It seems the Iraqi govt., whatever that is, now wants our warriors out of their country. Now that the heavy lifting is done, and Zillions of dollars worth of our equipment is sitting there, they want us gone. Whenever we get ourselves involved in other peoples business, (which is like always) the outcome is always the same. We waste hundreds-of-billions, lose thousands of brave, valuable, American heroes, then we get the boot. I would much rather see GWB getting kicked out of Iraq, (literally) than see our heroes being told to leave.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy our warriors are finally coming home. (but why not all of them?) In fact, i never saw the reason for them to be sent there in the first place. I also don't see what we gained for the very heavy price we paid in Iraq. But, we live in a country where we're ruled by a bunch of elected, lying, incompetent crooks, so i guess we don't have much to say about our foreign policy, or anything else. No wonder the world sees us as a joke...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/iraq-government-wants-troops-june/
16 comments:
The let's give them a big "Eat Me" on the way out and watch their country descend into more of a hellhole than it already is.
I'm not into "nation building". There should have been either the destruction and leaving (and if we don't like who takes over, to recommence the bombing) or just take it all (the spoils of war which our enemies will certainly do to us, given the chance)
It doesn't take a genius to realize that Iraq will end up being far worse than it ever was after we leave. A law should be passed requiring George Bush to live in Bagdad.
yes I agree, a country run by an elected gov't is far worse off than a country run by a dictator...
It doesn't take a genius to realize that the USA will end up being far worse than it ever was after Obama leaves office. A law should be passed requiring Obama to live in Bagdad.
Actually Blue .. yes. What if 50.0001%S of the population elects a leader who believes in genocide for the small minority? The alternative is a dictator strong enough to keep the sides from killing each other. Saddam for all his evil and all his faults did keep order in Iraq.
but he killed a lot of innocent people!!!!!!!!!!!!
and if you hav a democratic form of gov't, you have checks & balances
please don't join the liberal effort to canonize Sadam
I kept order in Germany, why doesn't history exonerated me?
"...lose thousands of brave, valuable, American heroes..."
I disagree, we didn't, lose anyone. With the exception of those few who went all John Kerry when they came home, most of these guys went willingly, and would go back. Most people, and our government, think we fight for "governments". But when you talk to the guys who went, it's about families. About the kids in particular.
And it's the "government" who wants us to leave, the "government" who wants control again, and it's the "government" who will run this into the ditch if it goes that way.
Like us, they voted for people who have the power to make it or break it.
A guy with 4 kids to feed, a small 2 room house and a camel cart to make his living, who shares his meager Friday night meal with our troops and grunts never thought about a timetable. It NEVER occurs to him.
He's just glad his kids will never have to fear Saddam.
And plenty of people thought Germany and Japan would return to old ways too. When we WIN a war, the countries generally don't fall back. When we fight to a draw, Korea, or walk away Viet Nam, it's bad for everyone.
Saddam for all his evil and all his faults did keep order in Iraq.
You're right. People tend to stay in line when they are threatened with being put feet first into a wood chipper.
I would prefer total anarchy to the iron-fisted order created by a constant state of fear. Saddam did nothing to keep anyone in order other than terrorize his people into submission.
He was a goddamned gangster thug:
Speak out against the government? We'll rape your wife.
Openly diagree with the government's actions? We'll gas your entire neighborhood.
Actually act out against the government? There are no words to describe what we'll do to you, but we'll start with the rape and gassing thing.
Keeping order is no virtue when it comes at the expense of freedom.
And an elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a dictator can.
All nations of the world will be despotic and tyrannical, no matter the form, be it a usurping dictator or an elected parliament (see Sudan, for instance) so long as the people that the government is governing allow it.
the Iraqi people could have easily gotten rid of Saddam themselves, many years ago. It would have cost less lives and less treasure than the way we went about it, for sure, but they chose not to.
THEY chose.
Which means WE should have let them live with their choice, barring some overt threat from iraq, which there was none.
I'm glad as hell that Saddam is out of power, but I do not condone the price we paid to get there.
And if the people of Iraq want us gone, then we need to leave, and let them determine their own future for themselves. There is nothing in it for us to remain any longer (hell there wasn't anything in it for us to go in inthe first place...)
Schteveo said...
"I disagree, we didn't, lose anyone."
There are many American families who would strongly disagree with you. They sent a son off to war in Iraq and all they got back was a flag. That's not a loss?
Pure Democracy is tyranny of the majority, anarchy is tyranny of whatever mob is strongest in any particular area (see Somalia), and rapes and murders and anything else can happen in those places. Honestly, you would be safer in Sadam's iron fisted Irag than you would be in anarchic Somalia. No Christians were killed and persecuted under Saddam, now they live in fear for their lives.
What is the difference between a country ruled by a dictator, and a country ruled by one power-hungry political party?
If you're talking about the Demoncrats, none!
If GWB had any brians, (which he did/does not have) he would've understood what he was about to do when he sent our troops into Iraq. He would have understood that Iran was our true enemy, not Iraq. He would've realized that Iraq and Iran have been blood enemies forever, and that every time they've fought, Iran got her ass kicked. He would have been smart enough to use Saddam and the huge Iraqi military to be the tip-of-the-spear for an invasion into Iran, something Saddam would have been happy to do.
What would the world be like today without Iran? There would be far less terrorism. Syria would be a docile puppy without Iran. There would be far less fighting in Gaza without Iran's guns, bombs, and support. Israel would not be under a very real nuclear threat. N. Korea probably wouldn't have a nuclear weapon, which they have, thanks to Iran's help. We would've saved thousands of our warriors and the hundreds-of-billions of our tax dollars that we've spent fighting in Iraq.
It's too bad the American people didn't understand these things either. If they had, they may not have elected another moron to lead this country.
Honestly, you would be safer in Sadam's iron fisted IragThere's that word again. Who gives a SHIT about being SAFE when you live in a constant state of fear?
To give up liberty for a bit of temporary safety?
I think it was Jefferson that said that people with this attitude deserve neither!
Post a Comment