If the US pulls out of Iraq...

[Hessian]

Wash Post Article: (as restated in a NYT article)
"Mr. Obaid also suggested that Saudi Arabia could cut world oil prices in half by raising its production, a move that he said “would be devastating to Iran, which is facing economic difficulties even with today’s high oil prices.”

Also,...massive aid would be handed over to Sunnis to help them defend against the aggressive Shiites, thus setting off a huge internecine war, and the economic crisis in Iran.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/w...&ex=1166590800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print)

Who could ask for anything more?
Mr Bush, our task is over, we offered democracy, rights, and order. They didn't want it, so...let them burn.
(And we get cheaper gas too!)

 

[Dondi]

If the US pulls out of Iraq...

...then Iraq won't get pregnant? :shrug:

 

[ylexot]

That is a much better solution (IMHO). I don't know why there is a push to get help from our Arab enemies (Iran & Syria) instead of a push to get help from our Arab friends (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Turkey, etc.)

 

[Hessian]

Clarified..

The question would then be raised...
Isn't that cut and run?
What about all those men & women who served to help free & rebuild Iraq?

Two tough questions:
My answer: No, it is not cut & run if we consider the war actually ended years ago: our forces did what they are trained to do: Beat an enemy-which we did.
But the sectarian violence has erupted and we have too many rules (ie Vietnam) to properly finish the job. So, if we are not allowed to enforce a rigid peace, and there are too many squabbles, get out until the dust settles.
Those men & women who put themselves in harm's way have served nobly. They DID win the peace, but the people don't want peace. We have left an infrastructure of schools, power grids, fresh water, etc...they have done the work of philanthropists & humanitarians. They earned their medals.
Now, we are done: there is nothing more we can or should do.
Since we gave them the ability of self determination: I say LET THEM DETERMINE their future. If it is gore & carnage and massacres...such is the product of their faith in ALLAH.- a testimony to all he has done for them.

Bring them home George, we won the war.

 

[smoothmarine187]

If the US pulls out of Iraq...

...then Iraq won't get pregnant? :shrug:

It could still get pregnant, the pullout method isn't as effective as a condom.....

 

[willie]

Like it or not, the ideal time has passed, it is going to be a cut and run.

We had the opportunity to bring that country and it's leaders to their knees so that they would not be a threat to us for years to come. Our troops did that. At that point we should have put our best choice of a heavy handed warlord in charge and left town. These people were born to pro-create and fight, no one will change their ways.

 

[PsyOps]

Like it or not, the ideal time has passed, it is going to be a cut and run.

We had the opportunity to bring that country and it's leaders to their knees so that they would not be a threat to us for years to come. Our troops did that. At that point we should have put our best choice of a heavy handed warlord in charge and left town. These people were born to pro-create and fight, no one will change their ways.

I completely disagree. If we pull out of Iraq it will become a stronghold for al Qaeda, if not a terrorist state. With the immense amount of oil in Iraq al Qaeda would have unlimited funds to plan and launch their attacks, making them more dangerous than ever. Your statement (in bold) is bigoted at best. That's like saying the Norwegians were born to be Vikings and terrorize the world. And the fact that Iraqis peacefully flocked to the polls to vote for their freedom and new government disputes your claim as well.

 

[vraiblonde]

Laura Ingraham was doing a bit today where she plays a bunch of soundbites and people call in to vote for which one they like best. One of the clips was of an American Iraqi Kurd woman who stood up at a Bush speech and praised him and his agenda, and praised the US troops for liberating 27 million Iraqis.

So the militias and mullahs can say all they want for the US to get out blahblahblah, and they can be backed by the American MSM all they want, but that doesn't mean they speak for the Iraqi people.

So Hessian, I disagree with you. I don't believe Iraqis are interested in gore and carnage, but they will fall prey to the next Saddam who takes power. They are a subjugated people and it's going to take awhile for them to get their act together.

Someone said (maybe on here) that you can't just hand people freedom - you have to *teach* them to be free. I agree with that. It's like former slaves during Reconstruction - they were like "Now what?" because the North just set them free but didn't bother helping them learn to *be* free. Then they got used as a political football and a tool to torment the South.

So I don't agree that the mission is over. There's still a long way to go.

 

[Larry Gude]

And I ask...

