OK...Seriously, Why not just leave Iraq NOW!

[trumad]

Why not... So we fear Civil War? So!. How bad would that Civil War be? If not bad then what would happen? Shittes running the Country? Clerics leading the Country similar to Iran? SO!. Don't you get a sense that it's going to be that way anyway? Don't you get a sense we aren't going to Vulcan Mind trick the Iraqis into U.S style Democracy?

Don't you get a sense that we will not have a permanant base in Iraq or be able to control the OIL without a bloddy cost?

If we were to leave right now I'm not convinced that it would make Iraq worse than it is now. Plus there's an upside. No more grieving Mom's of dead soldiers and no more money waisted on this quagmire.

[Guaranteed]

1. Seems to me that the civil war is coming.

The question is: Do we want to be in the middle of it or not?

My answer is "no."

[trumad]

2. I agree

[DarkPhenyx]

3. Because under the Geneva Convention...

...and International Law we are required to stay and fix things. Pulling out would be another violation of IL and yet another reason for the world to hate/distrust us.

[trumad]

6. You mean like Viet Nam

But what if we can't fix it? I'd rather break a fucking law than keep losing young American Soldiers. I'd rather break a law than having young American Soldiers kill young Iraqi's. I'd rather break a law than spend another 200 bill in Iraq.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Not an uncommon opinion.

Fairly shortsighted but not uncommon.

[trumad]

17. Shortsighted denotes that I haven't thought this out

with my beautiful mind... Now I can understand that comment being directed towards a Freep from FR, but me? Dude, I am immersed in this shit and I do's know's what I be talking about. So please, my er shortsidedness is just as good as your uhhh shortsidedness....

[DarkPhenyx]

32. No, it denotes that you may well have thought it out...

...but did't think the long term consequences through.

[trumad]

120. I thought of the long term consequences through 2 years ago.

and guess what...2 years ago I knew this would happen...and guess what, I've also thought out the next 2 years.... And guess what.,..were fucked!

[Spentastic]

29. Mr Soothsayer

Do you believe that it is possible for the U.S to create a functioning peaceful democracy in Iraq?

You see, I don't? It's a particularly American trait to keep trying when the cause is obviously forlorn. Continuing presence in Iraq will not help in my opinion. Are you sure it's not you with myopia?

[DarkPhenyx]

34. I don't think so either.

In fact I expect us to be involved in the region for a couple years and to leave it with something less than a functioning democracy. :shrug: So be it.

beat the hell out of leaveing it a broken country.

[trumad]

40. You ever break a piece of China and think that you can reglue it

only to realize that there ain't no way you can?

[DarkPhenyx]

43. Fortunately countries aren't China.

They don't have a set pattern so you can take the pieces and make something out of them that is as good or better than what came before. Kinda like cement that way. You break stone, and portland, water...and you get the great wall of China.

[Guaranteed]

63. People are much more difficult to "fix" than fine china, that's

for sure.

[DarkPhenyx]

69. yup!

But they can be fixed better than fine china. We're also talking about fixing a country and emplacing a functioning infrastructure...not fixing people.

[Guaranteed]

76. A country is made up of people.

And a government is getting those people to work together.

I'd MUCH rather have to fix fine china than to try to get these religious factions working together without using extremely nasty, brutal force (like Saddam did).

It's just not going to happen.

[DarkPhenyx]

86. Maybe not.

Maybe so.

So do we now need to put another dictator in place like we did alst time?

[Guaranteed]

62. Exactly.

I think that's the analogy.

I understand us WANTING to fix things...but...I just don't think that we CAN. There is no POINT to us being there any longer- we don't even have a goal that we're working toward. We're just not helping.

[Spentastic]

45. In the long run

It's often easier to fix something truly broken than patch up something barely working.

[DarkPhenyx]

49. Factor in the cost then.

I'm not saying I disagree but it isn't that cut and dried.

[Spentastic]

71. Agreed, It's difficult

A long bleeding out of U.S and Iraqi lives or an explosive civil war?

Of course the best solution would have been to avoid this horrible choice by not unilaterally invading.

I fear the situation is irretrievable without UN involvement. The UN doesn't want to know and Bush is determined to fuck this one up all on his own.

[DarkPhenyx]

75. And it would be hard to find anyone here...

...who would disagree with you there.

Absolutely we would be far better off had we not invaded. However.....

[mopaul]

16. no exit strategy needed, we should just leave

even kerry suggests we send more cannon fodder, i don't get it.
there's no phony need to save face, like in viet nam, we should just admit it's hopeless and go home.

[DarkPhenyx]

41. Leaving behind a broken country...

...which will...

Oh forget it. I'm getting tired of repeating teh obvious. I expect it from the opposition. I would hope my side is more rational.

