The Argument that We Can't leave Iraq Now is Really

[Solomon]

saying it would be better for us to continue killing Iraqis, than for someone else to kill them, or for them to kill themselves, ("it will be a civil war and anarchy if we leave now"). I got news for you. It's anarchy now. And I got some more news for you -- yes, Virginia, we are killing Iraqis.

I guess we are so much better than Iraqis that its an honor to them for us to do the killing. Maybe their lives wouldn't be as wasted if they were killed by us, rather than say, another Iraqi.

If we want to believe that the reason we went there was to save the Iraqis, then we need to get the hell out, turn it over to the U.N., and forgo the profits that we were greedy for. We can't have it both ways. We as a people have completely lost the appreciation for the term "conflict of interest". After all, how could it be a conflict of interest when whats good for America is good for Iraq? I guess what's good for Haliburton and Bechtel is also good for Iraq.

We have completely betrayed our principles which have served for over two hundred years to inspire people to fight for freedom and equality in other nations.

[IndianaGreen]

1. It's the same argument we heard about "peace with honor" in Vietnam

Over half of the names on the Vietnam Memorial are the result of "peace with honor"!

[mmm]

2. Good One

Bastards are in control, and they want it all for themselves.

[bread_and_roses]

3. You said it

yes, yes, yes.

[K-Centrist]

4. Not to disagree with what you've said, but

. . . is your premise that things would be better if we pulled up stakes and left, say, today?

I'm imagining the scenario: Wisdom breaks out at the White House (yeah, I know), whistleass smacks himself on the haid and says "Sh*t! This IS a quagmi-uh. Ah better git mah butt out, and pronto!"

And Stepin Powell calls up Annan and says: "Sir, we were wrong. We now wish to turn it all over to you. Good luck."

-- and we're outa there.

Now myself, I see holocaust, murder, chaos, civil war, etc., etc. I see three countries trying to emerge. I see Turkey mobilizing ("no Kurdistan uh-uh, no way"); I see Iran mobilizing for the same reason. I see World War III (or maybe IV).

I see my personal ass, currently in Baghdad, going up in smoke.

Is that what you see?

[Solomon]

10. Well, we can stay there and destroy any possible credibility

we have left in the world, or we can forego the profit we wanted and support the UN in taking over, recover our balance. I don 't think people get the point yet. It's the greed that's in the way. Not the concern for total chaos. The only reason we don't want someone else to help is we want to maintain control of the profits.

We seem to believe in our own bullshit. That there will be less deaths if we do the killing, than someone else. If chaos were the real problem, we could have left Saddam in charge.

Nope, folks, I'm sorry. I respect you all for disagreeing, but
we're more concerned with America's interests than Iraq's.

[never cry wolf]

17. I agree, it just won't happen...

...with these guys in power. they have worked too hard too long with too many deceits to just chuck their plans now. they will never do the "right" thing. I pray for your personal ass K-centrist, and all your compadres as well!!

[bread_and_roses]

45. I made a presumption

...that we were talking about turning things over to the UN. I know the UN's hands arn't clean on this one, but I personally can't think of another answer. Certainly, we have to get out of the business of running the country, fast...for your ass, and for the Iraqi's...which does not absolve us of the obligation to put lots of money in (again, I presume through the UN, because what other mechanism is there?) to help repair the destruction we wroght. No foreign policy expert here, so am open to other views on scenarios that get us out while helping as best possible the Iraqi people.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. We haven't betrayed our principles, but

Bush has. That is the main reason that he needs to go!

Impeach Bush!

[Gin]

6. We can't leave now. They have no army, no means to defend themselves,

no jobs, nothing much left because of us.

I want us out, but to leave now would be an added disaster, and criminal.

I think going in was criminal, but we broke this country and we now own it. We must fix it to some level of stability, somehow, someway.

[K-Centrist]

8. I was being flippant, but

. . . you're right. Our idiot son broke it -- we bought it.

[RainDog]

9. you assume the incompetents

occupying the executive branch (hmmm...sort of like Iraq) are capable of "fixing" Iraq.

I think their actions have proved otherwise.

I give a vote of "no confidence" in BushCo.

If we really want to "fix" Iraq, we will charge BushCo with a conspiracy to defraud the American people, a conspiracy to defraud an agency of the federal govt, lying to Congress, and we will remove them from office.

however, since BushCo worked very hard to put their collaborators in Congress, I doubt this will happen.

We can hope that America will wise up and vote these idiots out of office before they destroy the world. I think we could repair problems, over time, if we had a democratic administration in which could work in concert with the UN and which could put pressure on Israel to stop the Palastinian mass murder.

I'm feeling pretty fatalistic these days, tho. I don't think Americans want BushCo for another term, but I have no illusions about the lengths to which they will go to oppose the will of the American people at the ballot box and everywhere else.

