Should we pull out?

[mastab]

Ha, remember a few years ago when he landed on that aircraft carrier and walked around with that big 'mission acomplished' sign behind him? Well, just recently he gave a speech on his 'Plan for Victory' campaign. Weren't we victorious when we acomplished the mission? Hmmm....

[illicit]

ratwar said:

illicit said:

We did, if im not mistaken most of American wanted to go to war, and the majority of liberals wanted to go to war too, however since liberals are anti american they try and point every little thing that doesnt work out perfect in Americas face. There is an end to the war if we follow Micheal Savage's advice and carpet bomb the triangle.

If I'm not mistaken, Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and didn't say that almost two years later we would still be dieing in Iraq. I mean, how long ago did he say we had ended major combat operations?

Why do you continue to support the conservatives and their corrupt government and call liberal's Anti-American? You support the Republicans who have sold out thier ideals to win elections. A group which cares only about it's own power and nothing for what is right, for the truth, or for the lives of normal people.

You support an idea about just carpet bombing the whole area? Do you have no compassion? No sense of human life? Please, see a counsilor, for the good of yourself and the rest of the world.

illicit said:

But then the terrorists would get mad at us because we arnt helping their people at all. The terrorists are JELOUS, they want us destroyed because we live so well.

Wow... Just wow... That statement right there is so wrong... I just don't know where to begin...

Actually its quite the oposite, the conservatives have stuck on one side, liberals like Bush and Kerry flip around too much, they are the ones who want votes, not conservatives. Conservatives will naturally get votes because they have the interest of the people.

Why not carpet bomb them? They did it in WWII, why not now?

The only Americans that wanted to go to war were those who wanted revenge for 9/11. And that's Afghanistan. Even less people wanted to attack Iraq. Liberalism supports diplomacy over war, most liberal were aainst the war. Liberals are not anti-american. Many of the founding fathers were liberal. Are you saying that if we see anything wrong with the U.S. we are anti american? Do you expect us to blindly follow our imperialist government like you do? Your carpet bombing idea is hillarious. Are you saying we kill their people to avoid them killing ours? Do you think they will be less mad at us because we blew up their friends? Blind killing is never the answer.

Actually if I am not mistaken over 70% supported the war initially, now its around 50-60%.

[Twitchmonkey]

I really haven't seen much actual flip-flopping on the democratic side. Many democrats simply voted for the war in Iraq to give the president the beneift of the doubt but then later chose to go against it because they didn't feel it was being handled properly. This is not flip-flopping.

Yes, some conservatives have the people's interest in mind, and some don't, same goes with democrats. Your views seem to be so polarized about the whole liberal/conservative issue, and I think that's unfortunate. It is partly due to actual truth of course, a lot of politics has become completely partisan, but thinking like that just perpetuates it and restricts the freedoms of the people and the representatives.

[mastab]

Bush is liberal in a few fields, but he is mainly conservative. Liberals do not switch around. Every liberal I know or have heard of are and always have been against the war. Conservatives really have the interest of the people in mind, eh? Bush cut education funding by 30%. KKKarl Rove once ruined a liberal candidates campaign by sending drunks to his fundraiser. I have more examples, if you want.

World War Two was sixty years ago. Times have changed. Your logic of "large masses of civilians have been killed in the past, let's kill them now!" makes no sense.

Prove those statistics. I know for a fact that less than 50% support the war.

[Twitchmonkey]

You can get statistics to say whatever you want if you know how to. If you go to California, I'll bet it would be under 30%, if you go to Texas, probably at least 70%,

[illicit]

mastab said:

Bush is liberal in a few fields, but he is mainly conservative. Liberals do not switch around. Every liberal I know or have heard of are and always have been against the war. Conservatives really have the interest of the people in mind, eh? Bush cut education funding by 30%. KKKarl Rove once ruined a liberal candidates campaign by sending drunks to his fundraiser. I have more examples, if you want.

World War Two was sixty years ago. Times have changed. Your logic of "large masses of civilians have been killed in the past, let's kill them now!" makes no sense.

Prove those statistics. I know for a fact that less than 50% support the war.

Bush is more liberal than conservative, infact most conservatives dont support drunks for MORAL reasons.

