Thread: Staying vs Leaving the Middle East

Originally Posted by citizen

It would be very convenient if you would provide sources at first when you rely on published media to make a point, MacGyver; especially when entering a debate on subject foo. Chances are the people that you debate with here will demand that you do anyway. Save the alphabet!

If you would like sources to anything I say, ask. I am well versed in Internet debates, and frankly, figured that most of what I was saying is generally accepted.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

>>Reaction to Operation Ofra
Thanks. The biggest thing in that section is the UNSC Resolution 487, otherwise it doesn't seem like much of an outcry against Israel's actions. The thing about the U.S. condemning Israel is laughable political maneuvering (the world opinion thing).

I was under the impression that world opinion counted so much to you. In this case it does not?

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

Everything that we're talking about has. What is the point in pointing that out?

That we will end up saying the same exact things. You will always offer an "alternative" which is to run away. I will say that you can't run away, that we need a real alternative plan. You will then say that running away is the only alternative option.

If we deviate from the above, then it might prove interesting.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

The reality is the U.S. can't win in Iraq. We won't stop the insurgency, our military is gradually being worn down, we don't have allies contributing significant numbers of combat troops to get the job done.

Wow, you're pesimistic beyond belief. Stop being so depressed about life, and realize that there is hope out there.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

General Shinseki, former Army Chief of Staff, said that it would require several hundred thousand men to occupy Iraq in a Senate hearing of February 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Shinseki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus

My general is bigger than your general.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

This is where 'world opinion' might come in handy as far as other countries contributing as many troops as we have. we do not have the manpower to 'win,' similarly with Vietnam our troops are dying for a lost cause, it's just that the administration refuses to relent. The war is lost, not because of unpatriotic liberals pointing out that we can't win, but because we can't stop the insurgency.

We can indeed stop the insurgency, but let's pretend for a moment that we can't. If we can't, then what you're saying is that we will lose everything over there and the islamofascists will take over Iraq. It will then become a base for every other terrorist group and their sponsors, particularly Iran.

I think that's a stupid alternative. We can stop the insurgency, and we darn well better.

Vietnam was lost, but for some of the same reasons that some would lose the Iraq war. People just didn't give a care to stay there and fight it out to the end. In Korea, though, things were different. Look at the difference between both North and South Korea and then at Vietnam. Look at the good that came from the US sticking to their guns in Korea.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

It isn't about them just getting angry, it's about a massive military and economic retaliation that we likely wouldnot be able to control because we are tied down in Iraq:

"
If the Iranians are getting bombed, they'll feel like they have nothing to lose and they will increase their efforts to kill US troops in Iraq tenfold, decrease their oil output to shatter the western economy (we don't buy Iranian oil, but prices worldwide would easily soar to $6/gal)
"

9/11 happened before Iraq. As I said, I don't think we can make them much angrier at us than they already are.

I'm really disgusted with the attitude that we shouldn't retaliate because they might retaliate. That's war. Suck it up.

Originally Posted by BobMcGee123

When we are pulling out of Iraq FOX news will still be claiming that it's the fault of unpatriotic liberals for ruining the war. The reality is we can't win without added troops from other countries. The violence will be temporarily stemmed as the 'troop surge' gets progressively underway, but it will never stop and it will only come back. And I don't want my friends dying over there to babysit arabs that want to kill each other. If that's the type of society they want built in the wake of Hussein, then so be it. Western democracy cannot be established in a conservative, predominantly muslim arab, state.

Regarding the surge, I'd like to ask you first of all, what can other countries do at this point that US troops can't do? You're so wrapped up in recruiting other people that you're missing the end result that would possibly guarentee victory. You have no other plan other than to either leave Iraq and let the Iraqis get slaughtered by Iranians, or to get more non-US troops on board. But why do we need non-US troops? Numbers for numbers, the US can supply more troops than many other countries. So what is the point?

Here's what you said on the subject of the surge earlier in the past back in January:

I think that an increase in the number of troops will lead to more US casualties.

I think that increasing the number of troops may be effective, for a while, but won't lead to any permanent results.

Would you be still willing today to bet that both of those statements of yours are correct?

Looks like you no longer agree with your first statement, so perhaps there's hope for you.