[Vladimir]

7. The occupying power

is required to provide services while occupying, and the agressor is required to pay reparations in the aftermath of a war, but nowhere does the Geneva Convention prevent an occupier deciding it had made a mistake and pulling out.

V

[Guaranteed]

9. That makes more sense. nt

[DarkPhenyx]

20. it only makes sense because...

...that is waht you want to hear.

[Guaranteed]

27. LOL no, it just doesn't make sense to tell

an invader that they HAVE to stay in the country that they invaded.

[DarkPhenyx]

30. Why not?

You tell your children that they have to lean up the mess they made all the time. it's the same principle.

[Guaranteed]

35. Hmmm...well, I wouldn't say it's EXACTLY the same thing nt

[trumad]

36. I tell my children

that we learned from the mistakes of Viet Nam and then we go and do this... I don't tell my children shit anymore because they look at me like I'm CRAZY.

The point is...The old Nader line that it's got to get worse until it gets better does not apply in Iraq because as long as we are there it ain't gonna get better.

[Vladimir]

50. Do you really?

Your kid torches his friend's treehouse. His friend demands financial compensation but never wants to see your kid again. Do you:

a) Make your kid pay up

b) Make your kid rebuild the treehouse with his friend

What's your choice?

V

[DarkPhenyx]

52. Both.

My job as the older wiser parent is to work it out with his parents. Come to think of it I'd make the little bastard re-build it on his own. But that's just me.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

81. Unfortunately invading armies are not children. eom

[DarkPhenyx]

19. There is also IL to consider.

Let's also look at this. Do you think it is morally acceptable tear a country up and leave it to wreck and ruin?

[Vladimir]

37. As I said in the above post

"the agressor is required to pay reparations in the aftermath of a war"

wow, I just quoted myself. how sad...

anyhow, of course it isn't morally, pragmatically, whatever-ally acceptable, but equally a continued occupation is a continuation of the original crime. The correct course of action is to pull out and provide financial reparations and aid in rebuiliding if asked for through civilian contractors. That is not leaving anything to wreck and ruin. And if:

US leaves => civil war

then any government 'elected' will be seen as imposed by the US. It will have to be propped up in perpetua by foreign troops, just like Karzai's in Afganistan or the way that the EU moderates politics in Bosnia. You can't force democracy onto people.

V

[DarkPhenyx]

54. Mostly wrong answer.

Oh well.

[Vladimir]

55. Good bit of

dealing with arguments set out. Well done.

V

[DarkPhenyx]

60. There wasn't anything new to deal with.

Didn't see the use in trying.

You obviously have decided that leaving the country we broke to fight it out amongst themselves is the best answer. Save our people now at teh cost of their people now and more of ours later. That's cool. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion on the subject. I just wouldn't want to have your Karma is all.

[Vladimir]

73. You see, this is what I resent

If you think I, of all people, am arguing this because I want to save US troops... check out my name. I'm Yugoslav. Remember 1999? How much love do you think I have for the US military?

I have consistently said, and will repeat again, that the US should pay through the nose financially for what it did in Iraq. I argue for leaving because I believe firmly that leaving will be in the best interests of the Iraqi people. They are the only part of this equation I care a jot about.

V

[DarkPhenyx]

82. So a series of bloody and violent civil wars...

...and a threat of terrorism that will be even greater if we pull out, is a better solution? How much good do you think all the money iin the world would do if the violence that will occur keeps destroying what is built?

[Vladimir]

90. These may or may not pass

There's two things here:

1) The terrorism, I agree, is a problem. But its a problem for the West, and all evidence i've seen points to the fact that the US presence is the biggest contributing factor to terrorist recruitment. In fact I believe that a pullout will remove a lot of the impetus from the terrorist's ability to lure young people into signing up.

2) The civil wars may or may not happen whether or not the US stays there. But apart from a Kurdish secession, I actually don't believe there will be a Sunni/Shia civil war if the US leaves. I remember a rally not so long ago when the Sunnis and Shias were marching together chaanting 'No to Sunnism, no the Shiism, yes, yes to Islamism'

V

[DarkPhenyx]

100. Believing that a civil war won't occur is...

...blind faith. Blind faith in anything will get you killed.

Terrorism is only a western problem? Tell the Japanese, Isrealis, several pacific rim countries...

The Suni and Shia have a common enemy. Us. Once that is gone they are most likely going to fall into in fighting. Look at the debates on the constitution. We already have Mulas at near gunpoint with eachother.

[Vladimir]

103. Its not about faith

its about analysing the sitation. If the US withdraws and gives the Sunnis/Shias/whoever strong financial incentives with no strings attached to cooperate, do you really think they won't take them? If the UN says: the US will pay reparations and help rebuild, but through civilian channels and only if you do not engage in a civil war, I reckon the Sunnis and Shias will behave rationally.

V

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

105. No they won't. Remember they're such savages. eom

[DarkPhenyx]

113. yes, I honestly believe it won't work.

