Hypothetical

[JcP]

Originally Posted by LetsPlayYourWay

No suprise. Your DOD and President knew about it and did nothing. Sort of like 9/11.
See how wrong you are?

beat me to it.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Whether AQ was there before 2002 or not (I think it is pretty clear they were, but that is besides the point and worthy of its own thread), it is abundantly clear they are there now.

That being said. Would you like to answer my question or not? If you would rather not answer my question, I'm curious as to why.

Edit:

This thread is probably a waste of time. I doubt anyone here save one or two people would have the balls to make a serious and thought out response.

Point 1: Al Qaida was not in Iraq before 2002. Just because you have deluded yourself into believing that doesn't make it true. Stop it stop it stop it. To state they were is as valid as me saying my feet are made out of cheese and then no matter how little evidence I can provide to support this claim, and no matter how much evidence you give to show me otherwise, I stand by this claim no matter what.
AL-QAIDA WAS NOT IN IRAQ. THEY WEREN'T. STOP IT. GOOD GOD STOP IT.

Point 2: I don't want to answer your question. Why? Because it's completely based on circumstance. Is there a circumstance in which I would vote yes? Yea. Is there a circumstance in which I would vote no? Yea.
By using this device, you're just trying to bait people into saying "yea! invade Iraqz!" so then you can come back with some pithy "but we're there now to prevent it, so you should support the war" or something. Which is a complete non-sequetor, by the way.
I think war is always a mistake. But pre-emtive warfare has been and always will be a mistake. PERIOD. Without solid evidence, war should never happen. End of story. And if you STILL haven't learned that lesson after this debacle, that's your issue.

Point 3: You can't expect serious and thought out responses to a propogandic post like your OP.

[DubStyle311]

First of all, I will admit that the question I put out there was completely loaded. For those of you who want us out of Iraq yesterday, there is no way to answer that doesn't make you look foolish (more foolish than the idea of pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible).

Second of all, this hypothetical is a completely legitimate scenario. It doesn't matter the least bit when AQ came to Iraq or why. It doesn't even matter if the AQ in Iraq now is some separate entity from the other AQ with different objectives or not. If the US forces in Iraq leave before the job is finished, there likely will be a huge escalation in violence and another civil war that will leave Iraq as a theocratic state with little rule of law and a tolerance for terrorism and terrorists. I could see it very easily devolving into a similar position as Afghanistan was pre-2001. If that is the case, AQ can and most likely will use it as a base of operations and training ground for people who would attack the US and the West.

Like I said though, I these are the types of responses I was expecting from this crowd.

If one were to answer Yes to my question, it would completely expose their desire to withdrawal from Iraq as illegitimate and likely the result of unbending partisan politicking. This is the exact issue that McCain nailed Obama on a week or two ago. I believe he made the statement that would be in favor of moving troops back into Iraq if AQ had a significant presence in Iraq post-withdrawal. After getting called out on that, he had a rather lame response. Instead of even addressing the original statement he made or backpedaling on it, he dodged the issue by using the standard "there was no AQ in Iraq before we went to war!" . That statement is completely irrelevant and should have no bearing on future decisions. Worst of all, having this position on my original questions would completely expose someone as having no concern whatsoever for the Iraqi people themselves. It would essentially be throwing them under the bus - something along the lines of "we dont care about you or you're people, the only reason we would put our troops in harms way is to protect our own ass". Thats a pretty shitty thing to do if you ask me. We are there now, and we need to stay there to protect them as much as ourselves. To go in, fuck up their shit, and bail out now would really be a terrible thing to do.

As I expected though just about everyone here voted no. Some of your responses though really did disturb me. It's as if some of you believe that there is no threat out there from AQ. That its all made up. That there arnt people out there with the will and the means to pull off another 911 or, God forbid, something worse. Going on the offensive and taking out potential terrorist leaders, planners, and agents is the best way to lessen the chance that something like that will happen. It is not an accident that there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 2001. We have done a very good job thus far of disrupting their organization and planning. Every AQ attack since 911 has been less organized and less deadly than the last. The Madrid bombings were more poorly plan compared to 911 and the London bombings were worse than Madrid. Not to mention the fact that they have not been able to hit the US again and are forced to focus on the closer and easier targets in Europe. To be of the opinion that we should just ignore these threats abroad is completely irresponsible and to support that policy is frightening. That right there is why the GOP is and will be for the foreseeable future be seen as better on foreign policy than the Democrats.

