Comments on: Why We Can’t Abandon Iraq http://www.roblimo.com/node/138 Observations about politics, the Internet, and other random topics Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:53:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Porceline http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-97669 Porceline Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:28:24 +0000 http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-97669 After so many years, isn't it obvious the only nation benefiting from the Iraq invasion is the US? After so many years, isn’t it obvious the only nation benefiting from the Iraq invasion is the US?

]]> By: thesocialistesq http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-1685 thesocialistesq Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:57:37 +0000 http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-1685 Interesting, and a mite courageous for someone who generally comes at the world from the left of things. But I must disagree. Iraq will get no better with an American presence, no matter how well-stratigized, benevolent, or determined. The fact of the matter is that we're occupying Iraq, killing people, getting our people killed, and salting the wounded pride of the Muslim world. The first step to ending this chaos is leaving. Iraq may well find itself in a vicious civil war if we withdraw, but the worst possible solution for that nation, for our nation, and for the world would be the solution that <b>we</b> impose on <b>them</b>. And we wouldn't be completely abandoning the Iraqis if we left. Their country has a semi-functioning, independent, democratically-elected government that has a fair shot at maintaining order in the absence of an American troop presence. If there is to be democracy <b>for</b> the Iraqi people, it will have to be made <b>of</b> and <b>by</b> the Iraqi people, not by America. Any other path would stink of American puppetry and suggest that we still held to the original <i>causus belli</i>, especially to the Muslim world. If we stay in Iraq, we will not get respect, we'll only get more hatred and mistrust. Interesting, and a mite courageous for someone who generally comes at the world from the left of things. But I must disagree. Iraq will get no better with an American presence, no matter how well-stratigized, benevolent, or determined. The fact of the matter is that we’re occupying Iraq, killing people, getting our people killed, and salting the wounded pride of the Muslim world. The first step to ending this chaos is leaving. Iraq may well find itself in a vicious civil war if we withdraw, but the worst possible solution for that nation, for our nation, and for the world would be the solution that we impose on them. And we wouldn’t be completely abandoning the Iraqis if we left. Their country has a semi-functioning, independent, democratically-elected government that has a fair shot at maintaining order in the absence of an American troop presence. If there is to be democracy for the Iraqi people, it will have to be made of and by the Iraqi people, not by America. Any other path would stink of American puppetry and suggest that we still held to the original causus belli, especially to the Muslim world. If we stay in Iraq, we will not get respect, we’ll only get more hatred and mistrust.

]]> By: tint http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-1197 tint Wed, 02 Aug 2006 07:17:32 +0000 http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-1197 It is apparent that this administration will never put in the amount of troops necessary to do the job nor will they ever be able to put together a real coalition of countries with "capable" forces and numbers. Or said more simply: the Kerry plan. More recently, what Hillary is saying. That said, it will take at the extreme least, three years to change anything in a positive direction. The question is, what will come first: A leader capable of pulling off stability, or complete uncontrollable chaos. Unfortunately it looks like the Marines should start looking for a sturdy rooftop that will hold a huey. t It is apparent that this administration will never put in the amount of troops necessary to do the job nor will they ever be able to put together a real coalition of countries with “capable” forces and numbers. Or said more simply: the Kerry plan. More recently, what Hillary is saying. That said, it will take at the extreme least, three years to change anything in a positive direction. The question is, what will come first: A leader capable of pulling off stability, or complete uncontrollable chaos. Unfortunately it looks like the Marines should start looking for a sturdy rooftop that will hold a huey.
t

]]> By: Gustav http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-1125 Gustav Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:51:37 +0000 http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-1125 Colin Powell hoodwinked our troops into a quagmire and then Powell abandoned our troops in the field when he conveniently resigned. Colin Powell hoodwinked our troops into a quagmire and then Powell abandoned our troops in the field when he
conveniently resigned.