World War 2 was sixty years ago, thats my point, thats a hella short time and war is fought the EXACT same way, why would we fight it any different? Besides, we didnt kill masses of civilians then(except in fire bombings), and we wouldnt by carpet bombing these towns.

[mastab]

illicit said:

mastab said:

Bush is liberal in a few fields, but he is mainly conservative. Liberals do not switch around. Every liberal I know or have heard of are and always have been against the war. Conservatives really have the interest of the people in mind, eh? Bush cut education funding by 30%. KKKarl Rove once ruined a liberal candidates campaign by sending drunks to his fundraiser. I have more examples, if you want.

World War Two was sixty years ago. Times have changed. Your logic of "large masses of civilians have been killed in the past, let's kill them now!" makes no sense.

Prove those statistics. I know for a fact that less than 50% support the war.

Bush is more liberal than conservative, infact most conservatives dont support drunks for MORAL reasons.

World War 2 was sixty years ago, thats my point, thats a hella short time and war is fought the EXACT same way, why would we fight it any different? Besides, we didnt kill masses of civilians then(except in fire bombings), and we wouldnt by carpet bombing these towns.

No, bush is more conservative. I never said conservatives supported them, but they used them as political weapons.

How is war different? Are you joking? That was conventional warfare. This is unconventional warfare and we are trying to occupy a country. Are you seriously saying that no one would die if we destroyed a town?

[illicit]

mastab said:

illicit said:

Bush is more liberal than conservative, infact most conservatives dont support drunks for MORAL reasons.

World War 2 was sixty years ago, thats my point, thats a hella short time and war is fought the EXACT same way, why would we fight it any different? Besides, we didnt kill masses of civilians then(except in fire bombings), and we wouldnt by carpet bombing these towns.

No, bush is more conservative. I never said conservatives supported them, but they used them as political weapons.

How is war different? Are you joking? That was conventional warfare. This is unconventional warfare and we are trying to occupy a country. Are you seriously saying that no one would die if we destroyed a town?

Bush is more liberal, most of his acts are liberal.

Only the bad guys would die, very few civilian casulties. Thats the problem with this war, its not being fought conventionally.

[Twitchmonkey]

You don't fight guerilla war conventionally. In WW2 our enemy came up to us and fought us. Now they hide all over Iraq and plant traps. To kill them all quickly you'd have to kill all or most of the civilians.

[illicit]

twitchmonkey said:

You don't fight guerilla war conventionally. In WW2 our enemy came up to us and fought us. Now they hide all over Iraq and plant traps. To kill them all quickly you'd have to kill all or most of the civilians.

WWII was also fought with those means, there were civilian casulties, but they wouldnt be any more than the ones in Iraq if we carpet bombed them the way they would in WWII.

[darkhelmet]

illicit said:

mastab said:

Bush is liberal in a few fields, but he is mainly conservative. Liberals do not switch around. Every liberal I know or have heard of are and always have been against the war. Conservatives really have the interest of the people in mind, eh? Bush cut education funding by 30%. KKKarl Rove once ruined a liberal candidates campaign by sending drunks to his fundraiser. I have more examples, if you want.

World War Two was sixty years ago. Times have changed. Your logic of "large masses of civilians have been killed in the past, let's kill them now!" makes no sense.

Prove those statistics. I know for a fact that less than 50% support the war.

Bush is more liberal than conservative, infact most conservatives dont support drunks for MORAL reasons.

World War 2 was sixty years ago, thats my point, thats a hella short time and war is fought the EXACT same way, why would we fight it any different? Besides, we didnt kill masses of civilians then(except in fire bombings), and we wouldnt by carpet bombing these towns.

No, it's completely different, Yawm. In the second World War, the enemy wore a uniform. The enemy was a nation. Now... we are occupying a nation, and the enemy are terrorists/insurgents. You cannot fight terrorists by bombing cities into rubble because that is what they want you to do.

The idea is to frustrate the Americans into acts of destruction to turn the nation against them. If one airstrike killing 15 innocents in Pakistan creates an uproar, killing ten thousand in massive bombing raids would create civil war.

[Twitchmonkey]

That's simply untrue. In WW2 they had army campps, naval bases, intelligence headquarters, unified battle tactics. It's so very different. The enemy we're fighting now is in every area of Iraq hiding in holes and in houses and using martyrdom and explosives instead of trenches and gunfire.

