Bring It On or Bring 'Em Home?

[corporatewhore]

which idea do you like better

[MercutioATC]

1. Neither. The first is antagonistic and the second is impossible

(at least in the short term).

[LSdemocrat]

3. Agreed

Both slogans are inane.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. Not impossible. Just unpopular. And not supportive of business interests

Nor is it supportive of the unslakable thirst for Muslim blood that fuels zeal for the Crusade among the US voting class.

[MercutioATC]

14. Short-term it IS impossible unless you're suggesting we just pick up

and leave (leaving Iraq a more dangerous place and the Iraqi people more impoverished than when SH was in power).

Even with U.N. help (something that would take some time to negotiate) we'll STILL be there for years. Eventually, possibly but not short-term.

[DuctapeFatwa]

20. If I break into your house, kill your grandma, beat up your kids, steal

your wife's jewelry, after slapping her around a little bit, then trash the place, break the dog's tail, and tie you all up in a mud pit with no food for a week and bags on your heads, of course you will be pleased when I announce my intention to move in to make sure everything gets fixed and you run your household the way I want you to.

The US has done enough in Iraq. Really. If there is any sincere desire to "fix" things, that can be done by writing a blank check to every NGO NOT affiliated with the US or the UN, and getting every person and every weapon they brought in OUT, TODAY. and leaving the plowshares.

[MercutioATC]

23. I think that's a bit of a simplistic view.

Who is going to retain what shred of stability remains in Iraq if we just pull up stakes? You really think the U.N. is prepared to field in excess of 100,000 troops on short notice, especially when we've made this "our" war and rubbed their noses in it?

I agree that our troops should eventually be replaced with U.N. troops, I'm simply saying that "get them out" is not a SHORT-TERM reality. We're going to be there for a while.

[DuctapeFatwa]

28. It would be pretty simplistic to you if I did that, I bet, and even if I

bribed your neighbors and mine with a cut of the cash I know you've got buried in the backyard, with you and your critically injured kids there in the mudpit, I might need some help in case some of you can still walk and get funny ideas about insurgency, you wouldn't give a fuck what street or town these thugs came from, or what color hat they wore.

Iraqis are human beings just like you, with the same feelings, and the same aversion to hearing their kids scream from third degree burns and shrapnel wounds, and although in the west it is considered a far-fetched concept, the same feelings about their country and its resources that you have.

While the borders of Iraq were drawn by the grandfathers of today's western imperialists, the people who live there have a good bit more experience in being a country and civilization than Europe has, and way more than the US, which doesn't seem to be able to get the hang of either.

[MercutioATC]

35. What does any of that have to do with the feasibility of a short-term

"bring 'em home" doctrine?

Nice rant, but I don't see where it refutes anything I said.

[DuctapeFatwa]

39. It's not a rant. It's a fact. Unless you are telling me you would wish the

gang to remain in your home, with you and your kids there in the mudpit to secure your belongings which they have now decided belong to them.

[MercutioATC]

41. But it still does nothing to refute my claim that there's NO acceptable

short-term solution. O.K., the Iraqi people may really wish we were gone, but we just can't DO that responsibly without a relatively lengthy process of replacing our troops with U.N. troops.

Show me how that's not so.

[DuctapeFatwa]

42. Acceptable to the defense and oil industries? No Acceptable to

the folks here
http://www.strike-free.net/ge/ds/chronicle/news25.htm

Air, land or sea is acceptable. NOW.

[MercutioATC]

44. See Post #43. It would be worse if we just left with no government or

security force in place. Who would police the country if we left? Who'd enforce laws and repel invaders? Who'd distribute food? Who'd RUN things?

I'm not arguing that we're a really bad choice to be the ones doing these things, but somebody has to and if we simply leave, the Iraqi people will suffer even more.

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. Iraqis are not the simple childlike natives of Victorian Raj literature,

they have a few millennia more experience RUNNING things than the US does.

It is difficult for many westerners to grasp, because it is ingrained so deeply, but people who are not of European ethnicity are not intellectually incapacitated.