I believe taht for exactly the same reasons I don't believe that the US won't build a truly functioning democracy in Iraq.

[IrateCitizen]

99. The classical narrow view from "military" solutions...

See my post #93, below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1352015&mesg_id=1352438

Do you really think that a continued military presence, complete with the escalatingly violent reprisals against additional ghastly events like the recent ones in Fallujah, will somehow quell the "threat of terrorism"? Do you think that a Constitution drafted by the likes of Ahmed Chalabi with "help" from the CGA will be seen as "legitimate" by most Iraqis? Do you think that the 14 permanent military bases being built in the country will be welcomed by the majority of people, or will they be seen as a landmark for resentment?

How much good do you think all the money iin the world would do if the violence that will occur keeps destroying what is built?

Could this violence partially be a result of the rampant unemployment now present in Iraq while outsiders are making money hand-over-fist? Don't you think that if, instead, frameworks were set up to EXCLUDE the likes of Haliburton and Bechtel -- and instead develop ways to deal directly with the Iraqi people in facilitating THEM to rebuild THEIR infrastructure -- that a good bit of the resentment might fade?

These are all questions that you have thus far not even asked, Dark_Phenyx, let alone answered. The reason why is quite understandable -- because, as Americans, we tend to view the solutions to international problems through a militarist lens. But that lens has an extremely narrow view, and if you can discard it, you might just find a whole host of questions and answers you never thought of before.

[DarkPhenyx]

112. You forget.

I didn't think a military intervention was the solution in the first place.

In answer to your questions...

Yes, no, yes and no, maybe possibly not.

I had solutions to this issue long before we invaded. They were quite varied adn mostly didn't involve troops. Unfortunately most of those are dead in the water, and the troops are already involved.

We aren't working from a clean slate. We have to make do with reality as it exists on the ground. Longterm views, not short term gains. Humans mostly suck at that. It takes effort.

[IrateCitizen]

116. It takes lots of effort -- and imagination

My point is that just because the troops are already HEAVILY involved does not mean that it is necessarily the best path to take. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. How many more Fallujahs will we have to suffer before it sinks in that the current methods are clearly NOT working?

For instance, as a former military man, you can certainly appreciate the foolishness of using light infantry and armor for policing duties. None of those soldiers are trained for policing -- they're trained to be the blunt instruments of war. But yet, due to the infinite wisdom of our policy makers, there they are -- doing policing work.

The results of such miscalculations are quite predictable to anyone who bothers to analyze the realities on the ground, rather than seeking to "strategize" above it all. I'm not including you in this ivory tower group, but rather speaking of the wonks in the Pentagon and AEI and PNAC who got us into this mess.

There has to be a time at which we say, "The military solution isn't working. Sure, there are security concerns for the IRAQIS that need addressed, but we must move to address them in ways as quickly as possible, so that outsiders can be removed from the equation." I still think the idea of vastly empowering community citizens councils and the like to carry out policing duties in their own neighborhoods would undoubtedly help matters.

You're right that we can't turn back the clock before the invasion. I wholly agree on that point, and am frustrated with the scores of people on threads like this who seem to operate from the perspective that we CAN do just that. But if we are stuck with this situation, shouldn't we approach it in a manner by which we can actually help to facilitate true democracy? True democracy flows from the bottom-up, not the top-down. Yet, one of the first acts of the CGA was to completely ignore the citizens' councils that sprung up all over Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. It seems to me that the most valuable resource we would have -- direct democracy by the Iraqi people -- is being wasted in the process.

Which, in turn, leads me to question whether or not true democracy was ever a goal there -- not exactly a "leap" to arrive at that conclusion.

[DarkPhenyx]

117. Absolutely.

We severly screwed up all along the way on this one. Most of us predicted that happening too.

The French have the right troops for this sort of thing but there is no way in hell they are going to "loan out" their Constabulary forces to us, adn we sure as hell aren't going to ask them.

We disbanded the Iraqi military. Bad move.

We keep listening to Chalibi. Severly bad move.

The end solution isn't going to be all military nor all civil. It is going to have to be a combination of the two.

[Guaranteed]

8. Yeah, but I really doubt that applies if they want us to leave

so badly that they're shooting us with RPG's and the like.

[Ajoda]

11. Most of "them' do NOT want us to leave.

It's just the small minority of nuts who are trying to sabotage freedom and democracy who want us to leave.

[corporatewhore]

12. wow repeating the WH line how orginal check out my post below

and click on the link Read Bush in Babylon: The Re-Colonization of iraq by Tariq Ali

[trumad]

23. Documentation for that

have you been there to ask if they want us to stay or did you hear this on Fox?

[Guaranteed]

31. Yeah, how do you know? All I'm seeing are frickin' RPGs

and huge groups of rioting Sadr's and Sunnis killing Americans.