And to JcP and the others who keep bringing up the questionable assertion that there was no AQ in Iraq before the war, it has nothing to do with this discussion. When it comes to the exit strategy from Iraq, we need to focus on what is going on right now and what will be going on in the future. That is why this hypothetical is completely legitimate and something that we all need to think about. A hypothetical situation or scenario is a great way to flush out ideas about policy and the positions we support. If you would like me to respond to your hypotheticals, please make a thread. I would be more than happy to respond to them.

[Prophet Saddam]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

First of all, I will admit that the question I put out there was completely loaded. For those of you who want us out of Iraq yesterday, there is no way to answer that doesn't make you look foolish (more foolish than the idea of pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible).

Second of all, this hypothetical is a completely legitimate scenario. It doesn't matter the least bit when AQ came to Iraq or why. It doesn't even matter if the AQ in Iraq now is some separate entity from the other AQ with different objectives or not. If the US forces in Iraq leave before the job is finished, there likely will be a huge escalation in violence and another civil war that will leave Iraq as a theocratic state with little rule of law and a tolerance for terrorism and terrorists. I could see it very easily devolving into a similar position as Afghanistan was pre-2001. If that is the case, AQ can and most likely will use it as a base of operations and training ground for people who would attack the US and the West.

Like I said though, I these are the types of responses I was expecting from this crowd.

If one were to answer Yes to my question, it would completely expose their desire to withdrawal from Iraq as illegitimate and likely the result of unbending partisan politicking. This is the exact issue that McCain nailed Obama on a week or two ago. I believe he made the statement that would be in favor of moving troops back into Iraq if AQ had a significant presence in Iraq post-withdrawal. After getting called out on that, he had a rather lame response. Instead of even addressing the original statement he made or backpedaling on it, he dodged the issue by using the standard "there was no AQ in Iraq before we went to war!" . That statement is completely irrelevant and should have no bearing on future decisions. Worst of all, having this position on my original questions would completely expose someone as having no concern whatsoever for the Iraqi people themselves. It would essentially be throwing them under the bus - something along the lines of "we dont care about you or you're people, the only reason we would put our troops in harms way is to protect our own ass". Thats a pretty shitty thing to do if you ask me. We are there now, and we need to stay there to protect them as much as ourselves. To go in, fuck up their shit, and bail out now would really be a terrible thing to do.

As I expected though just about everyone here voted no. Some of your responses though really did disturb me. It's as if some of you believe that there is no threat out there from AQ. That its all made up. That there arnt people out there with the will and the means to pull off another 911 or, God forbid, something worse. Going on the offensive and taking out potential terrorist leaders, planners, and agents is the best way to lessen the chance that something like that will happen. It is not an accident that there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 2001. We have done a very good job thus far of disrupting their organization and planning. Every AQ attack since 911 has been less organized and less deadly than the last. The Madrid bombings were more poorly plan compared to 911 and the London bombings were worse than Madrid. Not to mention the fact that they have not been able to hit the US again and are forced to focus on the closer and easier targets in Europe. To be of the opinion that we should just ignore these threats abroad is completely irresponsible and to support that policy is frightening. That right there is why the GOP is and will be for the foreseeable future be seen as better on foreign policy than the Democrats.

And to JcP and the others who keep bringing up the questionable assertion that there was no AQ in Iraq before the war, it has nothing to do with this discussion. When it comes to the exit strategy from Iraq, we need to focus on what is going on right now and what will be going on in the future. That is why this hypothetical is completely legitimate and something that we all need to think about. A hypothetical situation or scenario is a great way to flush out ideas about policy and the positions we support. If you would like me to respond to your hypotheticals, please make a thread. I would be more than happy to respond to them

You can't eliminate a fighting tactic, nor an ideology of resistance to an oppressor unless we stop being the oppressor and occupier.

Suicide terrorism is primarily performed in response to occupation - if we can cut occupation out of the equation, the world can be different.

And if we're going to talk about hypothetical situations, why stray into ones with false dichotomies that only result in answers of more violence and aggression?

We're mostly all 'hippies' who want peace. It never ceases to amaze me that someone who projects so much hatred and anger is allowed to moderate a stoner forum.

[DubStyle311]

You may not be able to eliminate a tactic or ideology, but you can definitely reduce its effect and its reach. Like I said, I think we've already successfully done that.

Its not feasible and completely unrealistic to move all US forces out of the middle east. I dont really concern myself with fantasy worlds.

[grieves]

Al Quaeda wouldn't use Iraq as a base of operations because it would not be strategic enough, Being as it is the primary target of the western attack...In addition to the fact that the entity known as Al Quaeda isn't the type to set up headquarters in any one place, it is against the whole structure of their operation(that of a loose, but wide-spread network of like minded individuals)...