[MercutioATC]

49. How well would WE recover and regain stability with:

1) no government

2) a shattered infrastructure

3) different religious groups trying to sieze power

4) terrorists who wanted to set up shop in our country

5) no protection from other nations with whom we'd waged war for centuries

I'm not demeaning the Iraqi people, but I don't think there's ANY argument to be made that they are capable of self-governing with no assistance. Remember, we're not just letting them retake control of their country, that system that was in place doesn't exist any more...they're starting from scratch.

[DuctapeFatwa]

51. It is not up to the US to "let" any other country have control of it

Again, you are talking about a part of the world with quite a bit of experience in all phases of administrative functions. Any outside help they need can be provided by NON-US/UN related humanitarian groups. Although the US has murdered an impressive number of people in such a short time, there are still enough Iraqis still alive, and miraculously, ambulatory, to run things.

I know that many in the US see the world as US property to do with as it pleases, but this view does not enjoy the same popularity in the rest of the world.

[MercutioATC]

52. See Post #50. I disagree, but I'm done with this discussion.

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. "Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape"

Arundahti Roy

http://www.hindu.com/2004/01/18/stories/2004011800181400.htm

[Jacobin]

34. So, you are suggesting that stabiity has INCREASED since we've

been there?

Is this according to Fox News or Rush?

I hadn't heard that.

[MercutioATC]

36. No, I'm suggesting that if we left without a viable exit plan

(and no, I don't think there is ANY viable short-term plan, as I've explained above) the small degree of remaining stability would be gone.

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. They can viably exit the way they viably entered. by air, land and sea.

Or they can stay there and continue to murder Iraqis and steal their oil and expand their operations until the rest of the world gets sick of waiting their turn and decides to bring a little stability to the street where you live.

[MercutioATC]

43. So you're advocating turning our backs and leaving a security "hole"?

...and just hoping that somebody cleans up our mess?

Without SOME stabilizing force (we're a bad choice, but we're all that's available right now) Iraq becomes a much greater security problem than it is now for us. In addidion, I believe the Iraqi people would suffer further, as there would be no government in place to provide even the smallest measure of security to them. Destabilized and unguarded, who ELSE might have designs on Iraq? Iran perhaps?

I agree that we need to begin the transition, but I don't know of ANYBODY (well, maybe one person now) who'd advocate simply leaving.

[DuctapeFatwa]

47. The US is not a stabilizing force anywhere. The choices are get OUT

now, or keep murdering Iraqis and stealing their oil.

Iraq does not belong to the US, the oil does not belong to the US.

If the US really wants to help, as I said, they can write a blank check to NGOs who are NOT affiliated with the US or any of its subsidiaries, including the UN, and let those folks get started on the humanitarian disaster that the US has created and continues to exacerbate daily, all to make rich men richer.

My analogy of a home invasion is a valid one. I know. I bet you think "Al Qaeda" did 9-11, right?

Well, what if on Sept 12, Al Qaeda swooped in with an overwhelming force of guys in turbans with rifles and bombs and announced that they were going to clean up their mess, and proceeded to bomb all the buildings in Washington, and your house, and started rounding people up who were critical of their methods and putting bags on their heads, calling them insurgents, seizing their wives, their kids, for "interrogation," all in the name of bringing stability.

How would you feel about that?

[MercutioATC]

50. I completely disagree, but we don't appear to be getting anywhere, here.

It's starting to degenerate into insults ("I bet you think "Al Qaeda" did 9-11, right?") and I'm not willing to continue the discussion with somebody who's incapable of keeping a civil tongue in their head.

[DuctapeFatwa]

53. If you do not believe that, I stand corrected. My intention is to put it

in terms that you can relate to, and it is my opinion, that in the wake of 9-11, the notion of Al Qaeda occupying the US ostensibly to provide stability, would not have been enthusiastically received.

You may have a different view.

[LWolf]

2. Wow.

More DUers vote for Iraq War than to bring them home.

:puke:

[kiahzero]

6. Kerry's been using "Bring It On"

Towards Bush... ie, taunting the Republicans.

So DUers voting for "Bring It On" are probably not voting for it in the sense Bush used it.

