Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 06/05/07 7:32 pm:
Glad you're here. I am always open to a good debate . Excon can be found on the politics board of Askme help desk if you want to say hello. Ironically we just battled over the immigration question yesterday there .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 06/06/07 6:37 pm:
To answer your questions, Ceebee,

1) What interests do we have in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Our interest in Afghanistan is that it is where the terrorists of 9/11 came from. It is where al Qaeda's leader, OBL, makes his headquarters. Afghanistan's Taliban regime was a direct supporter of the attack on 9/11. Our interest in Afghanistan is to keep it from attacking the United States.

Our interests in Iraq were several: A) Making sure that Saddam did not reacquire WMDs which would then be sold to al Qaeda or other groups. B) Cutting off funding from one of the largest supporters of international terrorism, including to OBL. C) Enforcing the cease-fire agreement that Saddam signed in 1991. Saddam regularly broke that agreement by firing on US planes. D) Cutting off a source of logistical support for international terrorism, including Abu Nidal Group, the PLO and Al Qaeda. Saddam's government was actively supporting these organizations by giving them training centers like the one in Salman Pak in which they trained to highjack airplanes. E) Creating a regime that is friendly (or at least not hostile) to US interests in the Middle East.

2) What is your (Bush's?) definition "victory"?

The definition of victory in Iraq is this: Creation of a democratically elected government elected by the Iraqi people that is capable of handling its own security and maintaining peace. The government has been elected by the Iraqi people. The Iraqi military is building iteself up with the help of coalition forces. Several areas have already been handed over to the Iraqi government for their governance. More than 2/3 of the country has been pacified. We are well on our way to achieving victory in Iraq under that definition.

3) How much longer do we give the Iraqis to get their act together while our children are being blown up?

Who's children? Do you have children there? As far as I can tell, nobody in the US military is a child. They are all adults capable of making their own decisions, including the decision to join and in many cases REJOIN the military, knowing full well that they will be serving in Iraq. A typical military tour of duty is 3-5 years. We have now been at war for 4 years. That means that the vast majority of those who didn't want to serve in Iraq are no longer in the military, and those who are currently in the military joined or rejoined knowing full well that they could get sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. And they joined anyway. They aren't children. They are patriots.

As for how long we give the Iraqis to get their act together, that's a decision to be made by the PRESIDENT. That is part of conducting the war. Congress has NO SAY IN IT AT ALL, once they signed the war declaration. If they refuse to fund the war in protest of Bush's policies of running the war, they have that right... but then they can't claim to support the troops if they are taking away the money needed to supply those troops.

Furthermore, those calling for us to "redeploy" (read: surrender) out of Iraq aren't arguing for proof of compliance by the Iraqi government. They just want us out NOW, regardless of the consequences. The question of how long we are going to give the Iraqis is a straw argument. The anti-war crowd doesn't want to give them ANY TIME AT ALL. They don't want benchmarks. They don't want proof of compliance. They want us out now. Period. That includes most of the Democratic leadership and all of the Democratic candidates for President, regardless of what they might say publicly.

Just to put things in perspective, it took the USA over a decade after winning the Revolutionary War to fully set up our system of government, including signing the Constitution and electing the government. A decade in which there was quite a bit of violence, by the way. And it took us almost another two decades until we created a standing army capable of defending our borders against incursion and internal unrest. The fact Iraq has managed to write a constitution, elect a government and build up an army of nearly 200,000 well-trained and equipped troops (with more in process) means that they are about 2 decades ahead of where we were at this stage in our country's history. And they are managing to accomplish all this despite terrorists who are actively trying to stop it... something the USA didn't have to deal with in the 18th Century.

So I'm willing to give the Iraqis another decade or so to get things fully up and running.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 06/06/07 9:08 pm:
Hi Tomder55-

How are you? Thanks for the kind thoughts concerning my brother. I feel the same way about every soldier including your cousin.



Hi Elliot-

How are you? Though I'm running short on time I'm going to interject my opinion on a few things. First off I'd like to mention that I agree with much of your analysis just not some of the conclusions.

Our interests in Iraq were several: A) Making sure that Saddam did not reacquire WMDs which would then be sold to al Qaeda or other groups. B) Cutting off funding from one of the largest supporters of international terrorism, including to OBL. C) Enforcing the cease-fire agreement that Saddam signed in 1991. Saddam regularly broke that agreement by firing on US planes. D) Cutting off a source of logistical support for international terrorism, including Abu Nidal Group, the PLO and Al Qaeda. Saddam's government was actively supporting these organizations by giving them training centers like the one in Salman Pak in which they trained to highjack airplanes. E) Creating a regime that is friendly (or at least not hostile) to US interests in the Middle East.


I actually support strongly some of the initial goals. I think "E" is the loftiest goal and probably a sticking point for most Americans.


Victory?

As for the usage of the word "victory" it has always seemed to me to be wrongful terminology considering the landscape of the Iraqi war. I think the word "accomplished" perhaps is better suited. That being said I also see that most of our goals have been accomplished and I'm satisfied as is and perhaps many others are as well, obviously not everyone.


Who's children? Do you have children there? As far as I can tell, nobody in the US military is a child. They are all adults capable of making their own decisions, including the decision to join and in many cases REJOIN the military, knowing full well that they will be serving in Iraq.

When a person joins the military he/she takes on the responsibility that one day they may called upon for live duty. I think CeeBee2 was suggesting that for the most part those serving in Iraq still have parents living therefore are someones child. Even when your sixty-five years old and your mother is ninety, for example, you will always be her child.


A typical military tour of duty is 3-5 years. We have now been at war for 4 years. That means that the vast majority of those who didn't want to serve in Iraq are no longer in the military, and those who are currently in the military joined or rejoined knowing full well that they could get sent to Iraq or Afghanistan. And they joined anyway.

Tours can mean enlistment periods, but are often considered deployment periods. My brother was deployed to the Gulf one time by Bush Sr. and now three times by Bush Jr. in Iraq.


They aren't children. They are patriots

You're speaking in terms of actions and although I've known twenty year old men that acted with the simplicity of fourteen year old boys I agree that those serving are patriots.




Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 06/06/07 9:55 pm:
Thanks, Elliot, for the reply. And my two adult sons will always be my children.