[darkhelmet]

morty14 said:

Here's a step by step process of how we can really help our situation in the middle east.

Step 1: During this entire year begin taking soldiers out of Iraq, by January 1st of 2007 we should not have more than 100 Americans in Iraq.
Step 2: Become much, much less dependent on oil. Should be accomplished in 5 years maximum.
Step 3: Move all American soldiers out of the entire middle east, whether a nation wants us there or not. Should take no more than 3 months to accomplish.
Step 4: Cut off all foreign aid going to the middle east region, including the billions we send to Israel. Takes 10 minutes, just go to the media and publicly announce that we are no longer funding any nation in the mid east.

That 4 step plan that shouldn't take more than 6 years to do would solve a lot of problems we have with the middle east. It does all the things the terrorists want us to do.
Here's a handy checklist of what the terrorists seem to hate about us:
1) We are infidels that come with weapons to their holy lands (Check that one off, see step 3)
2) We are funding the people they hate more than anyone else (Check that one off too, see step 4)
3) We are "Westernizing" their homelands (Check that one off, if we aren't there and we aren't sending anything to them, then their is no way we can be accused of doing that)

So now the terrorists have no reason to hate us, we've complied with their wishes, saved American lives, and saved a ton of money on military spending and foreign aid spending. It sounds like a good plan to me.

No offense, but uou seem to think Foreign Policy is that simple. If we take troops out Iraq, chaos ensues. Maybe Iran takes over. All those terrorists from Syria and other nations will now have no reason to attack targets in Iraq, but will go into American occupied Afghanistan, maybe creating a new Taliban-esque state.

Israel would've been destroyed back in the sixties, when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt assembled the largest tank army in history, and attacked. But we intervened. Without us, Israel falls. Then you have the entire Persian Gulf subjected to Islamic rule, NO friendly states, and a HUGE reserve of oil (needed for tanks and such) in the hands of "the enemy". If you're the president, do you want that to happen? Absolutely not.

[morty14]

darkhelmet said:

No offense, but uou seem to think Foreign Policy is that simple. If we take troops out Iraq, chaos ensues. Maybe Iran takes over. All those terrorists from Syria and other nations will now have no reason to attack targets in Iraq, but will go into American occupied Afghanistan, maybe creating a new Taliban-esque state.

Iraq is not our problem anymore, the Iraqis who want us there can blame the insurgents for forcing us out. The insurgents can have their little "victory" and the bottom line is we save American lives. I really don't care what happens to Iraq, I say let them sort it out on their own. Its not our responsiblity nor our obligation to stay their and hold their hands into a loving democracy.
If Iran invades (which it would be immensely stupid to do) then what? Either the U.N. steps in or Iran conquers. So what? Again, not our problem. We can only hope that the Iranians have as much trouble as we did and leave them be. Iraq is not our ally, and we have no reason to defend them.
Terrorists are just going to pick up their operations and move into Afghanistan? Why aren't they there already? Why haven't they been attacking American patrols all over Afghanistan like they do in Iraq? It will take time for them to move their operations. By then we should be out of Afghanistan anyway. If we leave and the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan, it is not our concern. As long as they stay peaceful towards the USA, we have no need to go oust them again.

Israel would've been destroyed back in the sixties, when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt assembled the largest tank army in history, and attacked. But we intervened. Without us, Israel falls. Then you have the entire Persian Gulf subjected to Islamic rule, NO friendly states, and a HUGE reserve of oil (needed for tanks and such) in the hands of "the enemy". If you're the president, do you want that to happen? Absolutely not.

In the sixties we needed oil. In the 21st century (see step 2) we should be bring our dependence down to what we can provide ourselves or what we can buy from friendly states, not having to beg and plead hostiles to give us the precious black gold. Israel right now can be completely militarily independent. No country in all of the middle east that has a leader with a tiny speck of a brain functioning in his head would invade Israel. Why? Nuclear Weapons. Plain and simple. Israel doesn't need the best military, Israel doesn't need the most powerful tanks, Israel doesn't need the highest troop counts, because the plain and simple fact that you do not go to war with a nation that has nuclear weapons.

