Iraq and MONEY!

That depends if you're an American or non-American liberal:

American Liberal: Pull out our troops, and just let the U.N. do what it feels is best.

Non-american Liberal: Keep the U.S. troops there, but put them under control of the U.N. Make the U.N. the "leader" / decision maker in the reconstruction effort.

 

Two words: North Korea.

I hope such a thing never happens. It would be the worst case scnerio for any nation.

 

I agree of course.

 

The UN is comprised greatly of despot dictatorships, communists, and leftist ideologues. Could you imagine what would occur if we left a nation in their hands?

 

I try not to. I prefer sleeping at night.

 

The more i see protests for "peace" the more revolted i become with leftist ideologies. Are they blind? Do you they honestly believe there was a world peace before the conflict in Iraq? Do they still live by the absurd notion nonconflict could have removed sadam? Do they honestly believe their leftist leadership had any plans on removing Sadam and other dictators for humanitarian reasons with diplomatic action?

 

Uh no. Only in the world according to Joe.

Common Sense American: Leave the U.S. troops there until the country is stabilized enough for us to pull ourselves out, which realistically could take years. Provide concessions and incentives to bring other countries into this mess, as well as try and heal the transnational wounds inflicted over the past year. Concessions include giving the U.N. the mandate, or at least co-control (even if it is figurehead status), and providing full bid contracts, yes, even to nations that initially opposed the war, but are providing money and troops (Canada comes to mind) today.

 

I and other "leftists" opposed this war because we weren't being told the truth, not because we thought saddam in power was a good thing. When you're told you're going to war to get rid of WMD, and it turns out that there apparently weren't any WMD and that the people telling you there were had, and ignored, clues from their own Intel telling them there weren't any WMD but went anyway, you tend to get a little miffed.

My stance from the beginning was, "If you know where the WMD are, give those sites to the weapons inspectors. If they find something, let's take him out. If they find he's obstructing their progress, lets take him out. But let the process work." What you have in the end is a political game that gets played which eventually closes off all rational avenues of dissent among nations such as the French and the Germans, at which point there is no choice but to go to war to extricate Saddam from power, if it turns out it has to come to that. What you get is a situation more like the first gulf war in which the american taxpayers paid only a tiny sliver of the costs, and didn't burn bridges with our allies (and vice versa) in the process.

What difference in terms of timeline are we talking about? We're probably going in now to get Saddam, with the full backing of the countries of the world, as well as their money and troops. A far better scenario than the one we're currently facing imo. Especially since the threat Saddam posed to us was neither imminent nor deadly.

 

I'm glad you lump lefties in with despot dictators and communists....

 

Yeah, right. We all do this because we hate Bush. That must be it. There can't be any other reason, because this has been such a huge success, and nothing the "doomsday" liberals predicted came true. And of course none of us protested Clinton's war's either. It's all just Bush hating, (and of course Sodom..., er I mean Saddam loving).

Let's see here:
"Liberals", and I'm using the term here very loosely as I don't consider myself one, predicted way back when:

That Iraq could become a quagmire without an exit strategy, costing hundreds if not thousands of American lives.

That a war in Iraq would cost thousands of civilian lives.

That if Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, the amounts were not significant enough nor the means of delivering them available to pose any major threat to the United States or even Iraq's neighbors.

That the Bush administration will use the war to line the pockets of his corporate buddies, and that in fact they probably cared more about securing Iraqi oil wells than they ever did about providing security for the Iraqi people or finding WMD's.

That a War In Iraq would cost billions, if not trillions, in taxpayer dollars which could alleviate far more human suffering through non-violent methods than it ever would by going to war.

That Bush and his cronies did not seem to be too particularly concerned with Iraqi democracy or a transfer of sovreignty to the Iraqi people.

It all seems familiar. Oh yeah, I forgot. That's what actually happened. Funny how that is.

 

Is this not the current goal of the administration? Pull them out as soon as possible, but not before there is stabilization?