I completely disagree. If we pull out of Iraq it will become a stronghold for al Qaeda, if not a terrorist state. With the immense amount of oil in Iraq al Qaeda would have unlimited funds to plan and launch their attacks, making them more dangerous than ever. Your statement (in bold) is bigoted at best. That's like saying the Norwegians were born to be Vikings and terrorize the world. And the fact that Iraqis peacefully flocked to the polls to vote for their freedom and new government disputes your claim as well.

...so what? Iran isn't already? Syria isn't?

If this mission was so damn important, so critical to the security of the United States then why wasn't is worth using the violence necessary to achieve a reasonable out come, ie us in charge and making the rules?

If the answer is that we have let the Iraqi's make the rules, then maybe this, what they have now, is what they want.

If this mission was so important then why weren't Syria and Iran attacked when they started interfering? Was it not foreseeable that their interference would be hostile to a pro West Iraq?

What, exactly, can we accomplish on the ground there in terms of our national security that we can't accomplish, should it become Usama Bin Laden World, from a missile silo in North Dakota or a ballistic submarine? In other words, if they are so grave a threat to us, why can't we be a grave threat to them?

We've failed the Iraqi people yet again. It is not reasonable to expect them to help us or see things our way when they can't even go to the market without 50-100 a day being blown up.

Is is not reasonable to expect them to become Patrick Henry when working towards that goal, a westernized nation, gets them, as they volunteer to be cops and soldiers, killed.

It's not reasonable to expect them to fulfill our vision for them when we're not even in charge.

If our present leadership is so sure of the threats and need for success, however vague and undefined that term may be, yet have bowed to political pressure and newspapers, are they, perhaps, not the leaders we need? Don't we need people who can overcome political opponents and the left leaning media before they tackle bigger projects like enemies with real weapons?

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

I don't believe Iraqis are interested in gore and carnage, but they will fall prey to the next Saddam who takes power. They are a subjugated people and it's going to take awhile for them to get their act together.

Someone said (maybe on here) that you can't just hand people freedom - you have to *teach* them to be free. I agree with that. It's like former slaves during Reconstruction - they were like "Now what?" because the North just set them free but didn't bother helping them learn to *be* free. Then they got used as a political football and a tool to torment the South.

So I don't agree that the mission is over. There's still a long way to go.

...so why isn't it important enough, if Iraqi's feel like this woman does, to protect them until they can do it on their own?

They HAD to have time and security to have time to be taught and learn how to run a civil society. We did not give that to them. We Goddamn failed these people again, just like 41 did in 1991.

PS, Robert G said it, they need teaching.

 

[PsyOps]

...so what? Iran isn't already? Syria isn't?

If this mission was so damn important, so critical to the security of the United States then why wasn't is worth using the violence necessary to achieve a reasonable out come, ie us in charge and making the rules?

If the answer is that we have let the Iraqi's make the rules, then maybe this, what they have now, is what they want.

If this mission was so important then why weren't Syria and Iran attacked when they started interfering? Was it not foreseeable that their interference would be hostile to a pro West Iraq?

What, exactly, can we accomplish on the ground there in terms of our national security that we can't accomplish, should it become Usama Bin Laden World, from a missile silo in North Dakota or a ballistic submarine? In other words, if they are so grave a threat to us, why can't we be a grave threat to them?

We've failed the Iraqi people yet again. It is not reasonable to expect them to help us or see things our way when they can't even go to the market without 50-100 a day being blown up.

Is is not reasonable to expect them to become Patrick Henry when working towards that goal, a westernized nation, gets them, as they volunteer to be cops and soldiers, killed.

It's not reasonable to expect them to fulfill our vision for them when we're not even in charge.

If our present leadership is so sure of the threats and need for success, however vague and undefined that term may be, yet have bowed to political pressure and newspapers, are they, perhaps, not the leaders we need? Don't we need people who can overcome political opponents and the left leaning media before they tackle bigger projects like enemies with real weapons?

You and I have already been through this discussion and I agree with you. I'm simply pointing out the implications of pulling out early. We can't lose our patience or focus on doing 1) What's in our best interest and 2) The right thing. I'm sure a lot of the same questions were asked regarding the USSR threat. But we stayed in Europe for their security and because 1) It was in our best interest and 2) It was the right thing to do. Patience, resolve and sacrifice have always been what it has taken. Somewhere along the line we have lost all three of those concepts.

