General Iraq War Thread

[lostfan]

This WaPo piece touches on one of those trends worth noting...the U.S. really has done very little to address the refugee situation/crisis in Iraq, where something like 3+ million people have been forced from their former homes. In that vacuum, the biggest group that has stepped in to take care of people has been the Al Mahdi Army, which has built good will with those people by providing them with homes, sometimes money, and so on, sometimes in exchange for service.

 

I think this is noteworthy because it was exactly this sort of situation which helped Hamas gain a big electoral victory in the Gaza strip...the government wasn't really taking care of the people, that group was, and they wound up showing up strongly in elections.

We didn't really capitalize on that when we had the chance to in Afghanistan in the late 80s, either. Granted that was a different situation but things like that matter, just ask some random guy in Lebanon his opinion on Hizballah.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Dont worry folks... if McCain is elected president we'll mostly be out of Iraq by 2013. Only 5 more years of dead Americans. No need to worry..

 

Plus 100 years after the deaths of Americans stop. So, we'll be out of Iraq by 2113, maybe a little later.

 

My personal take on the issue.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[NorthSideSox72]

Dont worry folks... if McCain is elected president we'll mostly be out of Iraq by 2013. Only 5 more years of dead Americans. No need to worry..

 

Plus 100 years after the deaths of Americans stop. So, we'll be out of Iraq by 2113, maybe a little later.

 

My personal take on the issue.

This is a prime example of McCain (or insert other candidate name here) being taken wildly out of context by the media (CNN's headline reads same). He was giving a speech, and was illustrating what the world and the country would look like at the end of his first term - in 2013. He mentioned a number of things, including that the Iraq war would be won, and most of the troops would be home.

 

He did NOT say that it would necessarily take that long.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Dont worry folks... if McCain is elected president we'll mostly be out of Iraq by 2013. Only 5 more years of dead Americans. No need to worry..

 

Plus 100 years after the deaths of Americans stop. So, we'll be out of Iraq by 2113, maybe a little later.

 

My personal take on the issue.

 

Dude come on.....

 

In January, John McCain said we should be in Iraq for 100 years. He later amended the statement and said that he meant 100 years after peace in Iraq and no more Americans are dying. He then added we might be there 1,000 years or 10,000 years. Under John McCain's plan, we will be out of Iraq by roughly 2113. Or maybe 3113. Maybe even 12,113.

 

Do you really want American troops in Iraq until 2113? Vote Obama in November. He's the only choice to get us safely out of Iraq and end the needless deaths of hard working American troops

[southsider2k5]

This is a prime example of McCain (or insert other candidate name here) being taken wildly out of context by the media (CNN's headline reads same). He was giving a speech, and was illustrating what the world and the country would look like at the end of his first term - in 2013. He mentioned a number of things, including that the Iraq war would be won, and most of the troops would be home.

 

He did NOT say that it would necessarily take that long.

 

100 years in the same sense we have had troops in Europe for 100 years. In all seriousness, this is as absurd as the whole Al Gore invented the internet thing. I honestly can't believe people are using it so completely out of context with a straight face.

[Controlled Chaos]

100 years in the same sense we have had troops in Europe for 100 years. In all seriousness, this is as absurd as the whole Al Gore invented the internet thing. I honestly can't believe people are using it so completely out of context with a straight face.

Well in Athomeboy_2000's defense.....we really can't see his face...

[lostfan]

100 years in the same sense we have had troops in Europe for 100 years. In all seriousness, this is as absurd as the whole Al Gore invented the internet thing. I honestly can't believe people are using it so completely out of context with a straight face.

My problem with comparisons between Iraq and Korea/Germany/Japan is that in all of those wars there was a formal end or at least suspension of hostilities and there were conditions adhered to by everyone. That's something that cannot and will not happen here for pretty obvious reasons. The conditions and all might change for the better (or worse) but there is no centralized leadership to give an order to make it all stop. So while McCain's statement certainly doesn't mean he wants the war to last 100 years, it's kind of misguided and irrelevant to begin with so it's all a moot point.

Edited May 15, 2008 by lostfan

[HuskyCaucasian]

So while McCain's statement certainly doesn't mean he wants the war to last 100 years, it's kind of misguided and irrelevant to begin with so it's all a moot point.

I should note in my own defense, I do NOT think McCain intends on fighting in Iraq for 100 years. But he DID say we will have troops there.. in a country that has only known peace when it was being oppressed by a ruthless dictator.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is a prime example of McCain (or insert other candidate name here) being taken wildly out of context by the media (CNN's headline reads same). He was giving a speech, and was illustrating what the world and the country would look like at the end of his first term - in 2013. He mentioned a number of things, including that the Iraq war would be won, and most of the troops would be home.

 

He did NOT say that it would necessarily take that long.

and what in the last 2 years has shown this is anywhere near REAL peace? Not this fake "cease fire" by some leaders.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Dude come on.....

 

In January, John McCain said we should be in Iraq for 100 years. He later amended the statement and said that he meant 100 years after peace in Iraq and no more Americans are dying. He then added we might be there 1,000 years or 10,000 years. Under John McCain's plan, we will be out of Iraq by roughly 2113. Or maybe 3113. Maybe even 12,113.