It just isn't done. Because those nuclear weapons are more powerful than any other weapon. They have things that destroy a nation without even literally destroying it. A nuclear attack does so many things beyond just destroying a target city. The most effective thing that a nuclear attack does is create FEAR. No populace, no matter how fanatical, will take a nuclear attack on a major city in stride. Nuclear weapons have a fear effect for leaders too. Because that leader knows that if the enemy finds out what general area they are in, it will be an easy kill. That means leaders will spend more time trying not to be found and less time leading. Nuclear weapons spread deadly radiation as well. Meaning it could effect people miles away. That is another fear element, people are afraid to go outside because radiation could kill them. And it is a real effect in that sometimes it does kill people miles away. Nuclear radiation is known to cause the most deadly disease of all, cancer. Nuclear radiation has an effect on future generations because radiation causes mutations to occur in DNA. Nuclear weapons also are total war devices. They attack an enemy not by killing the fighters, but by killing the lifeblood of the soldiers, the civilians. Nuclear weapons are an extremely potent weapon, and frankly, no leader wants one used on their nation.

Secondly, Israel doesn't have oil to begin with. According to the CIA World Factbook Israel exported a grand total of zero barrels in 2001. Are they just holding out on us? Something makes me doubt they are just stockpiling it without anyone knowing. So even if we lost Israel (which we definitely wouldn't), what does it matter? If we are independent on oil supply, then we have no use for that dustbowl called the middle east. They don't like us, we don't like them, life goes on without them.

[Ratwar]

illicit said:

ratwar said:

If I'm not mistaken, Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and didn't say that almost two years later we would still be dieing in Iraq. I mean, how long ago did he say we had ended major combat operations?

Why do you continue to support the conservatives and their corrupt government and call liberal's Anti-American? You support the Republicans who have sold out thier ideals to win elections. A group which cares only about it's own power and nothing for what is right, for the truth, or for the lives of normal people.

You support an idea about just carpet bombing the whole area? Do you have no compassion? No sense of human life? Please, see a counsilor, for the good of yourself and the rest of the world.



Wow... Just wow... That statement right there is so wrong... I just don't know where to begin...

Actually its quite the oposite, the conservatives have stuck on one side, liberals like Bush and Kerry flip around too much, they are the ones who want votes, not conservatives. Conservatives will naturally get votes because they have the interest of the people.

Why not carpet bomb them? They did it in WWII, why not now?

The only Americans that wanted to go to war were those who wanted revenge for 9/11. And that's Afghanistan. Even less people wanted to attack Iraq. Liberalism supports diplomacy over war, most liberal were aainst the war. Liberals are not anti-american. Many of the founding fathers were liberal. Are you saying that if we see anything wrong with the U.S. we are anti american? Do you expect us to blindly follow our imperialist government like you do? Your carpet bombing idea is hillarious. Are you saying we kill their people to avoid them killing ours? Do you think they will be less mad at us because we blew up their friends? Blind killing is never the answer.

Actually if I am not mistaken over 70% supported the war initially, now its around 50-60%.

BULLSHIT! THAT'S WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT IS!

If conservatives naturally get votes, then why, according to your y logic, were both canidates 'liberal' in the last election?

Oh, and guess what, 50% of the country doesn't support the IRaq War, last time I check, it was in the mid-40s. Stop spreading false .

You seriously need mental help if you think that carpet bombing entire cities is in any way a good idea.

In WW2 it was different, I don't know where you learn you history, but we did not carpet bomb random civilian targets, we target factorys, now some of the dumby bombs hit civilian targets, sure, but for almost all missions the bombers had specific military targets.

[illicit]

darkhelmet said:

morty14 said:

Here's a step by step process of how we can really help our situation in the middle east.

Step 1: During this entire year begin taking soldiers out of Iraq, by January 1st of 2007 we should not have more than 100 Americans in Iraq.
Step 2: Become much, much less dependent on oil. Should be accomplished in 5 years maximum.
Step 3: Move all American soldiers out of the entire middle east, whether a nation wants us there or not. Should take no more than 3 months to accomplish.
Step 4: Cut off all foreign aid going to the middle east region, including the billions we send to Israel. Takes 10 minutes, just go to the media and publicly announce that we are no longer funding any nation in the mid east.