Also, some of us (myself included) do not think we should just pull all our forces from Iraq and come home.

[LWolf]

8. I know Kerry has been using it.

It isn't any cuter, or more respectable, coming from Kerry than it was coming from Bush.

And we can bring our troops home without just cutting and running. It's all about diplomacy, contracts, and control.

[kiahzero]

15. Who's going to keep the country from turning

into Afghanistan circa 1993?

The UN seems to have little interest, even if we give them full control. I'm not sure if that would work, since I'm not familiar enough with Constitutional law to know whether Congress would have a say in that.

Also, wouldn't we still have to play a significant part in any UN-led reconstruction?

[LWolf]

18. Perhaps we should ask

these pesky little questions before we go in. We would have to play a significant part in a UN-led reconstruction. But we wouldn't be the only players. The UN in charge would hasten the process.

I think they would discover more interest in participating if we relinquished control.

[kiahzero]

21. If we're playing a significant part in reconstruction

It's not exactly "Bring them Home," is it?

I have no qualms about more internationalization. But the rhetoric has been "UN in, US out." That's different than what you and I are discussing here.

[LWolf]

25. I don't know

that it is combat troops that play the part in reconstruction. That's not really their role, is it? The UN in, US out is a soundbite; it doesn't give the details. And there are details. They mainly involve reducing the U.S. role to one of paying for our mess, but not physically, politically, or financially controlling it.

http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

<snip>

"The following is the only detailed plan from any candidate for President that will quickly bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq.


1.The United States must ask the United Nations to manage the oil assets of Iraq until the Iraqi people are self-governing.

2.The United Nations must handle all the contracts: No more Halliburton sweetheart deals, No contracts to Bush Administration insiders, No contracts to campaign contributors. All contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions.

3.The United States must renounce any plans to privatize Iraq. It is illegal under both the Geneva and the Hague Conventions for any nation to invade another nation, seize its assets, and sell those assets. The Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people alone must have the right to determine the future of their country's resources.

4.The United States must ask the United Nations to handle the transition to Iraqi self-governance. The U.N. must be asked to help the Iraqi people develop a Constitution. The U.N. must assist in developing free and fair elections.

5.The United States must agree to pay for what we blew up.

6.The United States must pay reparations to the families of innocent Iraqi civilian noncombatants killed and injured in the conflict.

7.The United States must contribute financially to the U.N. peacekeeping mission.

8.The United Nations, through its member nations, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.

9.U.N. troops will rotate into Iraq, and all U.S. troops will come home.

10.The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the U.N.

[Jacobin]

19. WE TURNED IT INTO Afghanistan circa 1993

Before it was a stable despotic secular dictatorship.

Who in his right mind thinks that we will be able to impose some western democracy on these people, when we won't even let them vote.

How long do you think we will have to have 150,000 troops there to keep them from killing each other? HOw long do you think we can afford to do that. How many u.s. soldiers are we willing to sacrifice on the alter of SmirkCo's idiotic adventure.

NO ONE thinks this will work. No one. INcludind Smirkco. Hell they are trying to bail faster than the dems want to.

Excuse my rant. My 15 year old son and I are very concerned about the draft. I don't want my son killed for SmirkCo's idiotic mistakes.

[eaprez]

4. We blew it up

we have to clean up our mess.

[LWolf]

9. Combat troops don't

clean up messes.

[eaprez]

29. Hey I Agree

whole heartedly. They also aren't supposed to do pre-emptive wars because non-existent weapons - are an immediate threat. I am so angry about troops dying for a cause that didn't exist. I can't believe there is not more outrage about that.

[LWolf]

38. Me, either.

I guess 500+ families aren't loud enough to catch anyone's attention?

[GreenArrow]

10. and given the way we blew it up,

how can we be trusted with cleaning it up?

We should pay for it yes, but we don't need to be there to do so.

[Jacobin]

22. So, How's that "clean up" going for ya?

You think we have IMPROVED things or will improve things?

