All the Reasons Why "We can't leave Iraq" - and why theyre wrong

[tinanator]

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=11311&s2=26

you break it you bought it?
heckuva deal!

[applegrove]

1. It would be unconscionable to destabilize Iraq, erase the 'police' &

'armed forces' ... who let's face it... needed to be erased. And then to not let a big enough replacement force evolve. The USA has no choice.

They have to wait until the Iraqi forces get big enough. The UN and Canada (who didn't join the invasion) are there to try and help out.

Those people are owed some stability. For sure the insurgents will be 'fixed' as soon as the American Army leaves the cities. But you cannot let a civil war break out. Money will come from all over the middle east to fund the Sunnis (since everyone else in the middle east is Sunni except for Iraqis). You have to let the army be big enough to keep order. And then public opinion will take care of the insurgents after the Americans have left. But you need another 50 thousand troops at least. Minimum..200, 000 troops I would say.

[atreides1]

10. ...wait until Iraqi forces are big enough....

At the rate the insurgents have been stepping up attacks against these forces, it'll never happen.

There was a story about how a 400 man Iraqi battalion is down to 30, mainly because of desertions.

First off I don't owe those people anything, the more money spent there means less for the needs here in the US. Less for the elderly, less for the disabled, less for the homelesss and the hungry. Would you rather we just toss our needy over a cliff?

The Iraqi people are going to have to deal with this, and if civil war is what happens then it's what happens. Perhaps it'll be a learning experience, to actually fight for your freedom without foreign intervention, what a concept?

So far the rest of the Sunnis have probably given more to the insurgents then they've given to the current Iraqi government, and who can blame them. I think they realize that any money they send will go in one door and out another, right into the hands of the US.

So as long as the US is there, and the new laws that Paul Bremer put into place are enforced, you won't see a whole lot of money coming from other Muslim nations.

The tactic that the US is using here, they tried in Vietnam, they trained the ARVN, they provided equipment, they even fought most of the major battles of the Vietnam war, and can you guess what happened? It didn't work, because the US was more concerned about
Communism then they were about the Vietnamese people and what they wanted.

Over 58,000 Americans died, millions were either physically and/or mentally scarred. And let's not forget the millions of Vietnamese who died as well.

It this the results you prefer, millions dead or maimed, thousands of US military personnel returning home in body bags, a VA system that can hardly deal with the strain of the wounded.

Well not me, enough is enough, we don't have the troops to put in there, recruiting is down, the military is stretched, and the only way to come up with 50,000 more is to start the draft.

Besides there is no plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq, they never came up with an exit strategy, and the building of permanent bases is not a sign of any thought of pulling out.

[EVDebs]

2. But but but Bush said Mar 16 we WILL leave when ....

"Our troops will come home when Iraqis are capable of defending themselves," Mr. Bush said

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/politics/main680648.shtml

It's just too bad those permanent bases are being set up in Iraq...what, something like 14 of them ?

14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm
(copy of Chicago Tribune March 23, 2004
14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq
Long-term military presence planned
In-Depth Coverage
By Christine Spolar)

and

Karzai Wants Permanent US Bases in Afghanistan
www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/13/102930.shtml - 30k

And now I'm hearing that Britain will pull out in 2006 from Iraq...

[CrispyQ]

12. But they are defending themselves against us!

He's such a moran.

I'll bet 300 billion or so that we are spending over there is entirely on those bases, not a dime for Iraqi infrastructure.

[wyldwolf]

3. his argument hinges on the US "owning" Iraq

...and although I agree that that is the ultimate goal of the administration, that isn't what people mean when they say "we broke, we have to fix it.'

When I say it, I mean we rebuild the infrastructure then turn it all over to the Iraqi government and people.

That is what Dean means (he was mentioned in the link) and most other Dems who take that position.