That 4 step plan that shouldn't take more than 6 years to do would solve a lot of problems we have with the middle east. It does all the things the terrorists want us to do.
Here's a handy checklist of what the terrorists seem to hate about us:
1) We are infidels that come with weapons to their holy lands (Check that one off, see step 3)
2) We are funding the people they hate more than anyone else (Check that one off too, see step 4)
3) We are "Westernizing" their homelands (Check that one off, if we aren't there and we aren't sending anything to them, then their is no way we can be accused of doing that)

So now the terrorists have no reason to hate us, we've complied with their wishes, saved American lives, and saved a ton of money on military spending and foreign aid spending. It sounds like a good plan to me.

No offense, but uou seem to think Foreign Policy is that simple. If we take troops out Iraq, chaos ensues. Maybe Iran takes over. All those terrorists from Syria and other nations will now have no reason to attack targets in Iraq, but will go into American occupied Afghanistan, maybe creating a new Taliban-esque state.

Israel would've been destroyed back in the sixties, when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt assembled the largest tank army in history, and attacked. But we intervened. Without us, Israel falls. Then you have the entire Persian Gulf subjected to Islamic rule, NO friendly states, and a HUGE reserve of oil (needed for tanks and such) in the hands of "the enemy". If you're the president, do you want that to happen? Absolutely not.

The 6 day war you mean? I dont think that they got aid actually, they just used brilliant tactics. At least where I learned it

[mastab]

I don't trust where you learn things, because according to your school's history book 98% of the nation is Christian.

[darkhelmet]

Yes. I believe all of the Israeli equipment, tanks, and planes were American made.

And Masta B... no personal attacks, please.

[morty14]

Everytime I read through this thread I find something even funnier than before:

Only the bad guys would die, very few civilian casulties.

Carpet bombing a city causes few civilian casulties? That makes a lot of sense.
And who are these "bad guys"? Unless you are talking about all Iraqis as "bad guys" then I think people other than the "bad guys" might get hurt in your city destruction.

[darkhelmet]

morty14 said:

Iraq is not our problem anymore, the Iraqis who want us there can blame the insurgents for forcing us out. The insurgents can have their little "victory" and the bottom line is we save American lives. I really don't care what happens to Iraq, I say let them sort it out on their own. Its not our responsiblity nor our obligation to stay their and hold their hands into a loving democracy.
If Iran invades (which it would be immensely stupid to do) then what? Either the U.N. steps in or Iran conquers. So what? Again, not our problem. We can only hope that the Iranians have as much trouble as we did and leave them be. Iraq is not our ally, and we have no reason to defend them.
Terrorists are just going to pick up their operations and move into Afghanistan? Why aren't they there already? Why haven't they been attacking American patrols all over Afghanistan like they do in Iraq? It will take time for them to move their operations. By then we should be out of Afghanistan anyway. If we leave and the Taliban comes back in Afghanistan, it is not our concern. As long as they stay peaceful towards the USA, we have no need to go oust them again.

Leave a country in Civil War. Nice one. The international community already hates us for ruining Iraq's infrastructure, then we abandon them to the chaos of civil war?

And you forget that Iran already supports militants in Iraq, tried to usurp power during Operation Desert Storm, and harbors deep resentment for them being secular, as well as invading them during the first Gulf war. Learn some history, buddy.

And you should care what happens to Iraq. Because if we fail there, nobody will have faith in America.

In the sixties we needed oil. In the 21st century (see step 2) we should be bring our dependence down to what we can provide ourselves or what we can buy from friendly states, not having to beg and plead hostiles to give us the precious black gold. Israel right now can be completely militarily independent. No country in all of the middle east that has a leader with a tiny speck of a brain functioning in his head would invade Israel. Why? Nuclear Weapons. Plain and simple. Israel doesn't need the best military, Israel doesn't need the most powerful tanks, Israel doesn't need the highest troop counts, because the plain and simple fact that you do not go to war with a nation that has nuclear weapons.

Where do you think Israelis got their nukes? Their fighter planes? Their Abrams tanks? Us. Without us, Israel would be GONE ALREADY.