I have a clue call holding for you. They want us gone. We are infidels

[eaprez]

30. I Agree

BUT the fact of the matter is we shocked and awed their country. It's in shambles. We can't just walk away. That would be just as immoral as the bombing. We will have doomed the country to being another Afghanistan.

[Jacobin]

32. So, if someone breaks into your house, kills your sons, rapes your

grandmother, and spread depleted uranium all over the yard, and then comes in and tells you that you have to completely change your entire life and all your beliefs and they will help you fix everything the way the intruder wants it (not the way you want it), don't you think you would be shooting at them and telling them to get the fuck out of your house and not to bother staying around?

I dunno, I kinda would too

[bookman]

7. Neither

While we shouldn't be in this mess, we are.

I trust the Kerry/Edwards administration will have a practical approach.

[GreenArrow]

12. "practical approach"

Maybe a draft?

[MercutioATC]

26. Wasn't their initial "practical approach" voting to send us there?

Seeing as their first action was to grant Congressional approval for Bush to wage war at his discretion, I'm not enthusiastic about their acumen in these areas.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nonconformist]

16. You're not a very good mole

Just sayin'

[OKNancy]

17. BWHAHAHAHA

[eileen_d]

27. That's quite an anecdote.

I can't believe that people might be offended by the Iraqi War. :eyes:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jadesfire]

13. Bring it on....meaning our responsibility

we can't change the fact that bush took us into Iraq. what we can change is the cut and run mentality we brought to Afghanistan. We have to fufill our responsibility.

we can not leave Iraq to fall into a civil war.

[Zan_of_Texas]

24. it's a mess

The country of Iraq was cobbled together by outside, European interests.

There is no reason we would be there now, no reason for European interests to have been there for over 50 years, except for geopolitical strategy and O I L. If beets was the chief product, believe me, we wouldn't even know where it was on the map.

Our continued presence, especially as military troops, is part of the reason there is continued violence.

We had zero legitimacy when we went in. We have less than zero now that the fake reasons for going have been exposed to even Joe SixPack.

Even if the American media shielded the American public from the facts, Iraqis knew that all along.

I think we should get out, after pleading with the U.N. to go in and try to create some sort of infrastructure fixes and order. I think we should pay most of the bills though, because we did the damage.

I think the fake fear that was created as well as the fake "reason" that we are going to establish a democracy in Iraq need to just be set aside, and reality dealt with. We are invaders, not liberators. We are being treated as such, and staying as invaders does NOT create peace, folks.

Getting out of Iraq demands that we have a real policy on energy, not just marching around the globe usurping other countries' resources. That is why no politician running for president (except Kucinich) is talking about getting out.

It also demands standing up to neocons. That won't happen with Bush in office.

[Jacobin]

33. wishful thinking

so we are going to shoot them and blow them up and ransack their houses every night to.........protect them?

I have a feeling they aren't completely in favor of that.

[IndianaGreen]

37. Our only responsibility is to do penance and pay reparations

War criminals from the President down the chain of command must be prosecuted.

The troops must be brought home as fast as we can load them into ships and planes.

Reparations must be paid for the war damage we have caused.

It is inconceivable to have the rapist spend time with his victim in order to help her "get over it." We raped and murdered Iraq. We are the criminals.

[no name no slogan]

45. what do you mean "fall into a civil war"?

They're already HAVING A WAR as we speak!

Before the US entered Baghdad, they had security, running water, electricity, safety. Since we've been there, they've had blackouts, no running water, looting, anarchy in the streets (except by the oil ministry, of course).

Our "leadership" role in the so-called "coalition" is what is causing the war. US soldiers are not peacekeepers: they're not trained for it, and don't want that role. Only a true multinational force, led by the UN, will be able to stabilize the country.

And yes, we need to pay for the mess we created. But we should let the Iraqis choose who they want to clean up the mess-- I'd wager that most of them would not choose the US and our "coalition".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Out now.

Turn it over to the UN and the Iraqis. But, it's very unlikely. Bush won't. Kerry and Edwards lack the backbone.

[corporatewhore]

54. Bring. the oil.on

[DrFunkenstein]

56. I Just Thought Kerry Was A Big Kirsten Dunst Fan