

Quote:

---

(5) Al queda groups focused on Iraq more than attacking US soil

---

I think there have been 2 Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil in the past 10+ years, so I'd say it's irresponsible to say they have forgotten us now in favor of Iraq.

Quote:

---

(2) Stable democratic Iraq

---

Seriously? How likely do you think that is?

Quote:

---

(7) We have a temporary ally in the Middle East

---

Ally how? We are practically running their country, how can they be an ally at this point?

Quote:

---

How long should Iraq have to establish a self-sufficient government?

About 13 years, which is the time between the signing of the Dec. of Independence and when our government began operating under the Constitution.

---

Is that the "it worked for us so it should probably work for them" mentality? You realise we're two different countries correct?

Quote:

---

(1) No Sadam. Sadam was brought to justice for his crimes against humanity.

---

You get 1 point, but that took months, not years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Obama had not yet been elected to the U.S. Senate when the Iraq resolution was passes so he could not have voted on it.

---

I'll assume you're correct, I don't know for sure. But I do know that he has made it a point to say that he has been against it from the very beginning. I heard him say it live and in person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

I asssume that you are referring to John McCain as the candidate with military experience. Although I have the utmost respect for John McCain's military service I do not support much of his foreign policy views.

---

I respect that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonkadog

So some of you believe that if the people of Iraq voted to install a communist/dictator-lead regime that we should just say, "o.k., that's what you want, go ahead"?? I think my problem with our foreign relations is that we either need to be like we are now (the world's "police") or we need to totally withdraw from everywhere and say "screw everyone else." It's when we're in between those 2 philosophies that we get in trouble.

---

I suddenly find myself in a bit of agreement with you! Although I content that the current policy of occasional policing of rogue regimes is really an in-between policy already. Either you go all out and establish a true American Empire, or you leave other people alone. Anything in between (including the present policy) is indeed where we get into trouble. I favor the latter approach of letting people govern themselves, but for a good argument for the former I recommend the work of Scottish historian Niall Ferguson, who favors an American Empire as a successor to the British Empire (see e.g., his book Colossus).

cmoney, do you favor us just minding our own business then in general or do you believe we would be better off focusing our efforts elsewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

If we knew before then how is that an accomplishment? "Well, we knew before we went, but now we're really really sure."

Unfortunately, we're in the middle east, so that doesn't really help us.

I think there have been 2 Al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil in the past 10+ years, so I'd say it's irresponsible to say they have forgotten us now in favor of Iraq.

Seriously? How likely do you think that is?

Ally how? We are practically running their country, how can they be an ally at this point?

Is that the "it worked for us so it should probably work for them" mentality? You realise we're two different countries correct?

You get 1 point, but that took months, not years.

---

And now that the benefits have been analyzed, perhaps the costs to achieve those benefits need to be identified?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

If we knew before then how is that an accomplishment? "Well, we knew before we went, but now we're really really sure."

---

We DIDN'T know that before we went it which is why almost everyone in Congress voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmoneyr

Ally how? We are practically running their country, how can they be an ally at this point?

---

Actually we aren't. I basically stopped reading your post after you said this. Please know something on the topic before you comment.

Do I like that the Iraq war has taken much, much longer than expected and that's its cost almost $500 billion and 3,000+ American soldiers' lives? Hell no. But pulling out tomorrow will basically waste everything that's been done. Do you want to tell the parents that their son/daughter died for nothing?

The war might have been a mistake or mishandled but we just can't leave and forget about it. It's called correcting your mistakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

And now that the benefits have been analyzed, perhaps the costs to achieve those benefits need to be identified?

---

If you are going to do a true cost-benefit analysis you should look at the perceived benefits the war would bring about (from an objective observer standpoint) not realized benefits. Probability factors should also be used.

You are using a hindsight analysis without even knowing the final result.

Also, it's a moot point. You should be doing the cost-benefit analysis of whether we should stay in Iraq.

IMO Iraq is stabilizing to the point where we should be able to start reducing our troop presence. A full scale pull out at this point would not be in our or the Iraqis' best interest IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wonkadog

cmoney, do you favor us just minding our own business then in general or do you believe we would be better off focusing our efforts elsewhere?

---

I think there is a large gray area between isolationism and getting involved in every conflict across the globe. I would say I am a non-interventionalist. For the most part, yes I think we should leave a countries problems to themselves. One area I will deviate from that is if a leader is committing the kind of atrocities that Sadaam did, which is why I will agree it was important to take him out. Aside from that, I would say we should leave countries to their own affairs as far as military reactions are concerned. Diplomatic intervention is a whole different ballgame in my book however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

The war might have been a mistake or mishandled but we just can't leave and forget about it. It's called correcting your mistakes.

---

No it's called compounding your mistakes.

We're compounding our mistakes by sticking around to help ensure a stable government for the people of Iraq? Sounds like one of the best "mistakes" any country could ever make to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

No it's called compounding your mistakes.

---

Not if its handled correctly.

In my line of work (civil engineering), every time things didn't go as planned on a project or if mistakes were made...it is not an option for my company just said "screw it, we are done with this". That is taking the easy way out. We adapt to the situation and come up with a plan to fix the problem and implement that plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

No it's called compounding your mistakes.

---

Did you know 10s of thousands of refugees are returning to Iraq each week? What does that tell you about the situation on the ground?

Even you have to admit things are going better in Iraq (I doubt you will though - let's find out :wideeyed:)

Quote:

---

Do you want to tell the parents that their son/daughter died for nothing?

---

So if we stay and Iraq becomes America's little brother does that make them dying better? They've already lost their loved one, nothing can undo that, no outcome in Iraq will make that worthwile. However, the people who will be sending sons/daughters next week/month/year will be greatful they didn't have to send their children to die.

Quote:

---

Actually we aren't. I basically stopped reading your post after you said this. Please know something on the topic before you comment.

---

I basically stopped reading your post after I realised you were a *****. How about you show me some evidence to the contrary, and if so then I will gladly agree with you. If they are capable of running their country as you say then let them run it, why do we have to stay there and support them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Incyte

Did you know 10s of thousands of refugees are returning to Iraq each week? What does that tell you about the situation on the ground?

Even you have to admit things are going better in Iraq (I doubt you will though - let's find out :wideeyed:)

---

I think that's the point, things are better, it's not a complete ****-hole anymore, we should leave. We've done what we can, we've spent way more time and money and lives than we expected, but we should leave it up to them now.

Quote:

---

In my line of work (civil engineering), every time things didn't go as planned on a project or if mistakes were made...it is not an option for my company just said "screw it, we are done with this". That is taking the easy way out. We adapt to the situation and come up with a plan to fix the problem and implement that plan.

---

So, you're building a bridge, this bridge has cost upwards of $500 billion, cost thousands of people their lives, taken years to get to a point where it begins to resemble a bridge. I'm guessing you wouldn't have a chance to finish as you'd be fired, which is what should have happend 3 years ago. If your project was that poorly planned, poorly implemented and costly I doubt you'd have the option to finish, someone else would come in and decided to adapt, revise or scrap the current plan, I say we scrap it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

Not if its handled correctly.

In my line of work (civil engineering), every time things didn't go as planned on a project or if mistakes were made...it is not an option for my company just said "screw it, we are done with this". That is taking the easy way out. We adapt to the situation and come up with a plan to fix the problem and implement that plan.

---

I agree that one "shouldn't take the easy way out. However, I am convinced that staying in Iraq is a fatally flawed policy. It is time for the U.S government to come to the same realization.