It just isn't done. Because those nuclear weapons are more powerful than any other weapon. They have things that destroy a nation without even literally destroying it. A nuclear attack does so many things beyond just destroying a target city. The most effective thing that a nuclear attack does is create FEAR. No populace, no matter how fanatical, will take a nuclear attack on a major city in stride. Nuclear weapons have a fear effect for leaders too. Because that leader knows that if the enemy finds out what general area they are in, it will be an easy kill. That means leaders will spend more time trying not to be found and less time leading. Nuclear weapons spread deadly radiation as well. Meaning it could effect people miles away. That is another fear element, people are afraid to go outside because radiation could kill them. And it is a real effect in that sometimes it does kill people miles away. Nuclear radiation is known to cause the most deadly disease of all, cancer. Nuclear radiation has an effect on future generations because radiation causes mutations to occur in DNA. Nuclear weapons also are total war devices. They attack an enemy not by killing the fighters, but by killing the lifeblood of the soldiers, the civilians. Nuclear weapons are an extremely potent weapon, and frankly, no leader wants one used on their nation.

You honestly think that will deter Arab states if we abandon Israel? Israel has 2, maybe three nukes. France? They have six. Britain has something like 16. We're the ONLY nation with 30,000. Not even Russia has that many. So Israel hits some targets. And the historic enemy of Islam is destroyed. Tehran will make that trade.

And you forget that a nuclear missile can be detected. A leader can flee to a bunker.

Secondly, Israel doesn't have oil to begin with. According to the CIA World Factbook Israel exported a grand total of zero barrels in 2001. Are they just holding out on us? Something makes me doubt they are just stockpiling it without anyone knowing. So even if we lost Israel (which we definitely wouldn't), what does it matter? If we are independent on oil supply, then we have no use for that dustbowl called the middle east. They don't like us, we don't like them, life goes on without them.

Are you really that naive? Whether the American people like or not, Islam has declared war on the West. We leave them alone, they will attack. We left them to their own devices, and 9/11 happened. What makes you think that just if we gave up, that they would?

And we are not supporting Israel for oil. Any moron knows that. It's a tiny sliver of land.

[Hunessai]

Leave a country in Civil War. Nice one. The international community already hates us for ruining Iraq's infrastructure, then we abandon them to the chaos of civil war?

A civil war would split a single government into a few different governments. What's so bad about that? Each group of people gets to live by the rules it sets, and determine how they are set.

And you should care what happens to Iraq. Because if we fail there, nobody will have faith in America.

What does it matter if people don't have faith in America?

Whether the American people like or not, Islam has declared war on the West.

That's a common misconception. A small fraction of militant Islamic people have declared war.

[mastab]

darkhelmet said:

Yes. I believe all of the Israeli equipment, tanks, and planes were American made.

And Masta B... no personal attacks, please.

It was an attack on his school's administration and the publisher of that outdated book. Not him.

[mastab]

A civil war would split a single government into a few different governments. What's so bad about that? Each group of people gets to live by the rules it sets, and determine how they are set.

If you get an opresive, tyranical government in power because their soldiers want the government, not the citizens that would be bad. Hmm, let's take a look at the past governments of the middle east.... not a very good track record, eh?

What does it matter if people don't have faith in America?

It harms our international reputation, which isn't that important. Maybe the rest of the world would stop thinking us capable of occupying an country and try to make us stop. That's unlikely, though.

That's a common misconception. A small fraction of militant Islamic people have declared war.

That's pretty true, although a large portion of Islamic people(and the rest of the world) hate us. Only the small militant factions take action.

[morty14]

darkhelmet said:

Leave a country in Civil War. Nice one. The international community already hates us for ruining Iraq's infrastructure, then we abandon them to the chaos of civil war?

Yep, leave 'em. The international community is mad, so what? The international community is always mad at someone. Our turn in line.

And you forget that Iran already supports militants in Iraq, tried to usurp power during Operation Desert Storm, and harbors deep resentment for them being secular, as well as invading them during the first Gulf war. Learn some history, buddy.

I do? I never said Iran couldn't invade, I said they probably wouldn't. Your great and powerful "international community" would stop them anyways wouldn't they?
That's not the point. Seriously, I don't care what happens to Iraq. If they get conquered by Iran, so be it. Not our problem, not our concern.

And you should care what happens to Iraq. Because if we fail there, nobody will have faith in America.

Oh no! We can't be having people not trust us! Wait, we already do. Who cares? Why does it matter? If every nation in the world doesn't have faith in America then they won't expect anything from us. That's sounds like a thing to shoot for.

