Why we need to stay in Iraq

[troublemaker]

I take a back seat to no one in my opposition to starting the Iraq war. That said, I am disturbed by how many people say we need to leave Iraq.

There are two separate issues. In a well-functioning republic Bush would be removed from office for Iraq... actually he would have been removed before Iraq just for suggesting it.

But the only reason I can see to leave Iraq would be to demonstrate that Bush's war was a mistake. I'd love to see him humiliated. I'd love it if 90% of the country said the Iraq war was an incredible blunder. But I am not prepared to have the blood of another 50,000-500,000 Iraqis on our hands just to make a political point.

If we pull out of Iraq the place will collapse. Things are bad today, but I'm talking about COLLAPSE. Full-out civil war. Countless Iraqi dead. Look to Bangladesh to see what a modern civil war can look like... serious genocide on all sides. Maybe millions dead.

Nobody in Iraq asked for that! We cannot create a situation ripe for genocide and then walk away, no matter what it costs us in lives and dollars.

Whether it takes 1000 more American lives or 20,000 to make Iraq a better place in the long run we have no choice. We made a national commitment to the Iraqi people. We cannot say "Bush did it" because he didn't. America did! We, as a nation, allowed Bush to be president and now we are, as a nation, stuck with his actions. That's how it works.

I have never thought of Bush as the legitimate President and it pains me that he can ring up moral obligations for the rest of us, but he has and we must now honor them.

[Postman]

1. Have you enlisted yet?

"Whether it takes 1000 more American lives or 20,000 to make Iraq a better place in the long run we have no choice"

...Wrong answer.

I do have a choice. My kids aren't going. And what is with all this "we" shit?

There is no "we" when it comes to this unjust war.

Make sure you be the first to follow your own advice and run down to the local recruiter and sign up.

BTW. I'm a vet of the US Navy.

[troublemaker]

55. Clever

"Have you enlisted yet?" Why not just say "Go back to Russia?"

[Selwynn]

66. Yeah that was a jackass comment, however there's a valid point ...

His point is not totally without merit.

You say 1000 lives or 20,000 makes no difference, we don't have a choice but to stay in Iraq. Even I think that is overly-simplistic.

At what point is the cost to American lives too great, seeing as how we simply cannot go around with our military and go fix every problem everywhere in the world (I disagree that the military would even be the mechanism to fix many of the problems in the first place.) So we can't do everything or be every where or fix everything. So, we have to ask - at what point does the cost become higher than the benefit?

20,000 US lives? What about 200,000? When does it become too great? Certainly there has to be a point where you say, "ok we tried, but we've got to get out of there."

That being said, I'm playing devils advocate. I'm not sure the answer is keeping all of our troops on the ground, but I don't just want to completely cut and run and leave Iraq to utter collapse in on itself. I believe that Wes Clark had a pretty good outline for a plan in Iraq. One of the things that needs to happen, is we need to throw bush out of office and then apologize to the rest of the world and get them willing to work together with us again. We need an international coalition in Iraq, we need the full backing of the UN, and we need ti relinquish some of our control to the world community. Then we can start rotating our troops out and decrease the amount of US presence necessary gradually, but starting immediately. Our aim should not be to stay until Iraq can govern itself - our aim should be to stay until we can turn over authority to the UN.

I don't believe we can or should just drop everything and pretend like we are not fucking responsible for the hell hole that is Iraq. But I also don't believe just keeping all our troops on the ground there or refusing to work together with the international community will accomplish anything but the loss for more US lives...

[Postman]

85. In the words of a young John Kerry...

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

The problem is this-

Bush is not going to leave Iraq. There is NO exit strategy. Bases are being constructed in Iraq right now. This is a permanent presence just like Germany was after WWII.

The Bush fascsists are hoping to whether the storm of casualties until the time comes to hand over power to some puppet regime and then withdrawal troops to their bunker bases ensuring the oil-fields remain safe.

This is a govt hijacked by the PNAC with the goal of guaranteeing Israels security.

They don't care how many American men and woman have to die to acheive their goals.

This is the Machiavelli Administration.

[Postman]

93. "We" can't fix Iraq...

you seem to want to right the wrong of the invasion. While admirable, I don't believe it's possible.

An imperfect analogy: an intruder invades your home and rapes your wife. You catch him. He acknowledges his crime and wnats to stay in your home to make things "right"...would accept that??????

[Junkdrawer]

2. How about we take part in the UN peace keeping mission...

IF, in fact, Iraq does fail. But shouldn't they be given the chance to run their own country?

[trumad]

5. 50,000 to 500,000

where do you get those numbers? A guess?

Get the UN in there and diminish our role... The US out to cancel all pending contracts with US firms and let the international community take over... That's what we out to do... 20,000...give me a fucking break!

[thebigidea]

3. it pains me to suggest that you should enlist...

after all, there's light at the end of the tunnel. Staunch defenders of freedom like L. Paul Bremer III could use your ilk!



"But I am not prepared to have the blood of another 50,000-500,000 Iraqis on our hands just to make a political point."

Well, your curent view will help keep that blood on your hands, but it'll be making Bush's political point. Huzzah!

[never cry wolf]

4. You are right, we can't just up and leave

What needs to be done is for the US to go hat in hand back to our old allies in old europe and to the UN, admit we f**ked up, we will allow full UN control of contracts and nation building asking "Will you all please assist us with military and money."

Obviously we would still have to have some troops there but hopefully a truly multi-national coalition led by the UN working for the true good of the Iraqi people instead of intent on plundering their resources will quiet down the unrest and allow a functioning Iraqi government to emerge.

[Windy]

8. We will not get UN support until Bush and his PNAC pals are ousted!!

No one trusts Bush much less wants to work with us based upon the behavior of this administration, and frankly the behavior of some of our citizens. And bush is never going to give his support to allowing the UN to take over. It is a sad state of affairs. While I don't think we can cut and run for our own safety and the stability of the middle east directly due to the mess this administration has made of the region, this is a war that should never have been started and before my two sons are drafted into a war that is illegal, I'll become a citizen of Canada.
I think the 50% of this country who supports this war should send their sons and daughters and leave mine and others who have desented from the beginning alone.

(I'm a former member of the US Air Force)

[never cry wolf]

26. Exactly

shrubbie and the neo-cons will never give up their ill gotten loot, they stole it fair and square after all. They have been having wet dreams about iraq for over a decade and besides, it is only the first step towards the PNAC dream of global empire, pax-americana, the jumping off point. Secure the oil, keep your hand on the nozzle and no other potential rivals can threaten you if you can threaten to cut them off.

This is why this may be the most important election in our history.

"If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely,
and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

- Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle (One of the PNAC founders, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, and yes, that is his real nickname in DC!)