[DarkPhenyx]

38. This would be because RPG's sell.

Peace dosen't. Why do you think the "Media Cheered" when "Bush Lied"?

[Guaranteed]

42. That doesn't make the thousands rioting in the streets any

less real.

[DarkPhenyx]

47. No, it dosen't.

So what is your point? We aren't popular there? You don't get prizes for the obvious.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. The occupation of Germany and Japan wasn't all smooth sailing.

Should we have left them to wreck and ruin as well?

[charlie]

64. Yes they were

Compared to this, yes they were. Especially with the Japanese. They were smart enough to adopt a public face of being contrite vanquished lessors. They played MacArthur like a fiddle, elevating him to near god status, winning concessions and latitude with deft strokes to his ego. And in record time, they internalized the necessary attitude adjustments to become allies of their conquerors. How likely do you think that'll happen in Iraq?

[DarkPhenyx]

72. So no pockets of resistance?

Nobody resenting our occuaption? none of that? Wow...amazing. :roll:

[charlie]

96. Yes, stupid me

We're only experiencing "pockets of resistance" from a small cadre of malcontents "resenting our occupation" in Iraq. Nothing a little grit and the resolve to weather the momentary storms won't fix. Stay the course, Yugoslavia was a bizarre aberration, good times ahead, postwar Japan and Germany prove it.

[DarkPhenyx]

101. yes, yes, yes...

...the resistance is more wide spread. Yes, yes, yes...we all know this. For crying out loud no analogy is perfect, you should know this. If you didn't now you do.

[charlie]

111. Oh, cute

You toss out an analogy that's inappropriate and get testy when someone notices it "isn't perfect." Great.

[DarkPhenyx]

114. How was it inappropriate?

You failed to even show that much.

[leftofthedial]

18. I don't bleieve that is true.

we are not obligated (legally) to stay and fix anything.

In fact, according to international law, the invasions was clearly illegal in the first place. Saying we are legally required to stay is like saying bank robbers are legally required to return the money after they rob the bank.

[DarkPhenyx]

26. Actually they are required to return the money.

If the money can be located and the robbers are caught the money goes back to the folks it was stolen from.

Now, tell me how compounding one illegal act with yet another makes things right?

[leftofthedial]

53. nothing about this is "right"

we are already wrong.

Staying there makes things worse for everyone.

as for the bank robber analogy, who is going to catch these criminals and make them give back the money? You?

[DarkPhenyx]

56. Yup! You got it.

Absolutely nothing about this has a good answer. The best we can do is choose the best of the bad. Leaving this situation because we screwed the pooch and are tired of our people dying is not the most moral of decisoins. Or are you suggesting that American lives are more important and valuable?

As to who catches the robbers? No, not me. My job is to cure cancer. You go catch them.

[leftofthedial]

77. the ONLY moral choice is to leave

transition as rapidly as possible to a multinational presence. Pay to fix the things we broke, if the country ever stabilizes enough to begin fixing things.

As long as we stay, we inflame those who understandably hate foreign occupiers in their land. WE invaded. WE occupy. WE put the face on the enemy. Things will never get better while we are there.

[DarkPhenyx]

88. Even if we transition to a MN force...

...there are STILL going to be American there. That's reality. No matter how many countries commit to this it is still going to involve American uniforms on the ground in large numbers.

[yardwork]

51. I hate to quibble but

since when has the U.S. ever paid attention to "international law" when it does not suit us to do so?

And I'm pretty sure that our unprovoked attack on Iraq was a violation of the Geneva Convention already.

[DarkPhenyx]

118. It was.

However it wouldn't justify our breaking the law yet again.

Kinda like I tell my neo-Con co-worker. The mistakes of the Clinton years do not justify Bush doing the things he has.

[Skittles]

4. Bush is incapable of admitting he made a mistake

let alone America's biggest foreign blunder ever. A lot more people are going to die for this man's ego.

[corporatewhore]

5. Because it is the western mans burden* to carry out the duty of

colonization to civilize and westernize because the iraqis are savages and know nothing of civilization although they have one of the oldest. Or so you would think listening to colonials in DC and occupation apologists btw i suggest you read Tariq Ali's book Bush in Babylon: the re-colonization of Iraq he lays out iraqs rich history of resisting colonial rule in the meanwhile read this article he wrote http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1103-07.htm "Sooner or later, all foreign troops will have to leave Iraq. If they do not do so voluntarily, they will be driven out. Their continuing presence is a spur to violence. When Iraq's people regain control of their own destiny they will decide the internal structures and the external policies of their country. One can hope that this will combine democracy and social justice, a formula that has set Latin America alight but is greatly resented by the Empire. Meanwhile, Iraqis have one thing of which they can be proud and of which British and US citizens should be envious: an opposition."

[charlie]

10. We stay

and provide a common enemy that unifies Iraqi factions, until they drive us out and commence to warring with each other...