]]> By: je.saist http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-327 je.saist Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:35:49 +0000 http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-327 I can debunk that oil myth in short order. #1: Alaska. We have known oil deposits in Alaska that Liberal Democrats refuse to allow drilling at. #2: Texas. We have known oil deposits in Texas that Liberal Democrats have made it financially unvialable to drill into with taxes on oil driolling companies, their workers, and the process. #3: California. A liberal democrat judge blocked drilling for oil off of the California coast pending a multi-year wildlife study. However, the length of the study was not determined. #4: Gas Refinery Process. Gas that is refined for Atlanta GA can not be sold in Augusta GA. Gas that is refined for San Francisco CA can't be sold in San Diego CA. When the restrictions against these refinery productions were dropped after Hurricane's Katrina and Rita there was no problem delivering Gas to where it needed to go, in fact is suddenly became cheaper. #5: Closed refineries: There are several hundred refineries spready across the US that are fully capable of processing oil into Gas. However due to work by Liberal Democrats many of these refineries have been forced into recievership and have to close doors. This again relates to the unfair Tax's and fines levied against Oil Producing Companies Quite Simply Peter, if the US was really greedy for oil we have enough supply in our own borders, and enough capability to process that oil, that we would never have to buy from a foriegn source at all. Liberal Democrats, however, have continously introduced legislation to make it impossible for oil companies to survive within the borders of the United States. Now, conservative Democrats and Conservative Republicans are not totally free of blame here since we did let the Liberal Democrats get away with making oil an unviable business in the United States, and we did let the judge get in place in California who could make that ruling. We did let the situation get this bad through our own in-action because we didn't stand up and say "that's wrong" when it happened, and we haven't done anything to stop or rectify the situation since. However, if Greed for Oil really was a driving factor in Iraq, or a driving factor in anything, we wouldn't be sending troops to Iraq. We'd be sending drilling machines to Alaska, California, and Texas. I can debunk that oil myth in short order.

#1: Alaska. We have known oil deposits in Alaska that Liberal Democrats refuse to allow drilling at.
#2: Texas. We have known oil deposits in Texas that Liberal Democrats have made it financially unvialable to drill into
with taxes on oil driolling companies, their workers, and the process.
#3: California. A liberal democrat judge blocked drilling for oil off of the California coast pending a multi-year wildlife
study. However, the length of the study was not determined.
#4: Gas Refinery Process. Gas that is refined for Atlanta GA can not be sold in Augusta GA. Gas that is refined for San Francisco CA can’t be sold
in San Diego CA. When the restrictions against these refinery productions were dropped after Hurricane’s Katrina and Rita
there was no problem delivering Gas to where it needed to go, in fact is suddenly became cheaper.
#5: Closed refineries: There are several hundred refineries spready across the US that are fully capable of processing oil into Gas.
However due to work by Liberal Democrats many of these refineries have been forced into recievership and have to close
doors. This again relates to the unfair Tax’s and fines levied against Oil Producing Companies

Quite Simply Peter, if the US was really greedy for oil we have enough supply in our own borders, and enough
capability to process that oil, that we would never have to buy from a foriegn source at all. Liberal Democrats, however,
have continously introduced legislation to make it impossible for oil companies to survive within the borders of the United States.

Now, conservative Democrats and Conservative Republicans are not totally free of blame here since we did let the Liberal Democrats get away
with making oil an unviable business in the United States, and we did let the judge get in place in California who could
make that ruling. We did let the situation get this bad through our own in-action because we didn’t stand up and say “that’s
wrong” when it happened, and we haven’t done anything to stop or rectify the situation since.

However, if Greed for Oil really was a driving factor in Iraq, or a driving factor in anything, we wouldn’t be sending troops to Iraq.
We’d be sending drilling machines to Alaska, California, and Texas.

]]> By: Peter http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-315 Peter Mon, 03 Jul 2006 22:55:08 +0000 http://www.roblimo.com/node/138#comment-315 I believe the reason the US would not like to get out of Iraq is not its benevolent mission of spreading "democracy" but rather satisfy its greed for "oil." I believe the reason the US would not like to get out of Iraq is not its benevolent mission of spreading “democracy”
but rather satisfy its greed for “oil.”

]]>