Welcome to DU Windy!!

:hi:

[PsN2Wind]

11. You got it right

Even with a change in administration, it's going to be a hard sell to convince the Iraqis we are now there for their benefit so please ignore all that the US and GB have done to them. Maybe IF the UN and a real international group take over the rebuilding they might, at some point, reap that gratitude for the removal of Saddam. On the other hand it might require another person, much like Saddam, to hold the place together and make it like it was before the US instigated Iran-Iraq war, GW1 and the years of sanctions AND bombings.

[Malva Zebrina]

28. probably true

if Kerry wins the election, he will not be trusted anymore than Bush--because he voted for the war.

I will vote for Kerry because I do not think he is a fascist leaning as Bush, but it is a fact that he did vote for this war, and it is a fact that he thinks since we did it, well, hell, then, no harm in advocating staying there to "fix things"

I think we need to simply leave. Of course the reason we do not is because all of the two hundred or more coporations that making humonguous profits off it , need, of course to be protected, no matter how many of our men and women die to do so.

This is absoulutely disgusting

I voted for Kucinich--I will vote for Kerry, but my vote is nore against Bush, of course, than for Kerry.

I find him just too much embedded in the establishment.

[never cry wolf]

38. Read Kerry's position, will ya?

Priorities
Return to the International Community and Offer a Real Partnership to Rebuild Iraq
John Kerry believes that we must obtain a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding of Iraq and the development of its new Constitution and government. He would:
Transfer Responsibility to the UN for Governance. Kerry will go to the UN with a proposal to transfer responsibility to the UN for governance and the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. The UN would succeed the Coalition Provisional Authority and the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General would become the overall international leader in Iraq. The UN would work with the Iraqis on the substance and process of the Iraqi government and the electoral process to give it legitimacy and to organize the writing of the constitution. Kerry cautioned that this cannot happen overnight and that the CPA will have a key role in ensuring a smooth turnover.
Build an International Coalition. Kerry will reach out to the European nations to build a coalition in support of operations in Iraq. He will eliminate Bush’s discriminatory contracting procedures and offer a genuine partnership of responsibility in return for a genuine partnership of burden sharing – troops and money.


http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html

on edit: admitedly, not as aggressive as DK, who I also voted for but most certainly a change from what the boy king will do.

[Malva Zebrina]

62. OK--will do--I am of an open mind and will vote for him, no matter what

I just wish he would energize his campaign a little more.

[bemildred]

6. You are assuming we can "fix it" by staying.

History and all the evidence are against you.
We have fucked it up so far and there is no reason
whatsoever to suggest that we will not continue to
do so indefinitely into the future.

[NJCher]

10. amen, bemildred

Cher

[Aidoneus]

51. excellent point, my friend

A point that the "those savages need our guidance!" crowd usually overlooks.

[bemildred]

57. Thank you.

I thought your comment on what exactly in the US
political structure needed a hammer taken to it was
right on, too. The two-party duopoly needs to be
broken, it is that which is used to restrict our
political choices and the terms of debate to maintain
the power of the oligarchy.

I think that the internet will take care of the problem
with the media.

[The Magistrate]

58. Indeed, Mr. Mildred

The place will get worse if we stay there.

The place will get worse if we leave.

All proposals for departure of U.S. forces, including that of Rep. Kucinich, are predicated on the United Nations taking over for United States forces, and there does not seem any reason to me to believe the United Nations will do this, or that any other competent power will make available soldiers for a peace-keeping garrison if it does. Nor does there seem to me any reason to suppose it would make the slightest difference to the Iraqi guerrillas now in arms against occupation of their country if this occupation were conducted under the U.N. flag instead of the U.S. flag.

The situation is a classic "FUBAR", my friend. It will only continue to deteriorate, no matter what is done. There was no good way in; there is no good way out.

"You can't get there from here...."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bemildred]

60. I tend to side with Aidoneus, and Mr. Fisk apparently.

I think there is a decent shot that the Iraqis will take
control of their own affairs and make their own arrangements
in a manner that is not too messy. No guarantees of course,
and still a certain number of dead. In any case there seems
little good to be accomplished by trying to stop them, and
much certain harm.

:hi:

[The Magistrate]

61. For My Own Part, Sir

We might as well get out immediately: we are going to have to sooner or later, and my inclination is for biting the bullet and getting things over quickly, if it is clear they cannot be avoided.

But it does not seem to me likely the situation will be much improved by our departure, but that it will only go wrong in different ways. Neither Kurds nor Sunni Arabs will abide the rule of the Shia; the Sunni Arabs have no resources of their own save the patronage of governance. Any government will be an Islamicist one in character, and while that may well be what the people, or at least the males, desire, such regimes are abhorrent to me on many grounds. Nor can efforts by Turkey or Iran to go a'viking on the troubled waters be ruled out altogether.

"Beat the drowning dog."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bemildred]

71. History certainly supports your position Sir.

And certainly there are many thorny issues to be disposed of
to achieve a state of repose. Although one might expect
things to settle down over time, if for no other reason
than exhaustion. It is of course also quite clear that the
neighboring states would have a good deal to say in the
matter, when we have left, and a number of concerns of their
own to agitate over. OTOH the Iraqi's have been fairly
resolute so far in avoiding fighting among themselves, despite
considerable provocation from the occupiers, and there are
other things that suggest one may hope for something better
than bloody chaos.

The most important issue in my own thinking is that the longer
we are there, the more radicalized the population will become,
and the sooner we leave, the sooner that radical transformation
will begin to unwind itself in a hoped for restoration of the
secular modernizing trends that were in place before we began
meddling with the place.

[The Magistrate]

83. Inertia v. Exhaustion, My Friend

The elemental poles of human behavior, indeed.

Your point about the increasing radicalization of the people through continued occupation is a good one. Occupation provides a reason for people to shed constraints on behavior and take up arms in violence, and once people have done this, a good proportion cannot let it go, having found or developed a taste for it, or unsuited themselves to any other endeavor by the bridges they burnt in doing so. Therefore the longer occupation continues, the more volatile will be the situation after it ceases, as there will be more persons habituated to violence.

It does seem to me, though, that the presence of occupation serves as a cap on violence between the various Iraqi factions, rather than to exacerbate it, and it might as well be stated flat out that the idea the U.S. has been working to exacerbate faction within Iraq just now rings hollow to me, for it does not seem there would be anything useful in administering the place to be gained at this time by such actions.