[welshTerrier2]

4. but ... but ... aren't we the good guys ???

the simple truth is that bush will not willingly leave Iraq until he ensures that a puppet government that won't challenge US authority has been put in place ...

for those of you who suscribe to the "we can't leave now because (your reason here)", ask yourself whether you agree with the first statement ... if you don't trust bush to do the right thing, does it make any sense for the US to remain in Iraq ...

bush and neo-con control are the bottom line ... with Kerry in office, the discussion would have been much different (hopefully) ... but with bush??? bush doesn't want to leave !!! do you agree with that?

Democrats need to stop voting to fund this "war" ... whatever reasons you offer to support the current position of elected Democrats fails to explain how anything positive will emerge from Iraq with bush in office ... he doesn't want to leave Iraq; the "war" is being prolonged on purpose; corporations benefit while citizens die ... and on and on and on it goes ... your arguments have to be predicated on trusting bush ... and i know you don't ...

the Democrats need to come out against the "war" and insist on a reasonable timetable for withdrawal ...

[tinanator]

5. wouldnt it be cool

if the Democratic Party was actually anti-war?
I guess if you had a platform plank like that you might lose the White House or your majority in the house and senate?

[wyldwolf]

6. no

..why would you want the Dem party to be anti-war? They never have been.

[tinanator]

7. I guess its the killin Im buyin when I cant afford gas

yeah, thats it.

[wyldwolf]

8. are you speaking specifically about the Iraq war?

Well, then, yeah, the party as a whole should be anti-Iraq war.

But not anti-war.

ANY Dem with credibility would have taken out the Taliban after 9/11.

I was in favor of Clinton's intervention in Kosovo and would have been even more in favor of a Rhawadan intervention.

And don't get me started on if the Dems had been anti-war n 1942.

[welshTerrier2]

11. i am ...

that is, i am specifically talking about the fact that the Democratic Party has not taken a sane position on the Iraq "war" ...

i'm surprised but glad to see your statement: "the party as a whole should be anti-Iraq war" ...

what, if anything, do you think can be done to alter the Party's position? do you think elected Democrats understand how most Democrats feel about the US occupation? not left wing, not right wing, just Democrats ... i'm very concerned that they have not held regular town meetings across the country to "dialog" with Democrats ... we should hear them out on why they've been voting as they have; they should do a better job soliciting input from the public ... we need to get these guys out of Washington more often ...

[tinanator]

13. since our current war style includes torture and complete disregard

for human rights and war crimes for that matter, I have to think it would be preferable for the Democratic Party to step away from corporatist violence, but first they would have to step away from corporatist cash. But thats not to concern us, theres a war on and GW duped us into it! Cant quit now, too late, we went broke buying it with the tax dollars of the families who are losing their sons and daughters every day. hundreds of billions out of our pockets for seven billion dollars quarterly profits? Yeah, we better stick it out.
Close to Iran, and the other menu items.

[splat@14]

9. The people of Iraq have to make the decisions regarding their future

security. I have my doubts about us walking out now, mostly in line with the same stated in the link. The links answers to those doubts seem valid although for me its difficult not to feel that some good is coming from us being there regardless of the many failures (torture scandal That I'm sure still goes on, and more), and the fact that we shouldn't have started the war to begin with. Believe my inclination comes from the "pottery barn" rule as we did fuck it up, and I hate to see it left broken....... but I'm beginning to wonder if we can ever just get it stable.
Don't feel we can ever fix it.

Good link, I'll keep it, Thanks

[Q]

14. The point is that we're not even trying to 'fix it'...

...that's the Big Lie that Republicans and Democrats alike are feeding us on a daily basis.

The Pentagon is losing tax dollars by the trillions and they can't keep track of the money being spent in Iraq. There are no visible plans to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq...just to occupy, dominate and install a puppet government.

There is no real push for 'freedom' or 'democracy' in Iraq. Just to occupy long enough to get permanent military bases built and to install a government that puts the interests of the US and corporations over that of the Iraqi people. (Kind of like here in the US).

At the very least...Democrats should be putting together a plan for a gradual withdrawal. But that's not going to happen until the NeoDem warmongers lose power within the party.