Where do you think Israelis got their nukes? Their fighter planes? Their Abrams tanks? Us. Without us, Israel would be GONE ALREADY.

We did. And now that they have them and have proved they know how to use them (ala Six Day War) we don't need to be supplying them. Have someone else do it or have them do it themselves. And if Israel isn't capable of defending itself by now then too bad for them. They die out and get conquered. That's the way the world works. Not our problem.

You honestly think that will deter Arab states if we abandon Israel? Israel has 2, maybe three nukes. France? They have six. Britain has something like 16. We're the ONLY nation with 30,000. Not even Russia has that many. So Israel hits some targets. And the historic enemy of Islam is destroyed. Tehran will make that trade.

Well maybe its time they geared up the factories and the research centers and made some more. If they can't in time, then they can use what they have or just use the massive amount of conventional weapons they have already. Again, if Israel can't defend itself then it is dissolved, that's tough cookies for the Israelis. They should have been more prepared.

And you forget that a nuclear missile can be detected. A leader can flee to a bunker.

With the power of the modern day nuclear weapons, that is going to have to be one hell of a bunker. And as soon as they walk out of that bunker, unless they plan on being there for about 100 years, they can get all kinds of radiation. I hear that stuff is dangerous.

[img src="http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/rofl.gif"].gif

[/IMG]

Are you really that naive? Whether the American people like or not, Islam has declared war on the West. We leave them alone, they will attack. We left them to their own devices, and 9/11 happened. What makes you think that just if we gave up, that they would?[/quote]
Only because the West has invaded them and tried to destroy their culture. If we just back off they will have no reason to hate us. Why did 9/11 happen? Not because we backed off that’s for sure. We were funding, and funding greatly, the biggest enemy of the Arab world. Plus we had soldiers in their holiest of lands, Saudi Arabia. And who supplied the Arabs with the means to fight in the first place? The good ole’ US of A. When the Russians were attacking Afghanistan we knowing gave a major anti-American Islamic radical group many, many weapons. We didn’t think of the future we just thought of the here and now. That’s our problem right now. We don’t seem to understand that every second we stay in the Middle East and every dollar we give to Israel is just more and more incentive for the terrorists to strike again. If we leave and promise never to come back except in the case of absolute self-defense, as in we were attacked directly and this isn’t just some “pre-emptive strike”, then we may have a whole new ball game. That promise has to also come with the announcement that we are ending all foreign aid to the entire region, including Israel. No one gets anything from us; we stay out, and let them go about their lives as they please. If they want to found an Islamic theocracy that oppresses women and minorities, kills people for minor crimes, and guns down dissenters, there is not a damn thing we will do about it. If they are building weapons of mass destruction and preparing to launch scud missiles with chemical and biological warheads, there is not a damn thing we will do about it. We need to make that point loud and clear. We promise to keep out of the Middle East in all circumstances short of absolute self-defense. The Islamic militant radicals would even find it difficult to get a reason to attack us then. And they have not declared war on the West. They have declared war on the imperialistic west. They have declared war on the interventionist west. How many Islamic terrorist attacks have fallen upon Iceland? Ireland? Sweden? Finland? Mexico? These are all western nations, but none of them sent a bunch of soldiers to Iraq, none of them station soldiers in Islamic holy lands, none of them give millions of dollars to Israel every year, none of them try to “westernize” the Islamic world. Countries that have been belligerent towards the Islamic world, sends soldiers to Islamic lands, tried to westernize them, or tried to exploit the Islamic world have been attacked. It is a simple fact, they hate us for what we’ve done and still do, not just the fact that we live further west than they do and have an different culture.

And we are not supporting Israel for oil. Any moron knows that. It's a tiny sliver of land.

That's what I was saying. Someone else said we were there to protect oil.

[illicit]

morty14 said:

Everytime I read through this thread I find something even funnier than before:

Only the bad guys would die, very few civilian casulties.

[img src="http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/rofl.gif"].gif

[/IMG]
Carpet bombing a city causes few civilian casulties? That makes a lot of sense.
And who are these "bad guys"? Unless you are talking about all Iraqis as "bad guys" then I think people other than the "bad guys" might get hurt in your city destruction. [img src="http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/rofl.gif"].gif[/IMG][/quote]

We leaflet the area warning them, then a day later carpet bomb them, anyone who stays there is an insurgent.