...or we bug and they commence to warring with each other.

Seems to be the options we're faced with. Either way, it looks like stability and secular government in Iraq are history.

[baldguy]

14. Because WE ARE responsible.

We allowed the Bush bullies to get power. We allowed them to invade. We have a legal and moral responsibility to set things right.

Mohamed Q Public doesn't care about our petty internal political issues. He wants his family to be safe. He wants a job. He wants food. He wants clean water. He wants electricity. And he sees Americans in his country as an impediment to obtaining these things.

The Bushies had no plan for after the invasion. No plan on how to restore the essential domestic infrastructure that was deliberately destroyed during the assault. No clue as to how they would take care of the tens of thousands of people the American bombs injured. Their only concern was to get rid of Saddam - then all would be right with the world. Yeah, right.

We would have done better if, instead of giving the $87 billion to Halliburton & Bechtel, we distributed it to the Iraqi people - about $3500 for every man, woman & child in the country - $14,000 for a family of four. Then the Iraqis themselves could start to rebuild their country.

[Guaranteed]

48. Set things right, HOW?

THAT is the issue. Do we have a purpose for still being there? What is it? WHAT IS OUR GOAL? Who is "supposed" to be in charge when we are finished "fixing" things? Could we just be hurting them more than we are helping them by being there?

They're rioting in the streets, they're killing us, we're killing them. What is the POINT of this?

[Mari333]

15. Bring the troops home now.

bring them home NOW
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[mmonk]

21. Why?

It messes up plans and theories.

[G_j]

22. I'm no expert but

has anyone explored the possibility of Arab/Islamic countries and/or the Arab League taking the role as peacekeepers?

[KittyWampus]

24. First, When You Engender A Volatile Situation

it is your responsibility to help stabilize them... sort of like, when you get a woman pregnant it's your responsility to support the resulting child until thechild is self-supporting.

And PLEASE spare me the indignant "so you think Iraqis can't govern themselves" bullshit for using this analogy. The fact is, society's & cultures evolve and they don't do it in a bubble. Yes, the Iraqis can govern themselves and rebuild their infrastructure. They can also kill their neighbors with a vengenance.

What would be the results of a Civil War? Perhaps the slaughter of many more people than happened under Saddam. Perhaps another breeding ground for terrorism aka a fire which would spread.

Iraq requires stability and a POLITICAL SOLUTION.

Just because Junior and his band of flying monkeys don't want to pursue a political solution doesn't mean there isn't a way to do so.

Wes Clark, for instance, mentioned recognizing the Shiite majority and bascially came right out several times saying Chalabi needs to go.

So why don't you spend more time AGITATING for the removal of Chalabi?

That would be productive.

[trumad]

28. Yah..but my argument is:

It's not stabilizing at all, it's getting worse. I'm all for getting the Arab states and the UN in now... not later. We (the U.S) are making it worse by the minute. I'm just asking if it will be worse or better if we're not around. I think it will be better.

[Karenina]

61. I got your back here, Trumad.

Swatting down a HUGE hornet's nest then attempting to reattach it would be a good idea. Try this at home, kids!

Actually, I've heard many liken U.S. policy to a rapist. You can be sure the victim of a violent rape would be amenable to the attacker "helping with the clean up." I do not think so.

The U.S. military would do well to withdraw from Iraq IMMEDIATELY. But we all know "military intelligence" is an oxymoron... :sigh:

[Guaranteed]

67. Wow...brutal analogy. nt

[Vladimir]

80. good analogy nt

[corporatewhore]

39. seems to me its more like

a guy gets a woman pregnant she didnt like him that much in the first place he likes the woman but only for her money and he abuses her and her kid does the man have a moral obligation to stay or leave her alone

[markus]

122. When you rape a woman

the first responsibility is to go to jail.

Then we figure out what to do about raising the child.

I think that would be a more apt analogy.

We have the rapist (Bush) and we have the child (Iraq).

I think we all agree what to do with Bush. Figuring out how to care for the problem child we now have on our hands is the tough issue.

Ultimately, I think only partiation (leaving the Shiites to themselves and protecing the Shunni and Kurds (and the Saudis and Kuwaitis for that matter) from them is going to be the solution.

And it's going to involve a very high level of peace keeping involvement from tens of thousands of troups for the forseeable future.

But if we decide to turn this into a Crusade against militant Islam in the person of al-Sadr, we will be creating a nightmare of immense proportions.

We will end up with an profoundly anti-American subject population who will cut loose and start killing us the minute our back is turned, even if that's 20 years from now.

We will have made a horrible situation infinitely worse. Reasonable people like Powell probably know this. The Neo-cons are blind to reality, and they are in charge.

[leftofthedial]

33. I've been advocating this since we went in.

Us being there makes things worse, not better.

US out of Iraq NOW.