Occupation seems to me to work as a damper on violence between Iraqi factions for two reasons. First, the occupier serves as a common enemy for all factions, who will thus have at least some impetus to unity and fraternal feeling because of that. Second, the main leadership of the people sure to prevail in a real civil war, the Shia, has under Ay. al'Sistani shown considerable political acumen and discipline. Ay. al'Sistani has chosen to take many of the occupier's pretenses at face value, particularly that of "bringing democracy to Iraq", in the knowledge that any genuine efforts to do this must bring the greatest benefit to his faction. This places him in a position where he can get the occupiers to do a good deal of his work for him, and weaken many of his opponents, such as the Sunni Arabs, and the radical Shia faction of al'Sadyr, prior to the end of occupation, and thus give him a leg up on the struggle for power once the occupier is gone. Ay. al'Sistani walks a delicate line in doing this, for he must present certain defiances to the occupier, and show that the occupier must court him and make concessions to him, so that he does not become discredited as a mere collaborator, but he has shown great skill in managing to do just that, and his people have shown real faith and discipline in following his canny lead.

"Another fine mess you've got us in, Ollie!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bemildred]

87. You raise interesting issues that I have reached no settled opinion about.

I have no doubt at all that we would employ divide and rule
tactics, and have done so in Iraq. However, you are correct
that that is a double edged sword and can easily do more harm
than good to the cause of the occupation. One must balance
that equation with the fact that the current leadership is a
pack of ignorant loons, and the fact that - once one has
acknowledged that we must leave Iraq to pursue its existence
outside our control - the current US foreign policy elites
would most likely prefer to leave it a balkanized and debilitated
place.

Edit: I should add that, based on the need at this point to
project an appearance of order and control, I tend to agree that
there is little liklihood they have really been trying to stir
things up, and hence that the current behavior of the colonial
administration must be assigned to stupidity rather than
malevolence. (Napoleon's rules seems to apply here.)

[The Magistrate]

91. That Is True, My Friend

It is my habit to assume competence in execution, at least, even where the policy being executed verges on lunacy, but this current pack of numbskulls does make that a dangerous default position.

It may well be a better thing in the long run for all concerned if Iraq were divided into its three natural constituents, but that is something my own mind remains divided on, as well.

"When you oppose stupidity, you oppose a vested interest with powerful friends in every walk of public and private life."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[bemildred]

96. I am a fan of self-determination for peoples.

It is no guarantee of peace, but the domination of one people
by another is a certain guarantee of war. For that reason
I am attracted to the idea of a federal system or three
separate nation states. But that is a matter for the Iraqis
to settle, and I expect they will have their work cut out.

[The Magistrate]

99. It Is Indeed Their Own Business, Sir

Nothing to do with us. Everyone and every people has the right to hiegh themselves to Hell in their own handbasket, by their own chosen route....

"On the whole, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Djinn]

69. I wont for staying IF

this action had ANYTHING to do with "freedom" and/or "democracy" for teh Iraqi's. It is patently obvious to anyone watching that this is a land and resource grab.

I'm not really a huge Naomi Klein fan but she's one of the few people writing about the wholesale plunder of Iraq in mainstream sources

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1079603,00.html

[The Magistrate]

70. An Excellent Reference, Ma'am

Ms. Klein's analysis of this situatuion is a cogent one, that deserves much wider circulation than it gets.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Djinn]

102. can't edit anymore

but the subject header in the post above was supposed to read: I wouldn't be against staying IF - monday morning and not enough sleep made it come out like that!

[mmonk]

7. How long?

How long should we be so stretched? Who will come join us? How will we know its safe to leave later? I think we came in to create permanent bases anyhow (though not having this many people stationed there), so I see us staying even after transfer of "sovereignty". I also see us getting continually attacked as long as we have a presence of any type. So what's the answer, just indefinitely, as more and more people die?

[FloridaPat]

9. We have to pull out and take Halliburton with us. Then make

sure the UN goes in. Everyone in the world knows that we are there to steal everything including the oil. Things are going to be bad until we and the goons are out. Send in the UN.

[acmavm]

12. I had some harsh words to start off with, but I took them out and decided

to start all over again by asking you exactly what it is that you think we can do? Exactly how do you think the presense of American troops in Iraq is going to make this situation any better? Do you know of a way that we can stop this situation for spiraling out of control, because if you do, you really need to tell someone because it started to do that a couple of months back.

And why do American troops owe it to bush* & Co. to pull their asses out of the fire? You are right, we NEVER EVER should have gone in there. We should have concentrated on fighting terrorism and Al Quaeda. But then, if we had done that, how was the bush* cabal to get their slimy hands on the Iraqi oil fields? This escapade is going to go the exact same was as Korea and Viet Nam. We are fighting half way across the globe, on their turf, and by their rules. We have two options, blow them all up and start over OR leave. Because the natives are getting mighty restless and THEY DON'T WANT US THERE. You are buying the propaganda of lies pushed by bush* and his buddies that only 'insurrgents' are fighting us. Well, fine if you classify the majority of Iraqis as insurrgents. Because you average Achmed on the street will tell you that they want the occupiers (US) out. Or hey, just crown Chalabi and let him run the show? Hell no. He and his crew are simply a bunch of lying criminal opportunists who knew a bunch of warmongering greedy idiots when they say one, and they ran with it. This war was based on greed, lies, and stupidity. Not a winning combination.

As as for the troops. The real troops have been pulled out. What we have now are a lot a poorly trained weekend warriors who do not want to be there and never did. Not good morale for fighting forces.

And how do you expect us to keep paying for this war? The costs aren't even built into the budget, so taking the budget, tax breaks for the rich, and the war into consideration, we are almost all tapped out. Unless the people who are making the most from this war are willing to agree to quit ripping everyone off, and that is not going to happen.

I've said the before, and I'll say it again. This is nothing new to the Middle East. They have seen it time and time again. And they have beaten back the occupation every time. This time will be no different.

[troublemaker]

27. Thanks for the thoughtful response

re: "You are buying the propaganda of lies pushed by bush* and his buddies that only 'insurgents' are fighting us."

No need to be nasty. I am well aware of the depth of resistance. That doesn't mean that our leaving TODAY would quell anything. The assumption seems to be that if Iraqis weren't trying to drive out Americans things would be peaceful there. I don't buy that at all.

If the Sadr brigades weren't fighting Americans today they would be fighting Sistani's militias and Sunni militias. It would be like Beirut times ten.

re: "And why do American troops owe it to bush* & Co. to pull their asses out of the fire?"

I don't get this. The troops owe nothing to Bush. They are, however, agents of America and America has rung up a huge moral obligation in Iraq. (The way things are going, if we pulled out now that might be politically BETTER for Bush.)

re: "exactly what it is that you think we can do?"

