Monday, June 9, 2008

On People Who Want Out Of Iraq

Post 15:
On People Who Want Out Of Iraq

I am sorry about not having an entry up on Friday, I know that I copped out, but I really was doing a lot of other work

In 2001 the World Trade Center was hit by two airplanes and collapsed in the event that will forever be known as 9/11. About a year later President Bush decided to invade the country of Iraq claiming that it had something directly to do with 9/11. We now know that was false, and so many Americans have taken up the chant that we should get out of Iraq immediately. While I was at first for this position, and I never supported the invasion to start, I have reformed my position to one in which I think that we should stay in Iraq. While I have only one mail reason for staying in Iraq, I have two secondary reasons that are more defenses against persons who wish to leave - We need to clean up our spilled milk - The Soldiers signed up for this - The past is the past. People who want to leave Iraq - What Really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.

We need to clean up our spilled milk:
Really, I have only one reason for supporting the staying in Iraq. That is, We need to clean up our spilled milk. While we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, we are now in there, and now need to fix what we have done. We have torn down (literally) the infrastructure of Iraq and made it extremely unlivable. We have allowed rouge gangs to roam the country, killing those who disagree with them on the slightest things. Frankly, we have taken Iraq from the Hell-hole that it was into a worse Hell-hole, don't ask me how we did that. Frankly, I think it is time that we stop making a mountain out of a mole-hill and stop crying over the milk. Let's clean up, get it back to at least how it was when we went in, and then get the hell out.

The Soldiers Signed Up For This
When arguing about the Iraq war people often bring up the fact that so many soldiers have died in Iraq. Yes, in March of this year we did indeed pass 4,000 deaths in Iraq. However, that is a far toss from any other war, where we lost tens of thousands, if not hundreds. 4,000 mothers, fathers, wife, brothers, and children lost their families, 4,000 people lost a main income source. Yet, didn't these soldiers know the risks when they signed up? Didn't they know what they were getting themselves into? That is my position; they knew what they were getting into, so, while sad, this is not really our concern.

The Past is the Past:
This has always been a pet peeve of mine, the people who claim that because something was in the past means it should not be now. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has long argued that because cows were originally not like they are now (not dominated by humans, not producing as much milk, etc.) they should not be like that now (I do reserve the right to use this same argument when I complain about PETA). The problem with this argument is that if we release all cows now, they would die of starvation and need of us (they now do need us). Remember, the past is the past, not the present. With Iraq there is a large argument that we should not stay because we should never have been there to start with. That argument is, of course, very fallacious. Yes, we should not have been there, BUT WE ARE. Stop worrying about what happened in the past and worry about what is now.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Editor of

Digg my article


Mike R said...

I have to disagree about staying in Iraq. Yes, we invaded the country and yes we destroyed a lot of the country. However, we can stay there forever and nothing will ever change. These people have been fighting over the same things for thousands of years. We might as well pack it up and realize it is a lost cause. You cannot force democracy on anyone, they obviously don't want it and we can't change their minds. We need to bring our troops home and use the billions of dollars that are being spent on this insane war and come up with ways to live without their oil. This way they can keep their oil, we can live without it and they can blow themselves into oblivion and we can go about our lives and just make sure we keep them out of our country.

Hajile said...

I was waiting for this one, Agrab. You didn't talk about how our presence inhibits terrorist activity, though. That's always important.

Barga said...

Mike -
I was in no way saying that we should stay until their is peace because i know that it is not possible. WE should stay until we rebuild their infrastructure to what it was and then get out

Or, we could split it up (which is my main idea)

Barga said...

Hajile -

I ignored that point because it is not true. Iraq has nothing to do with terrorist activities, if you wish to claim it does, please prove it

Hajile said...

On what scale we prevent it, I can't say, but we are certainly having more of an effect than if we weren't there.

Barga said...


I would still like you to back that up. It seems as though we are creating a training ground in Iraq for the insurgents, though, now it does look like we are killing most of them
Iraq was in no way related to 9/11, so to claim that being there helps it from happening again is illogical

Brendan said...

I agree with Roger here in his comments to Hajile, and add that it has been shown by National Intelligence Estimates (i'm trying to remember how recently, wihtin year and a half or so though) that we were actually fomenting terrorist sentiments against the U.S. by what many see to be a US occupation of Iraq (opposed to something like the US saving the day).

With the main post though, i think it is a question of what exactly the best case scenario is that we can leave Iraq in. Roger you say it's better than it is, but i think the devil's in the details with how much better, etc. Obama actually asked this of Petraus a few months ago in Congress, saying something to the effect of how in a very messy situation, we want to get things to a point where it's some level of a controlled mess that we can help in diff. ways with--huge humanitarian efforts as Obama does propose, significant diplomatic efforts, etc.

I don't think he'll do anything reckless getting out, as he says all the time about being as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. And in truth, i'm inclined to trust his judgment in this scenario of what to do now since he was (unbelievably) accurate in his judgment pre-war--as McCain was not.

Barga said...

FYI, my name is Robert

The thing is, Remember that Obama said (in 2004 i believe) that his opinion on Iraq was the same as Bush

Brendan said...