[bpilgrim]

11. defend themselves from who?

us?

that didn't do much good even when they did have an army.

peace

[G_j]

35. my question also

from who?

I'm still interested in what the Arab League (& UN?) could do in place of the Rumsfeld occupation. ..An idea offered in another thread.

[ProudGerman]

43. Who???

Iran, the Shiites, the Shah's, the Kurds..and because of the Kurds, Turkey. With utter chaos and no military to defend it, anyone in the region looking to make a land grab would waltz in and take it.

At the very minimum, we leave and the Kurds in the north try for independence. That would immediately bring the Turkish army across the border.

Remember what happened in the former Soviet satellites after the Union disappated? That would happen, and possibly worse. We're talking ethnic cleansing, conventional warfare instead of the guerilla tactics we see now. All of these things would ramp up the death toll far faster than the current situation. And just as was warned before the invasion, the whole region could go up in flames.

No, in Iraq, we have to bite the bullet. That means we are in control of security and nothing else. The UN needs to be brought in, but only after security has been restored. It seems an impossible situation, but it has to be done.

Leaving now would be a far worse crime than invading.

[G_j]

47. and this wil happen under the direction of Rumsfeld?

Very hard to imagine...

[Terwilliger]

42. think of it as a bunch of conservatives running around with guns

then think about leaving the good people of Iraq alone to fend for themselves

[zanana]

16. I agree, Gin.

We ruined the country; we should be the ones to fix it.

[Robin Hood]

49. Ummm, They didn't have much of an army before the invasion.

So that reasonins doesn't work. We do need to leave and return the sovereignty of Iraq back to it's people. We should still funnell money to the Iraqi's for reconstruction and the damage done. but we need to get out and let them rebuild their country.

Oh wait, I was under the assumption that we were there for humanitarian reasons, or to find WMD. I forgot that the reason we are there is to steal their oil and to funnell billions upon billions of dollars to Bush and Chenney's campaign contributors and close friends. Silly me.

[Postman]

7. Please don't use the word "we"......it was THEM, the Bush fascsists, that

did this. Not we. Otherwise I agree that the US military needs to get out of Iraq.

[Solomon]

15. I agree with you about the "we" thing, but under the "Bush Doctrine",

anyone who supports terrorism in any way is culpable. I too did not agree with what Bush did, but that does not absolve us from being involved. If a nation can be attacked simply because some terrorist were found to have been in that country at some time, (Bush Doctrine) then the same should apply to us.

[Terwilliger]

12. And Ive got news for you, it will get worse if we just leave

whether you like that or not, it will get worse

Now, I'm all for the UN stepping in, but a force of 500,000 (at least!) is needed to calm the country down.

[Solomon]

13. Get worse than what?

Get worse? Another example of our arrogance. I got news for you. It's going to get worse whether we leave or not. Are you under the illusion that things are getting better there. That Bremer is going to solve their problems? That Bremer is acting in their interest instead of our interests?

[Terwilliger]

37. I dont think anything that George Bush or his minions do...

helps any public interest.

In a perfect world, the Democrats would unify against Bush, call for impeachment, insist that we clean up the mess we made in Iraq, and make it happen.

[Postman]

14. That's like saying we need more gasoline to put out this fire....

What level of troop concentration will ensure a "quiet country?" When there is 500,000 troops in Iraq and another "terrorist" bomb incident goes off, do we add another 500,000 troops?....I think your right that the UN needs to get involved but it seems the Bush clan classidied them as an irrelevant debating society, remmember that? Anyway, if I were in a leadership position in France or Germany I would take offense that the US poo-pood my objections prior to invasion and now that you're getting your ass handed to you, you want to replace your troops with my countrymen to get blown-up... Bush and his cronies have fucked things up royal.

[Terwilliger]

36. ok...lets leave

in fact...no UN either...

so...it will just work itself out?

[Solomon]

44. Come on Terwil now! None of us

said just leave with no UN or anything. I enjoy talking to you even when we disagree, but you know better than that.

:evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

48. there's the thing

what will the UN do? its obvious that Iraqis are going to hate them just as much as they hate us

we have the structure in place to bring the quickest end to hostilities...but we can't do it with 150,000 troops...it has to be a lot more

[poskonig]

30. You are right on the money.

Other foreign powers could dominate Iraq, the nation could fall into chaos, or even worse, a fundamentalist regime, Hussein could come back, etc. etc.

If we *had* to pull out, installing a new corrupt, brutal dictator is the far preferable option than just leaving it a mess. This isn't pretty, but it is the reality of the matter.

Personally, I'd rather see more international dollars and troops in Iraq. They have an educated workforce; constitutional government is doable there.