Provide as much stability as we can--that's our moral obligation. If I thought our involvement TODAY is causing net Iraqi deaths vs. reducing them TODAY I'd say we need to leave. Instead, it's pretty obvious that if we left today there would be all-out wars in several ethnic-religious axes simultaneously and we would have to rush back in for humanitarian reasons anyway.

Things may not improve at all, but even if we have to stay ten years trying to stave off civil war as nothing but a holding action, we owe that to Iraq.

Given the realities of the region I expect we will fail, but then we knew that when we went in, right?

[mike1963]

36. Why do we "owe it" to them? America survived a civil war...

although what it has evolved into the last few years might give pause to just how "well" it did so.

Iraqis, having lived in an artificial "country" for 90 years, have a pretty good history of sorting out their priorities (which obviously goes back a couple of millennium.)

They've become quite accomplished at killing each other...perhaps, if it's inevitable, it would be "better" if they do it themselves without our shock and awe...

[sangha]

42. I found that incredibly heartless

The Iraqis history is extremely violent, and shows no sign that the Iraqi people will "sort out their priorities". More likely, they will kill each other, and they will not stop.

And there's your "it would be "better" if they do it themselves without our shock and awe..."

Need I comment on that?

[Djinn]

104. mmmmm?

"More likely, they will kill each other, and they will not stop."

so better if American soldiers do it for them...and that's apart from the racist rational implied here

[troublemaker]

50. Tricky Morality -- tough to say

re:They've become quite accomplished at killing each other...perhaps, if it's inevitable, it would be "better" if they do it themselves without our shock and awe...

I guess I'm from an ethical tradition where life is a holding action against death. You won't win, but you fight anyway.

I expect Iraq to blow up someday, but if we hadn't gone in it probably wouldn't blow up today. Every day the don't blow up is another day that something good might happen. It probably won't but we can only do what we can do.

[DrWeird]

13. If we leave Iraq the commies will take over.

After Iraq it will be Australia. And then we'll have this domino effect were the commies slowly take over one nation after another until they take over the world.

[Djinn]

107. You know sarcasm

isn't well understood here DrWeird!
And anyway - it's too late for us in Australia - we went commie after you left Vietnam - just as all those fine pollies said would happen! :evilgrin:

[pippin]

14. What do you mean

"If we pull out of Iraq the place will collapse." Hasn't it collapsed already thanks to the US?

Whatever Sadam was--monsters, dictator, tyrant--Iraq did have a modicum of stability for thirty years. So what has the US wrought right now? A political quagmire, daily blood baths and you don't call that a collapse? Give me a break!

[troublemaker]

16. Say What?

"Hasn't it collapsed already thanks to the US?"

Yes. What's your point? Unless we have a time machine we are stuck with the facts as of today.

Saddam is gone. That stabalizing force no longer exists. That's why we cannot pull out.

"Hey guys, we're sorry that we destroyed the only government you had. We've gotta go now. Good Luck!"

The fact that the Iraq War was among the most grotesque actions ever taken by the US doesn't mean we should now pull out. The two things have little to do with each other.

[bemildred]

19. His point is the same as mine in post #6.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that we
are a positive factor in the situation, or that we
could be.

[troublemaker]

15. Flame-bait

I knew this would be flame-bait when I posted it but I'm genuinely curious where people are on this.

The observation that there's no "we" is weird--that implies no continuity in American government. If WE are ashamed of our country (I sure am) then we are saying it's OUR country.

This dove-tails with the "why don't you enlist" posts. Why do people think they can walk away from their own responsibility for Iraq just because Bush isn't their guy? I don't remember any crowd of a million people storming the Supreme Court when Bush was appointed. We ALL let this happen.

The question of where I get 50,000-500,000 Iraqi dead if we left? Just my guess. But let's say it's only 1000. We still don't have the right to let an extra 1000 people die for OUR mistakes.

If anyone seriously believes that we would save Iraqi lives by leaving, fair enough. I disagree with the conclusion but at least the morality of it is sound. In practice, if we pull out precipitously there will be a power struggle that will make what's gone on so far look trivial.

As far as responsibility goes... Bush wasn't my guy. I think he belongs in prison. But no matter how little you or I are responsible for the Iraq war there's one thing we can be sure of. WE WERE ALL IN A BETTER POSITION TO PREVENT THE WAR THAN THE AVERAGE IRAQI. Our failure shouldn't equate to their misery.

[Postman]

17. Robert Fisk says US leaving will not result in civil war

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=508176

Dust off the flak jacket. Lay low. And stay off the streets...
At the end of his latest tour, our correspondent reflects on a horrific week in the nation and looks ahead to 30 June
By Robert Fisk
04 April 2004


What would happen if the Americans left tomorrow? This has become the latest buzz-question in the US media. Civil war. Chaos. Anarchy. So we cannot leave. We have to protect the Iraqi people. Ergo, the Iraqi people don't want us to leave. We are protecting them from civil war. We are saving them from themselves. The problem is that many Iraqis would prefer to have the responsibility to look after themselves without our presence.

[troublemaker]

31. Fair enough

As an empirical matter, if our leaving today would promote Iraqi welfare I'm for it.

I think we have a moral obligation to do what's best for Iraq, not what's best for America. We fucked this up, not them.

My objection is to the "Bush did this so why should we have to pay for it" mind-set.

[PsN2Wind]

22. "But let's say its only a thousand"

I think the Iraqis would consider that a bargain at the rate they're dying with us there. How many do you feel should die to be saved?

[troublemaker]

32. I mean an additional 1000 (above whatever happens with us there) n/t

[Postman]

24. You must have one helluva guilt complex...

Just because Bush is the pResident - that means everyone is collectively guilty of what has happened in Iraq?

Hello? Earth to "troublemaker", come in..

I marched against the war before it happened, wrote letters, made phone calls....all for naught. Did I fail? Am I responsible for what Bush did? Don't even try to lay that shit on me.

Get the hell out of Iraq. Now.

[troublemaker]

34. You are apparantly still alive

So neither you or I did "everything" we could. During Vietnam people were immolating themselves at the Pentagon.

[Postman]

35. Okay, I didn't kill myself in protest.

What's stopping you from immolating yourself?

I'd rather live to vote the bastards out of office.

[Karenina]

30. Where this person is on this...

You think the U.S. military under the control of a *corrupt regime that seized its control should remain in Iraq. Please do exchange places with Mari's son and back up your conviction with action.

[robertpaulsen]

18. The longer we stay, the more likely the nightmare scenarios will come true

After all, every nightmare scenario you listed is exactly what happened in Vietnam. Civil war, genocide, millions dead. Granted in Vietnam we entered a situation where civil war already existed. But it was American escalation that destabilized Cambodia, leading to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the subsequent Killing Fields.