Mm, my bust on the name. I have to say though man, that's disappointing that you'd play a line like that on Obama. He disagreed with Bush and many Dems when it was unpopular, AS he ran for US Senate (some key lines from his disagreement here:

But he has agreed with some things, disagreed with others, and is bold enough to say it--particularly when there is CLEARLY no benefit to saying there's some minor areas of agreement with a HUGELY unpopular president; it appeared to just be the reality as he talked about what needed to be done back in 04 in Iraq, and how there wasn't much dispute at the time about what should be done. But to show the nuanced view that it was, here's the full portion of the Chicago Tribune piece you're talking about in context: "Obama, the U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois, said he believes the Bush administration has lost too much credibility in the world community to administer the policies necessary to stabilize Iraq. ‘On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry Administration as there would have been a year ago,' Obama said during a luncheon meeting with editors and reporters of Tribune newspapers. ‘There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.'... The problem, Obama said, is the low regard for Bush in the international community. ‘How do you stabilize a country that is made up of three different religious and in some cases ethnic groups, with minimal loss of life and minimum burden to the taxpayers?' Obama said. ‘I am skeptical that the Bush administration, given baggage from the past three years, not just on Iraq. . . . I don't see them having the credibility to be able to execute. I mean, you have to have a new administration to execute what the Bush Administration acknowledges has to happen.'”

PS--From your other comment, both Clinton and Obama were calling for quick withdrawals, there was not any substantive difference in the speed

Barga said...

So, he said that there was no big difference in the positions on paper, remember, that was before the surge which IS WORKING

That said, I think that Clinton had a slower plan, but very similar to what Obama's advisers talk about (they say things different than he does, I trust them more too)

Brendan said...

I don't think the Clintons have given any reason to trust them more--Hillary was wrong about going into Iraq, while over 150 other members of the House and Senate voted against invading. You may see something to trust in with their experience or something, but i can't see anything in that very measurable part of her experience--voting for Iraq--that makes her or her crew more trustworthy.

Sure the surge is helping as you say, but i don't think it's going to be dealt with recklessly by Obama--whereas McCain was wrong in judging to go in, and wrong about how Iraq had calmed down a few years ago when he was touring around there, and wrong about his statement that al Qaeda was in Iran; not to mention he has been shown to have a real imperialist bent towards lots of war. I don't konw that he's not trustworthy in terms of questioning his general honesty, i think it's more that i don't agree with his proclivity towards war

Barga said...

-----------I don't think the Clintons have given any reason to trust them more--Hillary was wrong about going into Iraq, while over 150 other members of the House and Senate voted against invading.---------
She was wrong and has admitted to that, that is a HUGE THING for a politician

---- You may see something to trust in with their experience or something, but i can't see anything in that very measurable part of her experience--voting for Iraq--that makes her or her crew more trustworthy-----
Yet Obama jumping on NAFTA, GUNS, AA, and others makes him okay?

Do remember that OBama is the one who keeps talking about war with Pakistan

Brendan said...

Look bro, watch throwing around comments that aren't substantiated. Obama's not talking about "war with Pakistan," he said that he would strike a high-value target in Pak. if Pak. would not; Bush and comp. actually ended up doing just that after Obama made those comments last summer, so i don't believe it to be some politically expedient thing he said, nor a start of a war, as no war was started with Bush's moves.

I hear you on O's stands on guns, in terms of the recent supreme court ruling, not sure what to make of that, have to look into it more. Though he did say areas should be able to curb the right of gun ownership for the greater safety of people. Not sure what "AA" is though, what's that? And your boy McCain's far from solid on his stances when you look at issues like his stance on Bush's tax cuts and drilling offshore.

PS, sorry for the delayed response, was pretty slow on this

Barga said...

No problem about the time.

The war thing i need to look up, but i remember him saying in like 2004 or so that if need be he would support a war with Pakistan and then went on about how we should force Musharif out... Need to find it

The gun thing makes no sense to me.. but, whatever

AA= Affirmative Action

Brendan said...

Cool man, let me know if you find something, would be interested to see it

Barga said...

it was as you said, a mesage about going into part of pakistan without permission. Either way, I think that is absurd as it is basically an act of war

Brendan said...

I could see that being shady too, bombing in parts of Pakistan, though we've done it a number of times in the last couple years. It's a significant thing trying to take out al Qaeda leadership, and one that Bush has totally fumbled on, so i could see some reasoning behind it. It would also depend in my mind on the dynamics in Pakistan, in terms of what Musharaf would do if we did it, etc.

Barga said...

Well, he will not declare war, but it is an act of war on our part. Frankly, we need to keep Musharif in power as long as possible, and then, get somebody who will keep the ideologs out of power in their in his sted.

From what i understand we hit no lead members of the orginization, and screwed a bunch of towns in the process

Brendan said...

yeah, we may not have done as well as we should have and/or may have overdone things, taking too much liberty in the attacks, i'm not sure...tough situations, but again, McCain's the one who has a history of supporting imperialist militarism, so i think he is the more appropriate one to fear in this area


You will be redirected shortly to our new website. If you are not redirected within 5 seconds please CLICK HERE!

Copyright Notice

(C) All articles, postings, images, etc. on this site are protected by relevant copyright law, unless otherwise specified. To use any original material in totality please ask for author permission.

(C) 2009, all rights reserved by, Robert M. Barga, and all contributing authors.