[Bowser]

44. I agree wholeheartedly.

Bring back the troops NOW!!! No more death!

[NewJeffCT]

46. Unfortunately

If we left now, the resulting civil war would likely drag Iran & Turkey into the mix, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands, if not more. In other words, it would make a bad situation even worse.

Check out Will Pitt's post from yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1347057

[Mari333]

57. amusing discourse amongst those who want our kid to stay in Iraq

and other people's kids to stay.
Like playing a game of Risk for them, isnt it.
Little toy soldiers who dont actually have faces or names.
Like a video game from Playstation 2.
Until you have a loved one in the middle of it, you are merely blowing smoke out your ass.
bring the troops home now
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[seabeyond]

58. say hey, sorry, thought you wanted help and money

lets look as we would a child. what would we do. hm

lots of shit is happening real real fast. this is the challenging time. cause things have come to such a point if democrat choses arrogance, wont get the grace of healing and creating in peace. will be battle in other side. this is an opportunity and sometimes that comes to sitting back adn watching not in judgement. listening and the seeing what is needed

and we have a lot of mouths out there. democrats now, i am hearing their voice, thru aa.........that radio has really created a shift in just a week???? wow

lots to listen to, lol lol

[mike_71]

59. why not leave

The suggestion that the U.S. just "up and leave" is assinine and incompetent!

You're suggesting to pick up our toys and leave after spending 100 million dollars to go there in the first place?!

If the U.S. were to do that with Iraq, we'd have to do that in every other country we have troops, which means we wouldn't have anyone in those other countries making sure all the wack-job neanderthal militant crazy socialist thugs can't grow in power and attack us here at home.

On top of that, the United States is the only country out to protect the United States, partly by removing wack job thug militant regimes, instead of doing business with them, like half the U.N. member countries.

Nobody bitched when Clinton sent NOT ENOUGH TROOPS to Bosnia, (we're STILL there by the way), as a "Peacekeeping mission". But a "Republican" doesn't dare do it! "Because all they care about is money and power!"

[mopaul]

65. F U mike

........

[mike_71]

74. f u

why? because I'm RIGHT? ...

..and YOU KNOW IT? ...

..and it pisses you off?

[molly]

79. You are wrong!

we have an idiot playground bully for a president and he brought his little "club" to the WH.

[Mari333]

85. molly, people who dont have kids over there are chickenhawks

who thump their chests and whine about how wonderful the war is...I hope the draft comes back, and they get to go thru hell on earth as we are going thru now.
bring the troops home now.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com
The troops, BTW, hate people who thump their chests and pretend they support them and insist that they stay in Iraq.

[molly]

89. I have 2 sons

one is in college. I pray every day that the draft does not come back. I'll bet every day is pure hell for you.

[Guaranteed]

84. Mike, you've already proved your idiocy.

But, I'll remove all doubt...

What is our GOAL in staying in Iraq, Mike? Who is supposed to be in charge when we leave?

Just tell me who, EXACTLY, is supposed to be in charge when we leave, and I'll crown you King of the Chickenhawk Idiots.

[yardwork]

66. You're in the wrong place. Freeperville is the last door on the right,

just down the hall and over in that dark corner.

[Mari333]

68. You go or send your own kid to replace mine in Baghdad

Go on! go! now!
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[molly]

83. Hey - let's send the Bush twins!

[Guaranteed]

70. LOL "partly by removing wack job thug militant regimes, instead of doing..

...business with them,"

Yeah...you must have forgot that TERRORIST Khadafi who we're buying oil from, now. How convenient for him (and US!) that he's repented and realized the error of his ways!

Pan Am Flight 103? Never heard of it.

[Sparkly]

78. "instead of doing business with them!"

Has our guest ever heard of Dick Cheney? Or George Bush, or Don Rumsfeld? Or Bechtel, or Halliburton, or Harken or Carlyle?

[Guaranteed]

87. LOL seriously...where's that picture of Rummy and Saddam

when we need it?

[mike_71]

92. ghadaffi

You spelled his name wrong. And yes, we're doing business with him because he's about half-ass wisened up after he saw us pull dummass Hussein outta his hole with a mars bar in his mouth!

We HAVE to get our oil from somewhere, because we're NOT taking it from Iraq like all the liberals are lying about, and we aren't allowed to drill in our own back yard because of the lying wack job tree huggin' liberals who can't get it through their thick heads that the Alaskan "wildlife preserve" ...ISN'T a "wildlife preserve", but a desolate, frigid, frozen desert that no law-abiding, tax-paying animal would live in anyway!

Oh yeah, don't forget about civil war going on in Brazil, which is the world's THIRD LARGEST OIL PRODUCING COUNTRY!

They're not harvesting any right now because of that, and its driving up gas prices.

...but this is all Halliburton's fault, right?