Now on the subject of civil war, I've already posted my belief that this is a BFEE concoction that the media gobbled up. It's more likely the Shiites would take up arms against Americans than Sunnis, as we've witnessed today with the deaths of 10 U.S. soldiers at the hands of Shiites, not Sunni "dead-enders". I'll try to find a link to the Robert Fisk column that provides the clearer picture of the unlikelihood of Shiite-Sunni civil war.

Bottom line, I believe you are incorrect when you say we don't have a choice. We have the same choice before us that LBJ faced in 1965. The fate of our nation rests on that choice. Since we still have another 7 months of Dumbya in power, I fear the wrong choice will be made.

[robertpaulsen]

20. See post 17 for the excellent Robert Fisk article.

[Mari333]

21. You go, you can take the place of our kid in Baghdad

in fact send your own kid while you are at it.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[ConcernedCanuk]

23. It was that kind of thinking that made Vietnam the disaster it was

.
.
.

and Korea

both countries survived

But millions died before the US pulled out.

Iraqis will get their act together when the invaders are gone

No chance while the US is there

They should get the heck out

If nothing else,

it will save many American lives

And Iraq, can just be

Iraq.

[terisel]

25. We did not Elect Bush-5 Supreme Court Justices Installed Him

Bush was thrust upon us by 5 justices or American Ayatollahs. America didn't start a war, Bush did. He had no mandate. He stole his office. He started an unnecessary war through lies and manipulations.

The neo-cons who have already been discredited are now trying to to claim that "it doesn't matter how we got there, we have to stay the course".

This is bull. We are being pushed out of Iraq by Iraqis who are engaged in beginning their own civil war. Our troops are outnumbered and being sacrificed to Bush politics-Bush can't raise the volunteers and dare not initiate a draft until after November because, incredibly, he wants another term.

Men of honor would not attempt to obtain a 2nd term in office after the brutal mess they have made on America and Iraq.

Reparations will need to be paid at some point and I believe that those reparations will have to come first from the personal fortunes of those involved in installing Bush office and in propagandizing the war.
Believe me, they would rather have jail terms than lose their money-and the more we demand reparations from them the faster we will be rid of them.

The best thing we can do for Iraq at this point is get Bush and Cheney out of office and get a truly strong president who can take responsibility from here on-such a move in the next 6 weeks would dramatically change the the world situation for the better.

Our hands are tied with Bush and Cheney in office. So long as the aggressors are still in power here, the Iraqi situation will get worse.

If we have to wait for the election-the situation may deteriorate beyond repair.

In any case the new president will have to totally reject Bush/Cheney, acknowledge the errors, and yet still project massive strength. Such a president will have to articulate and demonstrate a super strong but humanitarian-interventionist policy, and get the UN involved. It is the only thing that has a chance of stopping the blood-lust in Iraq and bringing other nations along to repair the damage.

In short, our moral obligation is to get Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Hughes/Wolfowitz and the rest of them out of office and heading for jail.

[Postman]

29. remind me to thank the mainstream press for holding their feet to the fire

these corporate scandal whores have the backbone of a jellyfish and are just as much of the problem as the Bush fascists.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. Yet the American people supported him...

I couldn't figure out why Bush wanted the IWR vote before the midterm election instead of after, I had assumed that a pre-emptive war on Iraq would meet heavy opposition and attacks on the administration making congress go more democratic. Apparently I was wrong, they used it to their advantage and took down Cleland, and Mondale. Of course, it's questionable as to how supportive they would have been with no faulty intelligence to believe.

[Walt Starr]

33. Complete withdrawal is the only honorable course

It was an illegal war. We should pump the Iraqi treasury up with money and simply walk away.

[DulceDecorum]

37. Colonial powers ALWAYS say

that once they leave there will be a civil war.

That is why they must remain and kill huge numbers of all the civilians before the civilians have a chance to fall upon each other's throats.

It is the White Man's Burden
since savages CANNOT rule themselves.

[troublemaker]

41. Yes, they always say that

The fact that many have claimed something as pretext doesn't make it inaccurate in all cases. The British said that if they left India a religious war would break out killing nobody knows how many hundreds of thousands or millions. And that's just what happened.

I love the accusations of racism in many replies here--that I don't think the Iraqis can govern themselves because their foreign types. I think Iraqis cannot govern themselves TODAY because we destroyed their government and they have no friggin' security apparatus.

I am not proposing colonizing Iraq. I am proposing that we must stay long enough to have some sort of governmental process, however flawed, so that some sort of representative Iraqi government can tell us to leave.

The biggest tragedy of this war isn't the Iraqis we've killed ourselves (plenty) but the even larger number that have killed each other because there's no civil order whatsoever.

If circumstances allow us to leave in a week then that's what it is. I'm all for it. But what I'm seeing on these boards is that we need to leave as a pure matter of principle, which implies a "fuck the Iraqis" attitude.

[terisel]

64. If you want to stay you need an overwhelming force

Just "wanting" to stay doesn't work. It needs to be backed up with a huge well-trained and well-equipped force. It requires militarization on a fairly large scale. This is an ongoing war.

Bush and Cheney and Bremer and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are not in control. At this point they are the public face of a massive failure.

If you want to stay you need to draw up a plan and present it. The US right now has no plan.That is what even Lugar is saying.

We are being forced out, and at some point will be airlifting our soldiers out of enclaves. It will be like the helicopter lifting people off the roof of the American embassy in Saigon-but a lot worse.

"Morality" at this point has no meaning. Withdrawal under Bush will be seen by Iraqis as as weakness and encourage even more violence. Bush does not have the will to do what is necessary to stay, because he thinks it will lead to his defeat in November. He was counting on his lies on progress in Iraq being able to carry him through to next Fall-It is not going to work.

He is losing his base over the Iraq War. They do not want to continue if it means they will be drafted.

We have thousands of troops there facing another summer and we have used up most of our good will allowance. Do you want to sacrifice those troops or sacrifice Bush and Cheney?

We need a strong leader now. In order to stay in Iraq the mission must change to a humanitarian one with strong leadership not identified with Bush and the neocons need to be removed from power and detained somewhere where they can't interfere.

[dpibel]

67. A source would be good here

You say:

The biggest tragedy of this war isn't the Iraqis we've killed ourselves (plenty) but the even larger number that have killed each other because there's no civil order whatsoever.

Can you point me to some source that says more Iraqis have died at one another's hands than from Operation Fire From the Almighty (or whatever it's called)? I've never heard this before. I'd especially like to know how many Iraqis (including soldiers) died from American weaponry, since that figure must be known to make the comparison and, last I heard, our Brave Leaders were haughtily telling us that we don't stoop to count the liberated dead. Fill me in, won't you.