[DubStyle311]

I agree with some of that. But I certainly do think that a theocratic and lawless state that is sympathetic to anti-west message and goals of a group like AQ would be a place that cell leaders could use to plan and gather resources for carrying out attacks on the west. AQ or at least Osama bin Laden used Afghanistan in exactly that manner to organize and carry out 911.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

First of all, I will admit that the question I put out there was completely loaded. For those of you who want us out of Iraq yesterday, there is no way to answer that doesn't make you look foolish (more foolish than the idea of pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible).

Key words: as soon as possible. I agree that pulling out immediately without forethought is a mistake. The impetus for feeling this way is a rebellion against the hubris that got us in this quagmire. It's also a rebellion against Bush and Co. getting their way...IE: they fucked us, and they get to keep our troops there for a long time because of how much they fucked us.

AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, however, is not 10 years, but more like 2-3. It will take a president who wants them out within a year to get it done in 2-3. A president who is okay with them there for decades is not going to pursue "as soon as possible" but rather "as soon as it's convenient."

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Second of all, this hypothetical is a completely legitimate scenario. It doesn't matter the least bit when AQ came to Iraq or why. It doesn't even matter if the AQ in Iraq now is some separate entity from the other AQ with different objectives or not. If the US forces in Iraq leave before the job is finished, there likely will be a huge escalation in violence and another civil war that will leave Iraq as a theocratic state with little rule of law and a tolerance for terrorism and terrorists. I could see it very easily devolving into a similar position as Afghanistan was pre-2001. If that is the case, AQ can and most likely will use it as a base of operations and training ground for people who would attack the US and the West.

Dub, the only reason why "when" AQ came to Iraq is being discussed is because you once again proposed the hilarious assumption that they were there already. If you didn't bring up that argument the other mentions of it by other posters would have been dismissed as off-topic.

There "likely will be a huge escalation" ? For someone who has been supportive of people who's predictions have been almost 100% backwards for 7 years, I find your judgement to be a little questionable.

Lastly, WHAT IS THE JOB? In your world Dub, what exactly is the job? And what are the parameters for being finished? And once you state this, I'm going to sig it. So in 6 months, when this all comes around again, you can't change your story again. THE JOB IS NOT DEFINED. The job will NEVER be done. The war on drugs is a war against a MINDSET. The war on crime is a war against a MINDSET. And the war on terror is a war against a MINDSET. These wars change parameters constantly and are never done.

The war in Iraq was a war against a country. We won. Saddam was ousted, the people were free to do what they wanted. Oh...wait...

By the republican stupidity and hawkishness, we are now in a PHYSICAL WAR against a MINDSET mixed in with civil war. By trying to justify the removal of Saddam under the umbrella of fighting terrorism, EVERY ACT OF VIOLENCE in that country is now our responsibility.

Someone got shot in Harlem tonight. If that was in Iraq, it would be blamed on Al Qaida. close to 1 million Iraqis have died since our invasion.

I find your assumption that things will get worse if we withdraw to be arrogant beyond belief. Things might get worse for US, but things can't get much worse for those people we conveniently pushed aside in our own self-serving interest.

Jesus Dub, there are so many holes in your "could be" scenarios...for all you know our withdrawal would usher in a millenium of peace and pancakes. It's just as probable as suggesting a religious extremist group would gain control of a country of religious moderates who put up with them only because we're worse to them.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

To go in, fuck up their shit, and bail out now would really be a terrible thing to do.

I cut out most of your next paragraph because it's all bullshit. This last statement however is VERY apt.

You're right Dub. To go in, fuck up their shit, and bail out would indeed be a terrible thing to do.

So lets go through this step by step:

going in = terrible thing to do, yes?
Fucking up = terrible thing to do, yes?
bailing out = terrible thing to do, yes?

staying in Iraq indefinately = ?

remember: around 1,000,000 Iraqis have died since we invaded. Al Qaida has entered, Iran is increasing in power, civil war has broken out, we are bribing (providing money) to both sides at the moment, we sold them the weapons they are using, etc.

So while bailing is indeed a bad choice, at this point I think the only choice we have is to say "our leaders were fucking IDIOTS. We are SORRY, WE FUCKED UP, etc." And from the admittance of mistake move forward to removing ourselves from this unilateral occupation.

I, of course, never expect you to agree to America admitting it's not perfect and that our elected leaders were fucking idiots, but that's where I stand.