[Terwilliger]

39. absolutely, but the good people of Iraq must have the power

they cant have that if they have to fight their neighbors to survive

[never cry wolf]

18. Some nice insight, Solomon

I use this very same argument when people tell me that we are there for the good of the Iraqis and not for the profit:

"If we want to believe that the reason we went there was to save the Iraqis, then we need to get the hell out, turn it over to the U.N., and forgo the profits that we were greedy for. We can't have it both ways. We as a people have completely lost the appreciation for the term "conflict of interest". After all, how could it be a conflict of interest when whats good for America is good for Iraq? I guess what's good for Haliburton and Bechtel is also good for Iraq."

We have to get out, but we also are responsible for fixing it, It HAS to be done through the UN and we HAVE to cede control. I think that if a true UN coalition were to take over with the aim of really helping build a new free nation, with many or most troops supplied from Muslim countries I think that the killing will slow to a trickle.

[Solomon]

24. Thanks Steviet. You say it better than me.

Its all I'm saying. There are other forums that can help if we could only abandon the profits.

[never cry wolf]

31. Thanks for the compliment

DU has a way of congealing the many thought we all have into words inspired by the others.

Unforturately, the profits, and more importantly the control of the world's gas nozzle is the very reason the PNAC pigs brought this all about in the first place, they will not give it all up easily.

[DuctapeFatwa]

19. The UN is the US in a blue hat, US should just write a blank check

and let Red Cross, OxFam, every NGO in the world, leave useful equipment, take the weapons US brought, get every single crusader and oilho out of there, let the NGOs bring in people from Egypt, Iran, wherever to fix the lights, Arab League can throw together a security force to get the humanitarian stuff through, and while they're at it, US should "unfreeze" all the NGO's in the region they have cut off funds to so more people in more countries can starve, just get the fuck out of the region.

After killing however many millions of Iraqi children with 12 years of sanctions, and approving the invasion and occupation of the country, the "UN" branch of the US death squads have done enough.

[never cry wolf]

20. You are right on it, DF

makes too much sense to be used by this admin, unfortunately.

[Kellanved]

21. Interview with the Shiite leader al-Sadr

This (new) interview offers a Iraqi perspective of the matter.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,263823,00.html

--snip
SPIEGEL: You have demanded the speedy withdrawal of the "American occupiers." Won't this only worsen the already chaotic situation in Iraq?
Sadr: Any occupation is abominable. The longer occupiers remain in a country, the more severe are the consequences. The Americans must leave. Otherwise, the wave of violence will become overwhelming. Out with the Americans, and better today than tomorrow!

SPIEGEL: Isn't precisely the reverse the case? If the Americans were not in the country, a war would break out among rival gangs that would overshadow everything that has happened to date.

Sadr: The Americans are the ones who are driving things to a head. They appear to be neither capable nor willing to reestablish general security, as the attack on the UN headquarters building in Baghdad has shown. The assassinations of Shiite clerics here in Najaf also demonstrate what we can expect from George Bush' soldiers.

...
SPIEGEL: The Shiites are well-represented with 13 of the council's 25 members.

Sadr: That's not the point. I object to the appointment of the council's members by the chief of the occupying power and the lack of qualification of many members. Not a single cleric from Najaf is represented, which makes a mockery of human reason. No, the council is worthless. We will boycott it. In our minds, it does not exist.


...
SPIEGEL: Even if things were to progress the way you would like, the new Iraq would run the risk of a conflict with the Kurds. This could destroy all the political negotiations in Baghdad.

Sadr: Blood has already been shed, unfortunately. I am aware of that. But if we have a true democracy, rather than a falsely democratic occupation regime, we and our Kurdish fellow citizens will arrive at a solution acceptable to both sides. After all, the Kurds are also Muslims.

--snap

[poskonig]

33. Radical Islam has the most to benefit from our departure.

Their comments make sense politically in this context.

[Lefty48197]

22. Anarchy is NOT the answer

The world does not need two Iran's. Leave Iraq, and that's what we'll have to deal with for the rest of our lives: Yet another fundamentalist regime that wants to kill us. Toss in the new Kurdish state, the partition of Turkey, and the potential for an all out civil war encompassing the entire middle east, and you have several good reasons for NOT leaving Iraq at this time. Nobody though that it would be difficult to 'win the war', but everybody seemed to predict that it would be difficult to 'win the peace'. That's why the world urged Shrub to move slowly. I think he's finally figured out WHY we were urging him so.

[IndianaGreen]

23. We invaded Iraq, we created the problem

We need to leave Iraq, and let Iraqis run their own affairs.

Every day we remain in Iraq, is another day in which we create new terrorists.

[SeanT]

26. NO!

No...everytime we leave we create more enemies. We did it to the PLO, we did it in Vietnam, and we'll do it here and the Iranian influence will cause chaos.

We went in, we ruined what remained of their infrastructure, and now we gotta fix it. If we don't we're the enemy.