Also: how does the number of people on the Indian subcontinent who died under the noble and pacifying rule of the Brits compare with the number who died after partition? And do tell me what you know about the history of Hindu/Muslim relations prior to the twentieth century.

One last thing: You may not be proposing colonizing Iraq, but you're not running the show. What do you think are the real intentions of the people who are calling the shots?

Thanks.

[troublemaker]

39. It's an empirical question

Whatever is best is by definiton BEST. Anyone who thinks our immediate withdrawel is BEST for the general welfare of Iraqis today then that's fine. If I thought that I'd want us out today.

But I don't get any argument based on American lives. Since WE started this it's common sense that our collective ass be on the line. The determinative factor is Iraqi welfare, not American welfare.

I've seen posts pointing out the war is illegal. Yes, it was. But we now have an obligation, under international law, to provide security.

[mmonk]

43. Who is going to provide security for us?

I think the best thing to do is to make some kind of deal where we pull out AND grant sovereignty by having another international force besides the coalition take our place. Nobody is going to come bail us out when they didn't agree in the first place to a war. Only when we show we are disengaging from the political process and leaving (really leaving, not still having bases), will relief come. Otherwise, we'll just keep trying to hold everything together as the violence escalates because of our presence there. We should transfer power and see how things look as far as violence goes but work out an exit strategy (a real one without bases).

[troublemaker]

45. Amen

[Mattforclark]

46. Utilitarianism

I generally agree. But Utilitarian moral calculation is not by any means an exact science.

The calculation is made more difficult with the addition of considering Bush's incompetence. That considered, I would be more inclined grant that immediate withdrawal might possibly be better.

"But we now have an obligation, under international law, to provide security."

Ah, straying into deontology, are we? ;) No, no. :)

[brokensymmetry]

40. You speak of lives.

Whether it takes 1000 more American lives or 20,000 to make Iraq a better place in the long run we have no choice.

You know, those soldiers are people. Sons and daughters, husbands, fathers, wives, and mothers. They've got hopes and dreams.

Presently, we've had about 600 deaths. And 18,000 medical evacuations. So if the same ratio holds, you are now looking at up to 600,000 young Americans who lose limbs and eyes. Who are burned and maimed. Who spend the rest of their lives in wheelchairs.

And you speak of the Iraqis. What will our soldiers be doing as Iraq descends into Hell? Do you suppose they will not shoot back? In such a conflict, you can expect to see lots of Iraqi deaths - and other casualties.

This will probably contribute to some desire for revenge - and thus will spawn numbers of terrorists and suicide bombers. Do you think we are secure in our borders? Are we proof against their retaliation?

When one is in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging it deeper. I suggest that we follow that bit of wisdom.

[troublemaker]

44. Why are American lives more valuable than Iraqi lives?

If an angel came down with iron clad information that staying would cost 10,000 American lives but save 10,001 Iraqi lives I'd be morally compelled to say "stay."

I'm not happy about it! It's just the case.

[Mari333]

48. There arent soldiers left to go to Iraq and the ones there

have been sent back to Iraq with severe medical conditions..dont make blanket statements about staying the course unless you either have a loved one there about to be blown to bits, or do some research as to whats going on with the military.
read up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1184960,00.html
bring them home now.

[brokensymmetry]

49. That's a matter of choice, I suppose.

The problem you face is that there is no iron clad information. By staying, you might cause more casualties than by leaving. I suspect that's the case. Your mileage may vary.

[Djinn]

108. I'm all over the place on this thread

while I think the US should get out it'd only be beneficial to Iraqi's if the rules on foreign ownership etc were also thrown out.

And my opposition to US troops being there has nothing to do with 600 dead (although the actual number is much higher, if you include "accidental deaths", fragging, suicide and deaths occuring outside of Iraq from injuries sustained IN Iraq) - while I know many people sign up for the army to get an education or because there are no jobs in their town - surely this is something you sign up for when you join - it's not like Iraq is the first time the US (and others) have joined up to illegal and immoral wars - apart from WW2 I don't think I could "approve" of any of those fought in the last 100 years -certainly NOT WW1 which was about two empires fighting for land.

I have a lot of sympathy for the families/friends of these soldiers but they did, in the end, choose to be there (if you sign up you choose to be involved in any potential war - it's nit-picking to say they didn't choose Iraq) my concern lies pretty much solely with the Iraqi people, currently being punished for living under a dictator who was helped into power by the CIA and supported by America during his most oppresive and brutal years.

It's not about "bringing THEM home" for me.

[NNN0LHI]

47. This post deleted by poster to save the mods the trouble n/t

[leftofthedial]

52. there is nothing moral about staying

If we pull out of Iraq the place will collapse. Things are bad today, but I'm talking about COLLAPSE. Full-out civil war. Countless Iraqi dead. Look to Bangladesh to see what a modern civil war can look like... serious genocide on all sides. Maybe millions dead.

what makes you think us being there will change this? Maybe delay it, but prevent it? No. This meltdown is the inevitable result of British colonialism, plus fifty years of Cold War corporate neo colonialism, and now our invasion.

We can install a Vichy-style puppet regime and possibly delay total meltdown for a year or two, but nothing short of a despotic police state will stop the current Iraq from melting down. It is a Frankenstein of a country--an artificial hodge-podge of several societies that are not prepared to coexist peacefully.

Us being there does nothing but make the situation worse.

Perhaps the UN can oversee some sort of gradual trasition to a functional society, but we have lost all credibility internationally. We are an aggressor nation and do not have the moral authority necessary to broker a peaceful solution. Besides which, what we are doing there is not peaceful.

[troublemaker]

54. Even delay counts for something

Firemen don't do their job to end fire, but to make things a little better day by day.

[leftofthedial]

63. Bad analogy. When a fire is growing out of control

firemen know when to get out and let it burn.

[jmowreader]

103. Firemen also work to prevent fires

Call your local fire department and ask them to give your home a fire safety inspection. They'll do it, because it's safer, easier and cheaper to stop a fire before it starts than after.

Unfortunately for the world, the Bush boy got his fire-safety inspection then proceeded to store cans of gasoline next to the water heater.

[IndianaGreen]

53. I don't want to live through another Vietnam

that's why I want our troops home NOW and why I am angry at the politicians from both parties that are repeating the same crap about Iraq that Bob McNamara and Dean Rusk said a generation ago to justify an escalation in Vietnam.

[Amerpie]

56. Bring Them Home Now!

I suggest the FAQs at the Bring Them Home Now! web site to those who think remaining in Iraq is the way to go.

[Martin Eden]

59. "We made a national committment to the Iraqi people"

No we didn't. I didn't. You didn't. Bush didn't.