So yea, your statement is true Dub. But the other choices are worse. At this point it's about choosing the path that's LEAST TERRIBLE. And staying another 7 years and killing another 1,000,000 Iraqis is a lot worse.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

As I expected though just about everyone here voted no. Some of your responses though really did disturb me. It's as if some of you believe that there is no threat out there from AQ. That its all made up. That there arnt people out there with the will and the means to pull off another 911 or, God forbid, something worse. Going on the offensive and taking out potential terrorist leaders, planners, and agents is the best way to lessen the chance that something like that will happen. It is not an accident that there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 2001. We have done a very good job thus far of disrupting their organization and planning. Every AQ attack since 911 has been less organized and less deadly than the last. The Madrid bombings were more poorly plan compared to 911 and the London bombings were worse than Madrid. Not to mention the fact that they have not been able to hit the US again and are forced to focus on the closer and easier targets in Europe. To be of the opinion that we should just ignore these threats abroad is completely irresponsible and to support that policy is frightening. That right there is why the GOP is and will be for the foreseeable future be seen as better on foreign policy than the Democrats.

besides being ethnocentric, this entire paragraph is off-topic. Not to mention LOL worthy to continue to propegate the belief that somehow the GOP is better at foreign policy when no one even gives us the fucking time of day anymore.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

And to JcP and the others who keep bringing up the questionable assertion that there was no AQ in Iraq before the war, it has nothing to do with this discussion. When it comes to the exit strategy from Iraq, we need to focus on what is going on right now and what will be going on in the future. That is why this hypothetical is completely legitimate and something that we all need to think about. A hypothetical situation or scenario is a great way to flush out ideas about policy and the positions we support. If you would like me to respond to your hypotheticals, please make a thread. I would be more than happy to respond to them

Only brought it up because you made the stupid stupid statement that they were there.

[DubStyle311]

I agree that pulling out immediately without forethought is a mistake. The impetus for feeling this way is a rebellion against the hubris that got us in this quagmire. It's also a rebellion against Bush and Co. getting their way...IE: they fucked us, and they get to keep our troops there for a long time because of how much they fucked us.

So true. This is a very very very dangerous mentality. People who think like that are forming opinions and possibly policy based on emotion rather than logic based on data and objectives. I dont think we should base the timetable for getting out of Iraq on some sort of emotional need to make sure that Bush and his cabinet dont "get their way". Like it'll be some sort of punitive measure against them. The only people who would get punished from such a descision are US and Iraqi citizens. I want a president who will start removing troops when the need for them to be there is over. Not a day sooner. Brining them back because it feels good or because it might help win an election, or because you arbitrarily think 2-3 years is a good number is a terrible basis for such an important move.

There "likely will be a huge escalation" ? For someone who has been supportive of people who's predictions have been almost 100% backwards for 7 years, I find your judgement to be a little questionable.

This argument hold no water with me because just like I stated a few lines up, youre being too emotional. I hope I'm just reading it wrong, but it seems to me that your support for you idea that there will not be an escalation in violence is....my predictions were wrong before? I never claimed to be a soothsayer or prognosticator. I was right about some things and wrong about others. To simply say that I'm wrong now because I was wrong before is really weak man. Does the data and situation in Iraq give you any indication that without a US presence, there wont be massive bloodshed, a highly unstable civil war, and possibly a final state that is run by a theocratic/military group?

...

To be continued. I'm watchin a movie. Dont worry, I have plenty more to say in response to you.

[Prophet Saddam]

Yeah, let's keep fighting so that we don't 'lose.'

So shortsighted, especially when you're sacrificing NOTHING yourself.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

So true. This is a very very very dangerous mentality. People who think like that are forming opinions and possibly policy based on emotion rather than logic based on data and objectives. I dont think we should base the timetable for getting out of Iraq on some sort of emotional need to make sure that Bush and his cabinet dont "get their way". Like it'll be some sort of punitive measure against them. The only people who would get punished from such a descision are US and Iraqi citizens. I want a president who will start removing troops when the need for them to be there is over. Not a day sooner. Brining them back because it feels good or because it might help win an election, or because you arbitrarily think 2-3 years is a good number is a terrible basis for such an important move.

1) You supported this war from day 1. You support whatever the fuck the republican platform is. You know it and I know it. So at least be honest about that much.

"When the need for them to be there is over" ? Great: tell me what that is.