[Terwilliger]

40. No Indy, we created the current Iraq

I would liken our involvement in Iraq to an abused child. We brutalize it, then leave...then it grows up to become Charles Manson.

We've screwed Iraq since we brought the Ba'athists to power in `58. We owe Iraq a LOT!!!

[Hamlette]

50. we owe Iraq a lot but . . .

our reputation is deservedly so bad in that part of the world we probably can't be the presence that can fix it.

We should hand the UN a blank check and say "you fix it. We'll pay for it."

The reason we won't walk away is in part the oil but also because we are afraid the religious nut cases will take over (while we allow them to run this country?...sorry, digression). In Vietnam we said we were afraid the commies would take over. Same bad argument, different "enemies".

Going green (not Nader) would help. Democracy is doomed in a country with so much money pouring in from oil. It will tend to be corrupt. Join the world in finding alternate fuel sources. Send the messate to the middle east that soon we won't have to put up with their oppressive governments. Shit. We're preaching to the choir.

[Terwilliger]

53. several wrong things here

In Vietnam we said we were afraid the commies would take over. Same bad argument, different "enemies".

Commies (especially Stalinist) could be the same as fundies...the results just as bad.

Send the messate to the middle east that soon we won't have to put up with their oppressive governments.

PUT UP WITH?!? Try "created"!


The reason we won't walk away is in part the oil

There are many reasons, the chief one among them is that no one in governmental power (nor the large majority of the people) could possibly accept that we should leave Iraq like a schoolyard bully who's just had an epiphany that he's a cruel bastard.

[laura888]

51. But do you really think the abusive parent has reformed...

...his/her ways? Do you really think we are actually "bringing democracy to Iraq?" The child will never trust the reasons why we are actually there.

Hence, I support handing over reconstruction to neutral parties, such as the UN.

[IndianaGreen]

54. People that abuse children are incarcerated

extending that analogy to Iraq, and it is a bad one since the Iraqis are not "our children," we as the abusers should be incarcerated rather than being allowed to remain in the victim's life.

A better analogy is the US as the rapist and Iraq as the rape victim!

[Solomon]

25. Again. Look at what you are saying.

You're talking about what's best for US and for the rest of the world. Not what's best for Iraq.

If anarchy is not the answer, then what the hell are we doing there?
Oh, that's right, excuse me, because we are in charge, its not anarchy.

[opihimoimoi]

27. Its an excuse to stay forever??

These guys are getting more brazen by the day man

Come, we go the Pali Lookout, wind is 85 mph

[Kbowe]

28. Solomon, I love your thinking!!

Why don't you run for office? I would vote for you.

[Solomon]

34. LOL That's funny.

Thanks for the complement but its almost as funny as my mother telling me that I should teach Sunday school. They would run me out on a rail.

[Terwilliger]

41. that's why 500,000 troops are needed

can the US commit to righting its wrongs?

[Capn Sunshine]

29. WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE

Until the last drop of petroleum is drained from Iraqi ground.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE OIL, AND NOTHING ELSE ,IRAQI PEOPLE, GOVERNMENT, DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS, OUR POOR MISBEGOTTEN CANNON FODDER, NONE OF IT MATTERS.

How's things in Afghanistan? And THEY didn't even have oil. Just heroin.
:nuke:

[never cry wolf]

32. BUT....

the had the real estate needed for the pipeline the french and russians beat out exxon and contracted with the taliban for, guess who has it now??

[Yupster]

38. Heck, we just walked away from Cambodia

and nothing bad happened there.

[gulliver]

46. Bush has our back up against the wall.

Going into Iraq was a bad decision, but there is no way to back down. American lives, both military and civilian have been placed at greater risk by this short-sighted, rushed, arrogant, stupid move on the part of the Bushies. Hard-earned taxpayer money is going to have to go to Iraq by the tens of billions (you watch, it will become hundreds of billions). And if we are lucky, we will be only a little less safe than we were when Saddam Hussein was in power, but contained.

On the bright side, maybe we are about to learn a timely lesson about simplistic answers. Arrogant, intelligence-skewing, crusty, has-been, blubber-bellied, skeleton-faced, truss-bait scumsuckers like dick cheney, paul wolfowitz, and donald rumsfeld are doing the world a great service. Their politics teaches the world by counter-example.

[Warren Stuart]

52. No matter what we do, it will be the wrong thing

By we I am referring to the forces of the nation I belong to and am not signaling an endorsement of the actions that have been undertaken.

We have painted ourselves into a corner and there is no easy way out.

We lack the skills, the personnel, the resources and the motivation to set things right.

I say, cut our losses and bring em home. What happens afterward certainly will not be pleasant, but it will be an Iraqi solution to an Iraqi problem (albeit not one of their making).