Rather than other countries providing concessions / assitance to us if they want a more direct hand in reconstruction?

Wounds go both ways, Natoma, agree? Is the U.S. responsible for "all the healing?"

How about concessions to the U.S., UK, and Austraila for having given our lives and our money to date?

 

I lump them into a category of "ineffective".

 

It doesn't seem to be. In July the administration derided the Europeans (namely the french and the germans) when they suggested that control be given to the Iraqis as quickly as possible. In September after two months of heavily mounting casualities and quickly falling polls at home, the administration reverses course and says we're handing over control in June.

I'm sorry but that sounds like political gerrymandering, and not a "stay the course" philosophy that I feel we must follow now that we're there.

Canada has provided hundreds of millions to the effort, as well as troops and ships. Yet they were ostracized from the bidding when it was announced a few days ago. This just a couple of weeks from their pledging another $300 Million to the cause.

Why? Because they voted no at the UN. That's wrong.

Yes I do agree that the wounds go both way, which is why I responded to Legion that both sides have burned bridges. However, we are the ones who pushed blindly into the breach, and I believe that we should show that same bullheadedness in bringing in our allies and beginning the reparation process with our allies.

 

And conservatives also said that was a possibility.

The difference is, liberals are TODAY calling it a "quagmire."

Right...did conservatives say it wouldn't? Or only that every precaution would be made to minimize civilian casualties.

Right...because we know that having box cutters and commercial airliners is not significant enough?

Vs. France/Russia who used Sadam to line their own pockets?

 

I prefer pragmatic.

 

It is.

Um....source? The plan was always to reliquish control as soon as possible. The disagreements will come over when "as soon as possible" actually is.

Voted no on what?

At least we agree on this.

Wrong.

We had a disagreement. We both pushed in different directions.

 

It's only taken 7 months to get to this point. And in the meantime, how much have we been overcharged in the process?

You copying CorwinB's legendary press releases?

Well as I said in the other thread I blame them both. The bastards....

 

Like when the US funded his armament? Like... like that? Hmm?

Can't wait for someone to throw around another label like "leftist" or "liberal". Really is hilarious how you guys just label people rather than actually listening to what they have to say.

He opposes the President. HE'S LIBERAL! INEFFECTIVE! BURN HIM!

You'd have a point if Bush actually made any decisions, or if he had two brain cells to rub together. You do realise that none of the decisions are actually made by the President, right? He's controlled by teams of advisors, businesses, and people in his cabinet - all of whom have their own agendas. You think that'd actually let a chimp like Bush decide the fate of the country? Haha.

If you actually believe he's doing this because of his principals, you really have been brainwashed by his speeches...

...the ones he didn't write.

 

That's because it is. We will likely be there for years, and lose thousands more troops. If Iraq isn't a quagmire, could you please point me to another country that is, and why it is one and Iraq isn't? Is the level of violence in say Colombia greater than Iraq? How about the Congo? Or Afghanistan? How bad would it have to be for you to consider it a quagmire? (Let me guess, if Howard Dean were elected president?)

So, what precautions were taken to minimize civilian deaths in Mosul or Fallujah, when the U.S. opened fire on those demonstrators?

I forgot to add that there was no link between Al Queda and the Iraqi government. And in fact the chaos that followed the collapse of the regime has only heightened the possibility that WMDs could be taken by terrorists and used against Americans.

Even though I've mentioned this numerous times you seem to forget it every time I say it: I don't give a flying rat's ass about the governments of France and Russia, (or Germany for that matter). I've never supported the actions of the French and Russian governments in Iraq, and I don't intend to start now.

There seemed to be intentional vagueness when the possibility was brought up prior to the war from the White House and Pentegon.

Who said the money had to go to Iraq? There's plenty of other places in this world in which hunger, poverty, malnutrition and disease cause considerable amounts of human misery. We could start right here in the good 'ol USofA!