LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   Be honest with yourself (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/be-honest-with-yourself-446194/)

warpeace2006 05-18-2006 06:33 PM

Be honest with yourself
 
I registered with a new nick-name for not influencing your choice, and to be free in your decision
--------



After three years in Iraq.
After thousands of dead and injured soldiers; and still counting.
After billions of dollars spent, not on rebuilding Iraq, but on the war itself; and still counting.



One would pause for a minute and ask oneself with complete honesty;
Shall we get out of Iraq?



Consider this as a poll and vote with sincerity;
Shall we get out of Iraq?

cs-cam 05-18-2006 07:51 PM

Quote:

I registered with a new nick-name for not influencing your choice, and to be free in your decision
So you've been a member here before and yet you still can't figure out a) the correct forum to post in and b) that a thread like this will probably end up closed and c) it's against the rules to have multiple nicks.

TigerLinux, is that you...?

rshaw 05-18-2006 07:53 PM

yay. moving to general

laceupboots 05-18-2006 10:31 PM

I think that we have overstayed our welcome in Iraq and it's time to bring them home. Peace has it's own challenges and we should get started on them.

aizkorri 05-19-2006 03:19 AM

maybe the question should be,
which was the goal?

Crito 05-19-2006 05:18 AM

We replaced a largely secular government with one run by religious zealots. And to top it off that's exactly what everyone said would happen if we created a power vacuum in the region. It's like self-fulfilling prophecy or something. Doesn't matter if you rub the Jesus freaks' noses in it, they're going to keep on listening and obeying till the day Armageddon comes. Even if they have to create Armageddon themselves, that is.

I'd have to vote for none of the above. The world is considerably worse off when more religious fanatics are in power, regardless of which country we're talking about. So I'd say we've failed, can't leave now (might as well just give Iran the whole country) and we'll likely never achieve our goals in the region. It's the lose-lose quagmire everyone predicted. :o

vivek reddy 05-19-2006 07:44 AM

the whole world thinks your target was OIL . if thats the case you have not achieved your goal. otherwise its time to leave.

dukeinlondon 05-19-2006 10:09 AM

You can't leave now unless there is strong evidence that it would ease the terror that goes on there. Americans voted twice for Bush now they can't just get away from the consequences.

truthfatal 05-19-2006 10:10 AM

IBTL

Should never have went there in the first place.

It seems to me like a 'Damned if your do, Damned if you don't' kind of situation.

nonades 05-19-2006 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivek reddy
the whole world thinks your target was OIL . if thats the case you have not achieved your goal. otherwise its time to leave.



R - O - F - L

primo 05-21-2006 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crito
We replaced a largely secular government with one run by religious zealots. And to top it off that's exactly what everyone said would happen if we created a power vacuum in the region.

The house of cards collapsed. I find it dumb that G. Bush Jr. is fueling the war with a "total victory" speech and we don't know what it means to him. From family pride to oil, it's a shame. What do americans expect from it ? This is for real. It's not a movie. I do believe that in the federal govt there's a bunch of christian extremists wanting to bring the Armageddon. Call it "Free doom, final part", if you like.

ehawk 05-21-2006 01:42 AM

As we created this situation, we are ethically and morally obligated to work toward a situation which will be better than what it replaced. Throughout the process, we must ask ourselves:

1) If we leave at this point, will the situation be better than what we observed at the time of our intervention?

2) At this point, does it seem reasonable to expect that our continued efforts can improve the situation?

If things are worse, and we believe continued effort will improve the situation, we are obligated to try.

If at some point 1) can be answered in the affirmative, we can bring our intervention to a close. If 1) can't be achieved, and 2) is answered in the negative, we failed, we caused harm, but we can justify departure.

As most people seem to think things are worse for the people there now, I guess the crux of the question is 2). It could be asked whether our continued intervention is in our (US) interest. I think most people would respond in the negative. I suppose I am restating the essence of the poll options.

peter_89 05-21-2006 11:12 AM

I must ask all of you, why is it so obvious to some that Bush is a lying war pig, and yet Saddam Hussein never could have lied about such a thing as WMD's? This man was a murderer and wouldn't have hesitated for a second to blow the world to bits. Documents show him to be mentally unstable. With all of the other countries against us, you think it would have been good to have another one? Another one, not only threatening us, but Europe and the rest of the world? If he didn't have WMD's when we searched for them, what makes you people think there's no way he wouldn't have gotten them in the future? What makes him any more trustworthy than somebody like Kaczynski or Bin Laden?

odiseo77 05-21-2006 12:43 PM

The poll is strongly biased. There should be options like:
'We should have never invade Iraq'
'We have not achieved any goals because there were not such goals (other than stealing oil)'
'We should leave right now'

XavierP 05-21-2006 01:02 PM

These don't end well. And it's politics. So I've closed it. These arguments, and many others, can be found elsewhere on the internet.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 PM.