[Guaranteed]

94. There are about a hundred different ways to spell his name.

So you admit that you're okay with dealing with terrorists.

Well, don't mind me then when I call you a PANSY-ASS. "Pansy-ass Republican"....huh...Has a nice ring to it.

There are NO deals with terrorists. NONE.

[Guaranteed]

91. Here ya go, Mike!

Get a brain, Moran!

[IrateCitizen]

93. This is not the either/or scenario you depict, trumad

Trumad, you are exhibiting the a kind of conditioned response on this thread that mirrors that on the right. You presuppose that any continued presence in the region is a MILITARY presence, and that any attempts to help Iraq rebuild itself must be through MILITARY means. This is a false dichotomy, one that leaves out several other, perhaps more viable options. But, none of them are "easy".

Not everyone who is advocating staying in Iraq in some form is an advocate of occupation. Some of us might actually have a desire to see Iraq rebuild its infrastructure and pursue its own path to self-determination -- but realize that it is currently in some pretty dire straights and is in desperate need of outside help, primarily in the area of monetary aid.

Water treatment plants cost money. Power generating facilities cost money. Public infrastructure costs money. Maintaining control of civil society to the extent that girls can venture out their front doors w/o serious fear of being raped costs money. Last I checked, Iraq didn't really have any money. Nor did they have any of the other things I listed above, primarily thanks to the sanctions and invasion that we visited upon them.

Do I support the military occupation? Not in the least. But I also recognize that there is no easy black-and-white solution to this problem. What I would propose is a UN team to head up the short-term political needs of Iraq that would function primarily as an intermediary between the various factions of the country, helping them to work together and figure out what kind of future government would work best for them -- and go about helping them make it a reality. WRT monetary investment, clearly the overwhelming majority of funds should come from the United States -- but the US should not have any role in administering those funds outside of a single international voice that weighs no more than any of the other voices involved. Haliburton, Bechtel, and all other outside firms favored in US contracts should be thrown out on their collective asses. Funds should be concentrated on a community-development level, with citizen councils (possibly the bedrock of a future government) leading the efforts to take on the bigger infrastructure problems like power generation and water treatment. NGO's with training in these kinds of things would be invaluable in identifying people on the ground that can be trusted, and working with those people.

I'd also immediately abandon those plans to build 14 permanent bases in Iraq, and go even further by beginning to dismantle our military "footprint" in the entire region.

Of course, there would be much more to it than this, but it should be clear that this is NOT a military solution. If civil society could be restored, many of the security needs could vanish almost overnight. Iraq is a country that has large numbers of trained engineers, scientists, technicians and skilled laborers. By ASSISTING them in rebuilding THEIR infrastructure, we could see unemployment shrink dramatically and the possibility of a civil society take hold in Iraq.

Cutting and running is as foolish of an option as continuing to try and impose our military will on the country. Both proposals are indicative of groups who operate more out of pure ideology than the concept of just finding things that work, and changing approaches that don't.

Furthermore, what do you think would happen if we just cut and ran? Do you really trivialize the brutal and bloody civil war that would almost surely follow? It would possibly make Rwanda's civil war look like a boy scout camp. And in the aftermath, supposing that we do continue to maintain our military "footprint" in the region, do you not think that Iraq would then become a haven for fundamentalists seeking to carry out acts of violence in order to try and evict us from the region? Do you remember what happened when we left Afghanistan to the warlords and Taliban in the wake of our military support of their mujahadeen against the Soviets? Could there possibly be a lesson to be learned there?

There are a lot of questions that your simplistic strategy has not yet addressed. While I am certainly NOT happy about the way things have gone over there, all the way from the sanctions, through the invasion and now the occupation, I also recognize that actions taken out of emotional basis and fear (which is where your proposal comes from) quite often lead to disastrous results.

[Guaranteed]

97. Even with all that, we'd still need a goal.

Something to actually work toward.

I'm not talking about a plan, here- I'm talking about a goal. What's the goal?

[IrateCitizen]

102. The goal is Iraq for the Iraqis

As much as we'd like to undo the invasion, we can't. It's done. We have to deal with reality as it is now.

Before the invasion my goal for Iraq would have been Iraq for the Iraqis. Just because the invasion happened, that goal has not changed. However, if this can be accomplished without a bloody and brutal civil war occuring, I think we owe it to the Iraqi people to exhaust every legitimate (meaning: not self-serving) option we can before abandoning them to a horrible fate.

Don't you think so? If you were in their shoes, would YOU want to be abandoned to a probable civil war?

[Guaranteed]

104. Yeah, Iraq for the Iraqis,

but what does that mean? We're dealing with a bunch of religious factions that don't like each other. So, who's going to be in charge, and what's to stop them from splitting up once we leave?