But in the end, I agree with you that we could have avoided all this if we had used overwhelming force not only in Iraq, but also in Iran and Syria to subdue these violent factions. Do the hard and unpopular thing and deal with the consequences later. Another concept this country has lost touch with.

 

[vraiblonde]

PS, Robert G said it, they need teaching.

That's right - he's a genius.

 

[Larry Gude]

Is it...

Patience, resolve and sacrifice have always been what it has taken. Somewhere along the line we have lost all three of those concepts.

...too late? Bush has patience and resolve and he seems all to happy to send troops back 3 and 4 times and is now actively recalling people, so, their sacrifice is self evident.

What about adding effective strategy to the list? Is it too late?

With the entrenchment of the militias and Lord knows how deep Tehran and Damascus's' influence goes and the total lack of effective action when the board was cleared of all these extra distractions and hurdles, what now?

Increasing troop levels and the violent use of them is nothing more than gratuitous and a vulgar attempt at face saving on the part of Bush absent a strategy that will sort out all the competing interests in any fashion reasonable to the growth of rule of law and individual rights. There is NO course to stay that validates another dime of US treasure or another drop of US blood.

What strategy will compel the militias to disband and submit to Baghdad?
They are a cancer that grows worse every day; removing them may now kill the patient.

What strategy will compel Syria and Iran to allow rule of law and individual rights to survive in Iraq, things that signal the beginning of the end of their regimes? Right now, they know all they have to do is what they have been doing; it's already been accepted by the administration. What's in it for them? There is NO strategy amenable to US interests that they will tolerate.

What strategy will compel Sunni's to accept Shia majority rule? What's in it for them?

What strategy will compel the Kurds to even consider giving up any of the autonomy they are establishing? What's in it for them?

What strategy will compel any Al Queda folks from giving up the Holy War they are waging that was initiated and predicated on our very presence in the Middle East? This isn't even remotely addressable by any strategy BUT leaving.

What strategy will compel the simple criminal elements to cooperate in ways that will only lessen their little fiefdoms they are establishing?

On top of all that, over 100,000 contractors are reported to be in Iraq; private soldiers, with contracts. Add to that the laborers, construction projects and the endless array of people who are making a fortune, fortunes predicated on the mess as it is now.

What is the case for staying? What is the case for one more dime? One more drop of our blood?

 

[Hessian]

"What is the case for staying? What is the case for one more dime? One more drop of our blood?"

This is a timely question.
I clearly remember the helicopters pulling off the Saigon roof tops...I don't want to see that again BUT....I suspect that is what is going to happen if we draw down with minimal stability.

It is time congress & the American people have a good dose of HISTORY before we make another stupid decision.
I was for invasion (I though Bush was too patient)
I am for the eradication of all the Bathist regime.
I do want the Iraqis to embrace democracy, and to mee their own needs,
BUT I AM GETTING TO darn impatient waiting to hear about improvement instead of declining conditions (and mind you I don't watch ANY network news, cable talk shows or subscribe to any newspapers)...but I still know that things are going crazy over there. (Thank you WWW news).

Sorry Vrai, I have run out of patience, they have run out of time.
We must resort to tougher firepower (which Bush won't do) or get out (which Bush is uncertain of how to do).

 

[Larry Gude]

What's wrong....

"
It is time congress & the American people have a good dose of HISTORY before we make another stupid decision.
I was for invasion (I though Bush was too patient)
I am for the eradication of all the Bathist regime.
I do want the Iraqis to embrace democracy, and to mee their own needs,
BUT I AM GETTING TO darn impatient waiting to hear about improvement instead of declining conditions (and mind you I don't watch ANY network news, cable talk shows or subscribe to any newspapers)...but I still know that things are going crazy over there. (Thank you WWW news).

...with the B'aathists? We sure ain't gonna get no Christians in charge over there and that means Moslems which means, likely, theocracy. I thought the baaths were kinda alright except Saddam ran off the reservation pretty much?

Aren't they our only real shot at a non-sectarian mindset?

The more I learn about this the more I'm stuck wondering what in the flying hell we thought was gonna happen. Saddam was stupid but he wasn't crazy.