The biggest fallacy of the occupation is that we are bringing freedom, democracy, and independence to the Iraqi people.

It is a fallacy because this was not the motivation behind the invasion. Bush and the corporate media want us to believe that although the intelligence that led to war was faulty, it is nevertheless a noble mission because an evil dictator was deposed and the Iraqi people and the world are better off as a result.

What must be understood is that the mission was never about WMD or Iraqi freedom. It is about the projection of U.S. power in this strategic oil-rich region. It is about corporate profits, and the neoconservative agenda of Pax Americana and making the Middle East safe for Israel.

"We" (the United Staes) are building 14 long-term military bases in Iraq. There is no intention to leave, or to have a truly independent Iraqi democracy. The fact is that any government we install will never have legitimacy in the Arab world, and will be dependent on American power for its continued existence.

The unending violence in Iraq is what sustains the "need" for the continuing presence of the U.S. military. As long as the U.S. military remains in the country there will be terrorists attacks. It is a self-sustaining occupation, which serves the goal of military bases and control of the oil.

Conventional wisdom dictates we should "stay until the mission is accomplished," but this fails to take into account the true nature of the mission. Most Americans believe we are there to help the Iraqis, but most of the world realizes we are there to help ourselves -- not to combat terrorism but to exert military domination and to control the flow of oil.

We are presented with the false choice of staying and fixing a broken country or leaving and letting it fall into chaos. It is a false choice because we are not there to fix it.

The mission itself is as big a lie as the WMD canard that preceded it. Unless we can expose the mission for what it is and change the power structure that implemented it, we ourselves (you and I) become witting or unwitting accomplices to the crime when we support the occupation.

Those of us calling for withdrawal realize there is little chance this power structure can be changed (at least in the near future), and that the mission as presently constitutrd will merely perpetuate the bloodshed until we eventually cut our losses and pull out anyway.

This is what happened in Vietnam. Nothing was accomplished by staying all those years except 58,000 body bags and millions of dead Southeast Asians.

Even if we somehow manage to prop up an Iraqi government, it would likely fall apart after we leave. The fact is, there is no intention to leave. Iraq is not Germany or Japan (where our troops have remained since 1945). Iraq is centered in a region hostile to our presence, and our presence will be a source of violence for as long as we stay.

This will not win the war against terrorism; it will perpetuate it. The lives lost in an Iraqi civil war could pale in comparison to the Iraqi and American lives (including terrorist strikes in America) that could result from staying the course with this mission that is both flawed and a fraud.

Then we finally pull out, and the civil war happens anyway.

[troublemaker]

77. re: "We made a national commitment to the Iraqi people"

We made a national commitment to the Iraqi people when we went in -- not a commitment to democracy or any of that bullshit, but to not make things worse than otherwise.

We cannot undo the invasion but, having done something crazy we now have an ongoing obligation to mitigate further damages. Mitigating damages may mean leaving immediately. I don't think it does.

As long as one accepts the underlying moral obligation then the only question is what course is best to practically achieve the moral objective.

[Martin Eden]

82. There can be no moral objective...

...when those who control the mission have an immoral objective.

[Postman]

90. Martin Eden, I don't think this guy gets it..

he wants to put a moral face on an immoral act.

[Postman]

88. Excellent analysis.

I couldn't agree more with your summary. Thanks for contributing.

[Hippo_Tron]

65. We need to get a stable government and get the hell out...

If that government isn't democratic then so be it.

[leesa]

72. Arrogant, paternalistic BS! "If we pull out it will collapse"!

What garbage! We can do NOTHING positive in Iraq because we are the BAD GUY! Much as you don't want to admit it, it was the United States who illegally and immorally invaded a UN compliant, disarmed country who was doing not one damn thing to us. WE are the bad guy and we have no remaining credibility. So get over your John Wayne fantasy shit and face reality. We are war criminals. We are the REASON it is collapsing.

[troublemaker]

78. Much as I don't want to admit it?

re:"Much as you don't want to admit it, it was the United States who illegally and immorally invaded a UN compliant, disarmed country who was doing not one damn thing to us. WE are the bad guy and we have no remaining credibility. So get over your John Wayne fantasy shit and face reality. We are war criminals. We are the REASON it is collapsing."

This is the most thoughtless, malicious post I've ever seen on DU. Not one of you accusations is supported by the post you are replying to. I have already made every single "point" you make here with such originality.

I mean really... Look at what you wrote: "Much as you don't want to admit it, it was the United States who illegally and immorally invaded a UN compliant"

Much as I don't want to admit it? I have fucking STATED IT.

[PsN2Wind]

95. You speak of "we have to do this"

or "our asses". Just for the record, have you ever been in the military? Have you ever been the actual "ass" on the line or one of the "we" who actually do the doing or are you one of the collective "we" ready to sacrifice however many lives are necessary as long as one of them doesn't belong to you or yours?

[Postman]

97. good point, see response #1

I don't think he has ever been in any of those situations you speak of.

It's real easy to talk strategy and tactics when it's not your ass or anyone in your family that's at risk

[troublemaker]

98. You, sir or madam, are a fascist

Extra rights for those who have served.... The military should make these decisions because they are most impacted...

[PsN2Wind]

100. You don't have to call me sir

since I was only an enlisted MAN in two different branches of the military. It's probably easier to be all philosophical about the deaths that are going to continue to mount in Iraq when you've never allowed yourself to be one of those that might have to make the "ultimate sacrifice". Just how pointing that out to you makes me a "fascist" is beyond my limited level of comprehension. You just seem quite ready to make all the necessary sacrifice as long as NONE of it is yours. If you had the courage of your convictions you'd be down at the local recruiter, banging on the door to enlist and go save those Iraqis. Personally I wouldn't call you a fascist, just a candy-ass.

[Djinn]

109. chill a little on troublemaker

I don't agree with your stance on this troublemaker - but there are a few too many self righteous posts on this thread for my liking. I havn't got the impression from any of your posts that you're the apologist that some people here are making out - and I think you make some good points. People keep arguing that the UN or the Arab Leagues or the International community should go in - newsflash most of the world sees this as an American mess that they are not prepared to kill their troops for, so how exactly do people suggest getting that to happen. Many on this board simply hold an "our troops" agenda which is a pretty shallow one as far as I can tell - and you can throw all the "it's not YOUR family" lines you like at me.

While I disagree with your conclusions to me it comes across that your concerns are with the Iraqi people - people could maybe try and cut the righteous hyperbole a bit.