[Mari333]

107. I dont care. bring the troops home they should have never been

sent in the first place.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[IrateCitizen]

108. I already addressed that in the above post

What I would propose is a UN team to head up the short-term political needs of Iraq that would function primarily as an intermediary between the various factions of the country, helping them to work together and figure out what kind of future government would work best for them -- and go about helping them make it a reality.

What would stop them from splitting up is mutually-vested interests. That's the whole point of setting something up that actually gets them TALKING to one another, and forces them to sit down and work out their issues with one another. The UN could do this MUCH better than the US ever could.

[Sparkly]

109. I sometimes wonder about forming 3 states

with some help for the smaller ones, Kurds and Sunnis, to defend themselves. Is that a possibility?

General Clark has said there is no "military solution" alone, although it can be made worse if there's no military presence. The political solution needs to start by giving up US insistence on propping up Chalabi, he says. Why are we still so devoted to Chalabi?

[markus]

123. Hell, I had this argument with people over Lebanon 20 or more years ago

Partition or federation is the only real solution. There are two significant armed factions so you can already cut the Kurds in half. The Shia are the tougher nut to crack. You would want to divide them up into states or state-lets that would have some competing interests, to keep them busy worry about whether to restore the Marsh Arabs home versus do we modernize Basra versus do we do whatever else. Having things like this to worry about keeps people from killing each other.

[Vladimir]

98. I gotta

endorse most of your plan IC. Very well thought out, although I disagree about the inevitability of a civil war in the wake of a military exit. One question, does your plan envision any kind of foreign military presence in Iraq, or?

V

[IrateCitizen]

106. Much, much, much smaller than now...

Of course, there are security considerations in Iraq right now. I'm not talking about for US troops, either -- I'm talking about Iraqi girls staying in their homes out of fear of being kidnapped and raped if they venture out into the street. This is obviously not a situation that can be ignored or glossed over, if you are truly concerned about the well-being of the Iraqi people (or people in general).

However, whatever military presence is there should consist of international troops trained in peacekeeping operations. This means that the US should only really have MP's there, along with the necessary support units. Infantry and armor should be sent home, because they are made for fighting wars, not keeping the peace. Also, the entire force should be placed under UN command, with a clear (and short) timetable for leaving.

The citizens councils I described earlier could be instrumental in establishing security. Most of the people in Iraq do not want to live in fear. If they are empowered properly, they could actually stamp out much of the lawlessness that is rampant. This, in turn, would probably accelerate the timetable under which international troops would be pulled out.

WRT the inevitability of civil war, I just can't see it any other way. Primarily because of the way in which Iraq has been decimated over the past 12 years. If the infrastructure was rebuilt -- thus giving Iraqis a genuine, visible stake toward building their own society for themselves, this inevitability would melt away. The problem right now is that most of them don't have anything to lose. And there is nothing more dangerous than people with nothing to lose.

[Vladimir]

110. OK, now I understand

Both the army and police force have been tainted by their percieved 'collaboration' in the occupation. So I agree with you that some sort of international presence may be necessary in the interim, I would say preferably mostly composed of UN troops from other Arab countries (if they want to participate). But this will involve a willingness to accept casualties and take risks which I fear no-one will have the stomach for. At least in the short term, certain radicals will try to stir things up, and any foreign forces will have to put Iraqi lives and interests ahead of their own to maintain credibility.

V

PS on edit, of course even an Arab force would suffer resentment from Iraqi nationalists but I doubt it would be as bad as with the US forces.

PPS see post 103 for my view on the civil war.

on further edit: change will to may in second sentence

[trumad]

119. Huh? Are you confusing me with another poster?

My original post asked if we left now, would it be worse or better. Post 28 (my post) clearly indicates that I am for the UN or Arab States coming in and help cleaning up the place. I don't want the US Military in Iraq but your post to me seems to suggest that I do... Maybe I'm to dense here but I don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

But let me make it clear again. The Head General in Iraq is asking for more US troops... That spurs in my mind the memory of Viet Nam and it's disasterous results. BEFORE we get stuck knee deep in the shit and before we expend another fucking 100 billion bucks and countless more lives, I say get out...I say get the world in and let them help fix our mess, I say we go on bended knee and ask forgiveness for our blatant hostility towards the World IE: the UN.

Ummmm..is that a bit more clear regarding my position in this matter..:shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

121. Yes. Why didn't you include it in your initial post then...

... in order to avoid this kind of confusion.

There have been numerous instances of posters here saying that we should just bug out of Iraq completely, and whatever happens... happens. Your initial post essentially said this, whether you intended it to or not.

I don't always read through every post on the thread prior to replying, especially when it's a long thread. That is why I missed your further clarification of what you were trying to say, which was different from your original post.

[JCMach1]

95. How bad? Think Rwanda, Bosnia and Lebanon all rolled

into one...

[spanone]

115. We had to do it in Vietnam eventually.

But don't plan on the bush* looking weak in an election year, regardless of how many human beings die in the process.