gut;1630180 wrote:That's why I said "move" the Saudi Arabia or another base. I did not advocate MORE bases.

When would it not be premature? When it isn't. That's just as much a cop-out as you claiming Iraq would never stand on its own. It was stable with Saddam, and it was stable with our troops still there. So you're kind of making a strawman argument.

Huge difference to Saddam being in control to having foreign military in your country in control.

The Saudi Base you are speaking of was one of the main reasons for 9/11 according to Bin Laden.

Iraq posed no threat to the security of the United States. They had no air force, no navy, no al Qaeda link.

I basically follow the just war principles of fighting for defense, fighting with proper authority and if we do fight, fight to win.

Nation building, policing the world and preemptive war are not effective foreign policies and will continue to bankrupt us and kill more US soldiers as well as civilians across the world.

pmoney25;1630185 wrote:I basically follow the just war principles of fighting for defense, fighting with proper authority and if we do fight, fight to win.

Nation building, policing the world and preemptive war are not effective foreign policies and will continue to bankrupt us and kill more US soldiers as well as civilians across the world.

this

believer;1630245 wrote:this

I'll second.

In order to have effective nation building there must first be effective nation breaking.

pmoney25;1630185 wrote:Huge difference to Saddam being in control to having foreign military in your country in control.

You said as soon as we withdraw things will deteriorate. You just proved my point that stability is not contingent on US forces but on a capable Iraqi government - like I said, it's not premature to leave when it's not premature.

pmoney25;1630185 wrote: The Saudi Base you are speaking of was one of the main reasons for 9/11 according to Bin Laden.

That's equivalent to Bush's WMD justification. Fact is Al Qaeda and radical fundamentalists have conducted terror attacks all over the world. I think it's naive to say if we weren't in the middle east 9/11 doesn't happen. That hasn't stopped attacks in France or GB, or even Russia.

gut;1630535 wrote:You said as soon as we withdraw things will deteriorate. You just proved my point that stability is not contingent on US forces but on a capable Iraqi government - like I said, it's not premature to leave when it's not premature.

Iraq was stable because Saddam would destroy anyone he deemed a threat. No matter what the US does, it will not be stable. So we need to leave and let them figure it themselves. It is not worth the money or casualties to stay or go back.

HitsRus;1630155 wrote: 1) when they left office,there was no Al Qaida in Iraq.

There was no Al Quada in Iraq in 2003...when we invaded and destroyed their country. Millions of Iraqi citizens killed maimed and forced across borders. Al Quada infiltration began in 2006/2007. Look it up. Your statement above is patently false.

Moreover, hence you forgot. Al Quada and the Sunnis under Saddam were diametrically opposed to each other's principles...with the only common denominator being they were both ruthless.

THE REASON WHY AL QUADA PRESENCE EXITS THERE TODAY...is a direct function of the Bush/Cheney war machine.....a war premised completely on a snow job....attempting to tie in 9-11 (Al quada) and Saddam Hussein. Just one of the many whoppers sold to the American public.

gut;1630546 wrote:That's equivalent to Bush's WMD justification. Fact is Al Qaeda and radical fundamentalists have conducted terror attacks all over the world. I think it's naive to say if we weren't in the middle east 9/11 doesn't happen. That hasn't stopped attacks in France or GB, or even Russia.

No more naive than to think it was because of our freedom.

Imagine if China just started planting military bases across the US monitoring our actions, interfering in our government. I'm sure we would love that.

pmoney25;1630185 wrote:The Saudi Base you are speaking of was one of the main reasons for 9/11 according to Bin Laden.

US armed forces were on that base with the invitation and continued permission of the Saudi Government. There are many good reasons why they should have not been there a decade after the Gulf war. This is not one.

pmoney25;1630185 wrote:I basically follow the just war principles of fighting for defense, fighting with proper authority and if we do fight, fight to win.

For the most part I agree with this. The latter two are a must have for any fight we involve ourselves in. There are just reasons to fight other than physical defense of ones own nation.

majorspark;1630600 wrote:US armed forces were on that base with the invitation and continued permission of the Saudi Government. There are many good reasons why they should have not been there a decade after the Gulf war. This is not one.



For the most part I agree with this. The latter two are a must have for any fight we involve ourselves in. There are just reasons to fight other than physical defense of ones own nation.

Where were most of the hijackers from?

Other than a threat to our national security, when is war a good idea?

pmoney25;1630665 wrote:Where were most of the hijackers from?

Saudi Arabia. There is a reason why we did not hold Saudi Arabia accountable. Every nation has its own set of radical nutbags hell bent on violence. The United States should not "fold up shop" because some nutbags might do mean things. Like I said there are many other reasons to vacate the base in Saudi Arabia. This is not one.

pmoney25;1630665 wrote:Other than a threat to our national security, when is war a good idea?

National security is a much broader term than "defense". I was speaking more in terms of national security. Anyways war is never a good idea. Its a necessary evil. If you are going to go outside of national security or defense there are on occasion just causes to act with lethal force. Going to war to stop the wholesale slaughter of millions would be one. Again these are qualified by the authority of congress and the means to gain total victory.