 

Do you really want American troops in Iraq until 2113? Vote Obama in November. He's the only choice to get us safely out of Iraq and end the needless deaths of hard working American troops

He said what he said. He can try and explain it all he wants. But to the American public, Iraq = death of Americans and money ill-spent. Saying we will be there for 100, 1000, or 10,000 years is not going to sit well with most. It is up to HIM now to try to explain to the american people why 1000 years in Iraq is good for us.

 

My personal view is pull them all out now. No "security forces" for 100 years. No "security agreements". All out now, with the exception of those few who may be there to protect the embassy.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[NorthSideSox72]

and what in the last 2 years has shown this is anywhere near REAL peace? Not this fake "cease fire" by some leaders.

I am not saying that McCain is "right" on the war, I am saying that that statement was taken lcompletely out of context.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am not saying that McCain is "right" on the war, I am saying that that statement was taken lcompletely out of context.

I dont think so. Well, ok, kinda. Yes, he did NOT say that we will be fighting there for 100 years. That is pretty obvious to me. but he DID say we would keep a security force or training forces there for 100 year. Maybe a 1000, ect... That is not acceptable to me. Peace in Iraq is NOT similar to peace in Korea. They are very different situations.

[NorthSideSox72]

I dont think so. Well, ok, kinda. Yes, he did NOT say that we will be fighting there for 100 years. That is pretty obvious to me. but he DID say we would keep a security force or training forces there for 100 year. Maybe a 1000, ect... That is not acceptable to me. Peace in Iraq is NOT similar to peace in Korea. They are very different situations.

He was taken out of context on the 100 years, but that isn't what I was talking about either. I mean this most recent quote, that you pointed out. In that case, the context of the quote was everything.

 

[lostfan]

One thing to keep in mind when considering an American long-term presence there is that in other countries like that, our presence is basically integrated into the host nation's economy. So we are not footing the bill and spending billions of dollars every year for an indefinite period of time. So we would need Iraq to start opening their wallets... and we would have to think about if that's even possible.

[Balta1701]

One thing to keep in mind when considering an American long-term presence there is that in other countries like that, our presence is basically integrated into the host nation's economy. So we are not footing the bill and spending billions of dollars every year for an indefinite period of time. So we would need Iraq to start opening their wallets... and we would have to think about if that's even possible.

It's certainly possible for the government to spend more money, with the price of oil they're raking in as much as any of the other nations out there when their pipelines aren't blown up. But there's frankly no reason for them to do so, especially for the people in power. The more Iraqi money they spend, the less American money comes in to the country and the less money winds up being there in total.

[HuskyCaucasian]

He was taken out of context on the 100 years, but that isn't what I was talking about either. I mean this most recent quote, that you pointed out. In that case, the context of the quote was everything.

I was just doing the math. He said by 2013, the war in iraq would be over. So, let's assume it's by 2010 for the sake of argument. When you combine his 2 statements, we will be there until 2110. If McCain wants to retract or revise his stanc eon this, he is more than welcome. It'll be seen as a flip-flop. But he is entitled to change his mind.

[HuskyCaucasian]

It's certainly possible for the government to spend more money, with the price of oil they're raking in as much as any of the other nations out there when their pipelines aren't blown up. But there's frankly no reason for them to do so, especially for the people in power. The more Iraqi money they spend, the less American money comes in to the country and the less money winds up being there in total.

I thought I heard on the radio that the is a bill in congress (not sure about where it was) that is saying that the Iraqi government MUST pay $1 for every $2 we spend on reconstruction. The basic premises was, we are paying to rebuild, you need to step up and help.

[Balta1701]

He was taken out of context on the 100 years, but that isn't what I was talking about either. I mean this most recent quote, that you pointed out. In that case, the context of the quote was everything.

I think the best, perfectly accurate summary of the 100 years remark was one I posted in the Dem thread a couple weeks ago. It's basically...McCain wants to Stay in Iraq until the country is rebuilt, the fighting stops, and no more American soldiers have to die. And after that...we'll stay another 100 years.

 

If people want to have a discussion over whether or not it's a good idea to have American soldiers on the ground in the middle of an Islamic Country for 100 years even without violence, that's one I'm happy to have. Whether you want to talk about the effects on the local population (it didn't go so well when we had troops on the Ground in Saudi Arabia for 10 years), the expense of keepign them there, or the potential risks of having those soliders become targets in the future, I think most of the end results are still negatives.

[Balta1701]

I thought I heard on the radio that the is a bill in congress (not sure about where it was) that is saying that the Iraqi government MUST pay $1 for every $2 we spend on reconstruction. The basic premises was, we are paying to rebuild, you need to step up and help.

I'm sure the Dems have introduced something like that, and I'm sure it either won't pass or it would be cited as a reason for a veto by this President.

[NorthSideSox72]

I was just doing the math. He said by 2013, the war in iraq would be over. So, let's assume it's by 2010 for the sake of argument. When you combine his 2 statements, we will be there until 2110. If McCain wants to retract or revise his stanc eon this, he is more than welcome. It'll be seen as a flip-flop. But he is entitled to change his mind.

so you were just adding up two comments taken out of context, assumed meaning from them that wasn't intended, and coming up with 2110? I'm sorry but I think that's ridiculous. Its just as ridiculous as people saying Obama wants to appease terrorists.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Not sure how reputable this source is but:

 

Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term