Griffith
With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Peregrine_Falcon said:Because I'm sure that they are begging for the US to stay and now see us as some sort of beacon of human rights and freedom.
Is that attitude any more enlightened than that of the war mongers? Believe it or not, we do have allies in the country currently relying on our presence and commitment to them.
Peregrine_Falcon said:You were defending his second opinion and implied that his first opinion would cause problems. I was saying that occupying this country is causing us problems. That was how I was responding to you.
That's basically restating the initial problem though, I thought this was a discussion based around the validity and viability of prospective solutions, in this case, Obama's. If your mind is made up about it, fine, but if we're going to simplify our positions to the lowest common denominator I should just say, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Not that it would be, but could.
Peregrine_Falcon said:To CnC and GNM:
Obviously the video was edited and did have an agenda but that doesn't change the fact that in one video he said they would all be out within a year and another said that they would be out by 2013.
Actually, he didn't even commit to 2013 in the video (which is obviously incomplete), since we're paying so much attention to what he's saying. Not to mention all that other stuff CnC and I pointed out about the "facts" of the video and context that you're running over. Don't say, "Well yes, it's obvious propaganda, but you can't question the truth of what I get out of it."
Peregrine_Falcon said:What next, 2030? I had heard this from many other sources, but I chose to find and post the video since it contained his exact words. I can’t even be sure that politicians who say, ‘phased withdrawal, are not actually saying "It's politically inconvenient for me to say at no point in the near future."
Yeah, because they really can't say without being disingenuous or making a dangerous promise that could result in a reckless course of action. You shouldn't believe blanket promises anyway, and if you do believe someone is going to keep a blanket promise no matter what the circumstances, be afraid, because they're a zealot. Again, we've had that kind of strong, decisive leadership for 8 years now, and I've had enough, I say we elect a wuss, a woman, or cripple this time. =)
Peregrine_Falcon said:To GNM:
I gave both financial and strategic reasons, not just moral ones. Boosting enemy recruitment and costing us three trillion dollars is bad for the state.
That would be meaningful if we weren't advocating for the same thing, but again, that's just restating why the war, or any war, is bad. I'm simply acknowledging the possibility and dangers of unintended consequences of simply leaving tomorrow, come hell or high water. Just because it was wrong to go, doesn't make it right to leave under any circumstances, what's done is done and then you deal with that. That's not about staying the course, but not making things worse in the process of leaving, and neglecting the problems we've already created. Again, just because we created more problems for ourselves in the region, doesn't mean we now don't have to deal with them, or can take it back. There's no rest button.
Peregrine_Falcon said:A person who does the "right thing" would be someone who picks every violent conflict around the world and stretches our troops and sinks billions of dollars immediately and believes that we must use every ounce of energy to force the world into a peaceful utopia of industrialized, authentic democracies. I'm against bankrupting ourselves and creating more enemies than we can handle. Unprovoked, costly wars, and massive debts have killed civilizations.
Why the extremes, and the last line is hyperbole I'd even go so far as to call hysterical ("the sky is falling, it's the end of the World!")? Anyway, I never defined the "right thing" that way, there's a difference between crusading around the World and dealing responsibly with a mistake you've already made, it's not mutually exclusive or inconsistent. It's like if I said that by your reasoning, the only alternative to immediate exit was to conquer the entire region, vaporize all potential enemies, and then move in and take all their land and resources. Sounds profitable for the state, so that's what you think we should do if not get out, right!? Yeah, not exactly. I'm simply acknowledging that there's no easy solution to something we've already gotten ourselves in to, whether we like it or not, and I keep that in mind when I listen to the candidates. I'm less impressed or inclined to believe the one's declaring World Peace their first day in office, thus why I liked Obama's most recent take on it better.
Peregrine_Falcon said:With this supposed ‘phased withdrawal’, the situation of soldiers in Iraq would be nothing like the situation of soldiers in Japan and Germany and keeping troops in hostile territory for decades is also an extreme.
The point was that it's unreasonable in any case to ask or think that every troop would be withdrawn in a few years, especially without knowing all the ins and outs, which neither of us can claim from our position (netxperts!). Tell us the future, Obama! What is reasonable to expect is that there'd be a real good faith effort to be getting them home ASAP, I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, or have a case where we have to do it even if circumstances make it so we'd actually be shooting ourselves in the foot again somehow (for instance, something new and totally unrelated to the previous war politics).
Anyway, I understand your position, but I'm not persuaded to take a hard stand on it because I acknowledge the possibility that legitimate reasons for taking our time exist, and we shouldn't ignore that in favor of some kind of zero tolerance withdrawal (especially if it's mostly for appearances sake). Tying it back to Obama and the origin of this discussion, let me put it this way, do you want the guy who voted against the war in charge of ending it, or the two who voted for it?