Dub, sometimes mommy and daddy have to tell little kids when bedtime is. Arbitrary or not. It's not EMOTIONAL to draw up a timetable of 2-3 years. That figure is based on facts...time it would take, giving the government ample time to stand up, logistics, political reconciliaton, etc...the only EMOTIONAL aspect of that is the actual WANT to withdraw in the first place. Which is just as emotional as your WANT to stay until the job (whatever that is) is done (whatever that means).

The need for them to be there is dependent upon someone finally deciding what the parameters of this war is. Until then, you aren't advocating anything but permanent occupation. As I said, wars against CONCEPTS are perpetual. The war on drugs will never end because there will always be drugs. The war on terrorism will never end because there will always be terrorism. The problem, of course, is that we are now fighting a physical war in a country against a concept that is not determined by borders. But I digress.

Data and objectives? What data are you basing your wanting to stay off of? Violence being lower this year than last year? A couple days ago Iraq had the most violent day since like 2004. Does that mean your data is bullshit? Does your data still hold water when you factor in the fact we're bribing them?

AND WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES? Fill me in, cuz I wanna sig it.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

This argument hold no water with me because just like I stated a few lines up, youre being too emotional. I hope I'm just reading it wrong, but it seems to me that your support for you idea that there will not be an escalation in violence is....my predictions were wrong before? I never claimed to be a soothsayer or prognosticator. I was right about some things and wrong about others. To simply say that I'm wrong now because I was wrong before is really weak man. Does the data and situation in Iraq give you any indication that without a US presence, there wont be massive bloodshed, a highly unstable civil war, and possibly a final state that is run by a theocratic/military group?

No, my belief is that I'm not going to listen to people who are wrong so often. And for someone who is wrong so often, I find your belief in your own predictions fascinating.

Your reasoning that there WILL be an escalation in violence is what exactly?

THERE ALREADY IS massive bloodshed and a highly unstable civil war. The theocratic/military scenario is a hypothetical. No more valid than me saying the country might possibly will be run by eskimos.

So the only reason to support staying there is your own hypothetical belief systems. Which brings us back to my point...your beliefs have been ass backwards for 7 years. I don't even think I've heard you admit going in was a mistake before....and yet now you think you know what will happen if/when we say "we are out of here in 1 year" ??

Without an arbitrary time table, there is no reason for the Iraqi government to get their shit together. It's like school. If you didn't have a due date on your report, it wouldn't get done until the last possible moment. If you have a due date, you'll hate your teacher for a bit, but you'll get the shit done.

So once again: what are the objectives to be met before you think troops can come home? Violence on a Detroit level?

The truth here, of course, is that you actually think "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is some sort of noble concept.

Iraqis are humans. Americans are humans. And to kill and/or provide the impetus for the killing of 1,000,000 Iraqis will never ever be justified. No matter how long we stay, Dub. You want to stay for honor and "winning." The irony is that honor and winning are both states of mind. So you're never going to win until you want to say you won. Which leads to the question: why do you want to be at war?

dubstyle: shut me up. Shut me up and go join the military. Seriously. Put me in my fucking place and show me how wrong I am. I dare you.

I believe in peace and plan on serving in the peace corps and (assuming I get admitted) teaching in the country's worst schools. I'm standing up for what I believe. You believe in this war? Go serve.

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by -Illfaded-

says hitlers blitzkreig, the japanese suprise attack on pearl harbor or the US's offensive invasion of germany? they both have their pros and cons.

this and hitler's blitzkrieg/US's offensive invasion of germany are apples and oranges. during world war 2, every involved nation had more or less the same technology. in this case however, the disparity between our technology and the technology of those who would harm us is enormous. . . almost incalculable. we can easily use this to our advantage without needlessly shedding blood. and beside the lack of death, it will also cost a hell of a lot fucking less.

edit: after reading through the most recent responses, there's a lot of missing the forest for the trees in here. this whole argument really hinges on whether preempting terrorist groups with violence on foreign soil lessens their ability to bring us harm. a lot of talk about whether someone really believes what they say about withdrawal when faced with asinine hypotheticals, and musing on whether al quaida is now or ever had been in iraq. . . but no real points illustrating why parading around the world looking for terrorists is more effective than leaving the terrorists to themselves and using our trillions of dollars for defense rather than burning it up to fuel their rage.

[B.]

Originally Posted by verklingen

...why parading around the world looking for terrorists is more effective than leaving the terrorists to themselves and using our trillions of dollars for defense rather than burning it up to fuel their rage.

Precisely, which is why I voted no.

Whether Al Qaeda is in Iraq or not is besides the point. Iraq is not Al Qaeda therefore there is no justification in attacking a country because of an element that exists within it.