Maybe this is a variation of one of their 527 excuses so far, I dunno; I've lost track of all the different ones they've used so far. But this one I hadn't seen before.
This notion of pulling out of Iraq is insanely selfish.
Whaaaaaaaaa, you ask?
Yep, on our school forums at UCLA (no link: access only to UCLA students, faculty, & staff, sorry), this debate is going on, and a conservative student issued this response below the fold to someone on the left:
Frankly, I think this notion of pulling out is insanely selfish. And in so doing, you'd be condemning millions. Selfish, selfish, selfish. Whether you agree it was the right thing to do initially or not isn't the point. The fact is, you want us to abandon them at the time they most desperately need security. For being so interested in the humanitarianism of it all, you seem downright ruthless in your desire to condemn these people to death.
Edit: And this isn't even politics. I am legitimately creeped out by how easily you can say in good conscience that you'd support our leaving them with their own troubles. Especially if you think we're soley to blame. If, in fact, we made a mess, we have to fix it... {ahh, the Pottery Barn excuse - BruinKid} or they're all going to suffer even more than you think they are right now. Pulling out seriously is a scary thought for me.
So another student responded to this guy by saying:
The only "selfish" thing I see is people who'd rather keep feeding young American men into a meatgrinder than admit that we fucked up by going in there and don't know what the fuck we're doing now that we're there.
To which the conservative responded:
Ok, i'll concede that we can't know what would happen if we withdrew if you'd concede the same. The bottom line though is SECURITY. With all the deaths going on, it is completely glossed over that our troops are not only saving lives, but perhaps even more importantly, training Iraqis to save Iraqi lives. They have such a fledgling military system and such little experience in law enforcement, we are vitally needed, if for nothing else, to train them how to defend themselves. You're thinking too big a picture here if you get into the Shiite issues.
The bottom line is, they can't secure themselves yet, so we are. If we leave, they have no way to prevent total and utter chaos. It may seem bad there now, but it is far from chaos. It is far, far from how bad it could get and is far from what it would be if we leave.
That's just my opinion though. Thankfully, my opinion is shared not only by the majority of Americans, but by the majority of the government (on both sides of the aisle).
Edit: Oh, and to answer your question specifically, so we're clear...from my point of view, the primary job to finish is the security of the Iraqi people. Both in the short term sense and in the training for long-term. They must be made self-sufficient, regardless of all politics.
When the first student he was responding said that we cannot succeed in Iraq, and that they do not want us there anymore, the conservative then responded:
You are suggesting we make a MAJOR policy opinion on our opinions of whether or not we are capable of success. To me, it is an acceptable risk to TRY. You are saying give up hope, leave, and let it rot. I say, if we CAN save the situation...we MUST.
And you have no idea what they do or do not want. You hear the high profile detractors, fine...democracy works in masses and neither of us know the ACTUAL numbers. Neither of us can be so presumptuous and we certainly can't make policy based on assumptions.
The thread then went stupid when after a liberal asked why we basically went into Iraq alone, another conservative (with even weirder beliefs than the first guy, BTW) said:
Because Saddam paid off France, Germany, China.
I responded to the first conservative thusly:
Why do you think we can still save the situation? Save
what, exactly?
Iran is downright giddy about the new Islamic state that's about to be set up in Iraq. What are we saving there now? Islamic theocracy?
The masses, BTW, are living in absolute fear for their lives on a daily basis. Women? Say hello to Sharia law. How can they vote or even publicly voice their opinion if they're not allowed to leave the house? Talks with the Sunni population have broken down just earlier today.
How is this not getting worse and worse on a daily basis?
I didn't even bring up (yet) his being a chickenhawk and all. Ditto for the second guy.
He hasn't responded to my query just yet. You guys have any additional responses/thoughts/ideas about what to say to him and his ilk?
Oh yeah, he had this to say about Cindy Sheehan:
It completely trivializes a person's death to act like this...she's making it seem like he died in vane instead of for a noble cause. It's particularly offensive if he, on a political level, supported the war.
I was talking to an old friend of mine who's in the Marines about this the other day. I know he'd be very offended if someone he knew disrespected the cause he believed in--and died for--like this woman is doing.
In fact...someone I knew in high school died in the war. Another person i've known since first grade turned into a hardcore activist directly because of it. It "opened her eyes." He believed in the war and in the cause he fought and died for. Out there protesting in his honor, she is spitting in his face.
What a shame.
See, even in a place like UCLA, there's a whole bunch of them chickenhawks. Oh yeah, someone else called me a chicken because I haven't volunteered to go fight in this war.