[dpibel]

73. Here's a radical idea

Let's assume for a moment that you're a country which has invaded another country, after laying waste to it for a dozen years or so. Imagine that you (the invading country) want to convince the people of the invaded country that you really have only their best interests at heart, and that you are there to improve their lot in life. What do you think would be the best way to demonstrate that:

(1) Spend billions of dollars building 14 permanent military bases in their country, and spend more billions repairing the means of extracting their mineral wealth, using exclusively contractors from your country or

(2) Take those billions of dollars and set the people of the invaded country (not the cronies of your country's leader) to work rebuilding their own infrastructure.

Which of those do you think would work better?

Which course is the USA pursuing?

If you think the USA is just there to keep those savages from tearing each other limb from limb (and I really apologize if that sounds like I think there's a racist aspect to your argument, because I would hate to sound like it, even if I do), perhaps you should examine what's actually going on there. I mean going on with the rebuilding (or failing to rebuild), as opposed to the riots amongst the ungrateful.

You bemoan the fact that the US just has to stay because the Iraqis have no army or other security force. You are aware, are you not, that one of the first things the US did upon taking over the throne in Iraq was to fire the entire army? I suppose if you wanted to argue that you had to take care of these helpless people because they have no way to protect themselves, you'd do well to get rid of the army right off. Although it's a little perplexing to do away with something you later claim is a clear prerequisite for civilization.

There was a fascinating entry in the riverbend blog, 'way back at the beginning of the occupation. She told about some Iraqi civil engineers who drew up plans to rebuild a bridge, at an estimated cost of $100,000. "No can do," said the Proconsul. "We have this good American company who can do it for only a couple million."

Doesn't it seem fairly likely that putting a few million Iraqis to work doing things they're perfectly qualified to do would go a long ways toward establishing the US's bona fides?

But the US is not doing that. The US is pumping up the coffers of Halliburton and Bechtel, and letting the Iraqis stay unemployed. The US is bringing in workers who are getting paid hundreds of dollars a day to do jobs that Iraqis could do for far less money (and at far less risk).

If your idea is that the US needs to stay until those fierce warriors are beaten down, I question your analytic. If you really think that they're mainly interested in killing--invaders or each other--then staying there doing the same thing over and over is a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, yeah. They all hate each other, and if the US gave them jobs, they'd just kill each other in even greater numbers. Right.

Riddle me this: If these people are so naturally warlike, how the hell are you going to shock 'n awe them into submission?

[bywho4who]

106. you have done well

:kick:





:smoke: :hippie:

[leftofthedial]

74. when and under what conditions would you have us leave?

you claim we made a national commitment, which is a demonstrably false assertion, but if we had, what would that commitment be specifically?

[Junkdrawer]

75. BushCo doesn't want to leave, at least until the oil runs out.

Leave the second largest oil reserves in the world to, what, Iranian hegemony? No, they intend to stay. Look, the Shi'a want early elections with rules that don't negate their majority. BushCo wants elections only after rules are put in place that insure that the Shi'a don't control Iraq. In that way, the minority will want to keep BushCo there to keep the Shi'a at bay. And THAT sets the US up against the Shi'a majority indefinitely.

[leftofthedial]

76. bingo

I still say the US should leave immediately.

[welshTerrier2]

79. Well meaning but naive

you correctly point out that if the U.S. pulls out now there will be civil war ...

but you don't explain how U.S. presence, no matter the length of our stay, will do anything to change that reality ...

perhaps it's not a useful analogy, but humor me for a minute ... imagine back in 1860 or so that the North wanted to eliminate slavery in the South ... civil war loomed on the horizon ...

and imagine that a third country occupied the U.S. and held off the conflict ... no matter what actions that country took, when they left the North still wanted to impose its will on the South ... and when they left, that which had to happen would have happened ...

you create some type of fantasy that U.S. presence is something akin to "couples counseling" and that by our mere, mystical presence the american good guys will stabilize the cultural, policital and military institutions and "bring the parties together" ...

it's a nice fantasy ... it would be nice if civil war could be avoided ... it was also very generous of you to contribute 20,000 american lives to blunder our way through a policy that can never succeed ... btw, we're already over $200 billion for this policy ... wanna try for $400 billion ?? these are dollars that could be building new technology to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels ... it could be spent fighting aids ... it could be spent on so many things that might really help some people on the planet ...

you're right to recognize the risk of civil war and genocide when the U.S. withdraws ... unfortunately, you haven't seen that it's not just the cost of U.S. occupation that's unacceptable ... it's that the outcome will not be changed ...

[Junkdrawer]

81. Look at the bright side. We're getting blood enemies to unite...

AGAINST US.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Do you mean like when we left Vietnam?

The same Cassandra-ish predictions were made before we left that country in ruins and allowed the Vietnames to deal with their own country.

So far, we have made, not unexpectadly, a hash of our "nation building".

Out. Out. Out Now.

[MrSoundAndVision]

84. HI 5

UN IN, US OUT!

[Jim__]

86. The situation is a complete nightmare

Before we went in people said, there's no way out. They were right. We destroyed what stability there was. If we leave, I think the country decends into total chaos.

But, I agree with what ohter posters have said. If we stay, we only postpone the inevitable.

But, we caused the immediate problem. So, I agree we have to stay until there is some semblance of stability and there is some hope of the Iraqis reaching some sort of peaceful settlement. The UN and other Middle Eastern nations can be a great help here. We really have to find a way the get their help in resolving this.

[rfkrocks]

92. Beg-Beg the UN

relinquish all control of the country and pray the french and russians help out-but still I think the horse is out the barn door-Iran is licking its chops along with Turkey-total lack of political history led us into this-I think this is a no way out scenario-we can't keep losing troops for God's sake salvadorans died to day-what a mess-i understand you feeling a moral obligation but there is no way for us to succeed there now-it was close to impossible for Bush's pipedream to succeed due to the make-up of the country (didn't he read colin powell's book or schwartzkopfs fo goodness sake) but now it is impossible-

[Jacobin]

89. What makes you think staying will make it better?

Is it bad now? Hell yes, and its going to get far far far worse whether we are there are not.

Smirk took the cork out of the bottle that has been stopped up for 40 years. It's gonna blow, whether we are there or not.

[camero]

94. Why do we have to play Tito?

Why not just put it in the hands of the Arab League or the UN? Of course since we were the ones that screwed the country up then we should be the ones to finance the rebuilding. But the UN or the Arab League should lead the way, not American Corps.

When you make a mistake, you don't compound it with more mistakes.

[corporatewhore]

101. i think you should check out Tariq Ali's book Bush in Babylon

and check out this article that he wrote http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1103-07.htm

[bywho4who]

105. This point is moot

Twelve years of sanctions have killed the millions you speak of, the over a year of war we will never get the real #s on that one. This shit is on Israel's hands if ya ask me. U.S looking like puppet to sharon's evil, genocidal mind !



:smoke: :hippie: