RE: Iraq Withdraw (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Dtesmoac -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 8:45:05 AM)

I don't believe anyone has made a hard and fast rule, limiting anyone to these two scenarios.
 
I set out three possible long term scenarios none of which are good for the USA & Britain. There are of course multiple other alternatives between these extremes.  The war in Iraq could be won in the short term by the use of methods resulting in massive cvilian and "combatant" casualties. Such methods are not generally acceptable for use by modern democracies or even some non democracies. In the long run such a strategy would fail due to wider loss of influence, trading partners, trust, moral high grond etc. Cutting and running will result in similar loss but probably not to such a long term extent. Both of these probbaly result in less short term pain for the US and Britain but will result in longterm bigger problems and are both morally bankrupt.
 
The third one is short term painful, long term painful, and possibly  not quite as morally bankrupt. it also will send the message that the USA is a dependable ally, believes that people other than US citizens also have human rights but that even the USA can not change the reality of human viciousness and stand between factions that are intent on forcing their will and view of the world upon others. All the USA can do is create longterm stability and prosperity within a small section of the country and those who wish to move into the 21st Century can live their and prosper, whilst those who do not can live outside of the area and battle it out. In all three cases, innocent lives are lost, in all three cases there is no morally correct outcome but ask your self the question where do you want to fight the suicide bombers and idealists, in Afghaistan and Iraq or on the streets of Memphis or Manchester. Currently the resource efficient way of attacking the west and killing westeners is inside Iraq and Afghanistan, take that opportunity away and you have more people and more resources available for assault on other parts of the western civilisation.
 
Have a nice weekend.
 
 
 



caitlyn -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 8:48:33 AM)

Bad wording on my part ... I sort of meant, go with option three, or some other option. [:D]



thompsonx -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 9:55:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

When the USA pulls and runs from Iraqi those that supported them will be butchered. Message to the rest of the world - you can not trust the USA. Future US policy initiatives will be hampered, including attempts to protect the USA from futher terrorist attacks.  

If the USA applies a strategy to win in Iraqi such as it has used in the past e.g. "Kill the Buffalo and commit genocide" translate to Iraqi as lets poison the water and instigate forced migration it will loose all moral integrity and will loose all support from the rest of the world. i.e copy how Saddam did it.

In either scenario unlike after 9/11 when most of the world rallied to the USAs support the next time there is a spectacular terrorist attack in the US it will not just be in the streets of Gaza and the West Bank that people dance in the streets at the death of Americans.

For the US as unpalatable as it may seem they probably need to be thinking in terms of keeping significant numbers of troops in parts of Iraq for the next 10 years under the limited mandate of "We will create a few limited safe area where those wishing to live in security will not have civil freedoms but will have access to food, jobs and security". Whilst outside of those areas the Iraqi government and its supporters can fight a very dirty and probably ethnic / religeous based conflict for control of the country. There is no longer a morally equitable win situation for the US & Britain, what is possibly going to happen is failure in Afghanistan & Iraq with the lesson that supporting the Chinese or Islamic fundamentalists is the best option for your security rather than the West.




==========================================


Dtesmoac:
The arguement that there will be a bloodbath.
The US will loose face for cutting and running and abandoning our allies.
The world will not trust the US.
I seem to have heard these arguements before.  The blood bath did not occure in Viet nam.
The majority of the world already feels that we are a bunch of international thugs as witnessed by the number of allies we were able to buy for this fiasco.
The world does not trust the US now.  Look at the number of  treaties we have signed and reniged on.
Once we have created these safe zones (my guess is that they will be in the oil producing areas) will they then be elligible for statehood?
thompson



mnottertail -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 10:04:12 AM)

quote:

When the USA pulls and runs from Iraqi those that supported them will be butchered. Message to the rest of the world - you can not trust the USA. Future US policy initiatives will be hampered, including attempts to protect the USA from futher terrorist attacks.


So, three or four people die in our pullout.........what is the big deal?  And I believe that is the level of support we are looking at over there..........

Toss in UN Peacekeeping forces but don't have american command..........

Whatever, our job there is done, Saddam is punished...........setting up a puppet government was not a stated goal, but obviously an inheirent one in the policy.

We have won!!!!!

Now, get the fuck out.



meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 10:06:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

The arguement that there will be a bloodbath.
The US will loose face for cutting and running and abandoning our allies.
The world will not trust the US.
I seem to have heard these arguements before.  The blood bath did not occure in Viet nam.

One side one and one side lost in Vietnam, it was a clear cut victory for the North. In Iraq, well who knows how many factions there are and how long they are prepared to fight, not to win but because they hate the other side more than they hate the Americans.


The majority of the world already feels that we are a bunch of international thugs as witnessed by the number of allies we were able to buy for this fiasco.
The world does not trust the US now.  Look at the number of  treaties we have signed and reniged on.

True. The best the US can salvage, is not to look worse than they already do.

Once we have created these safe zones (my guess is that they will be in the oil producing areas) will they then be elligible for statehood?

I've come to believe those that say this was all about oil in the first place. There will be a mini independent state around the oil fields. The rest of the country will be allowed to rot in hell.



ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 12:01:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

The third one is short term painful, long term painful, and possibly  not quite as morally bankrupt. it also will send the message that the USA is a dependable ally, believes that people other than US citizens also have human rights but that even the USA can not change the reality of human viciousness and stand between factions that are intent on forcing their will and view of the world upon others. All the USA can do is create longterm stability and prosperity within a small section of the country and those who wish to move into the 21st Century can live their and prosper, whilst those who do not can live outside of the area and battle it out.



There's only a few major problems with that plan.

1. Nothing in plan three would make the Insurgency want to stop their efforts at terrorist activities. In fact, all they would have to do is set up shop somewhere between anyone who wants to live in the civilized areas and the civilized areas and they could just continue terrorizing them.

2. With the "enemy" behind a wall, the terrorists can continue to recruit people and give them a physical object to objectify their recuits' irrationalities and focus their insecurities upon.

3. The US would never fund such a gargantuan project or find the troops willing to guard it. Eventually, the insurgents would find a way to establish a black market trade with the people on the inside and a few bombings later, you'd be back to square one.



Dtesmoac -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 12:20:22 PM)

There's only a few major problems with that plan. - I can think of a lot more but we are in the realm of lesser evils not solutions.

1. Nothing in plan three would make the Insurgency want to stop their efforts at terrorist activities. In fact, all they would have to do is set up shop somewhere between anyone who wants to live in the civilized areas and the civilized areas and they could just continue terrorizing them.
Yep - but you know where to locate your forces to soak up their resources. They hate and will continue to hate for the next few generations what the US / West standards for anyway, at least you are choosing where much of the battleground will be.  

2. With the "enemy" behind a wall, the terrorists can continue to recruit people and give them a physical object to objectify their recuits' irrationalities and focus their insecurities upon.
Yes part of the objective is to provide an easy to get to and attack location where those determined to die for their cause can go and die.

3. The US would never fund such a gargantuan project or find the troops willing to guard it. Eventually, the insurgents would find a way to establish a black market trade with the people on the inside and a few bombings later, you'd be back to square one.
The US may be willing to fund it if there is a profit for them and certainly will be willing for others to die for it. The US funds Israel to a high degree so why not a few more states in the Middle East that can fight the war against Islamic extremism by proxy. Eventually US ground troops will be able to be reduced as more local forces can take over in much smaller geographical areas and with the threat of  US air supportin the event of Iran or anyone else trying to take over the areas bingo you have another 10 Kuwaits in the region - too small to threaten anyone else but large enough to provide significant local support. Message sent to any other country wishing to receive US / Western attention in the future is "we will dismantle your infrastructure, dimember you into the ethnic groups and provide minimal reinvestment to most but massive investment to our friends. Morally a poor position but perhaps better than some of the other options. Look at Yugoslavia has the dismemberment of the country really been a bad thing in the "middle term"?
Where do you wan the bombs to go off near you or near someone else? - !!!




mnottertail -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 12:21:05 PM)

Not the least of which Israel has done this with Palestine, and gargantuan would be an understatement as a modifier to couple with the word failure..........

In case anybody doesn't understand this, 'cause it seems I am to cryptic, I pretty much agree with Zenrage that the aforementioned plan is pretty much off the table


Ron



Dtesmoac -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 12:25:48 PM)

So, three or four people die in our pullout.........what is the big deal?  And I believe that is the level of support we are looking at over there..........
Thousands of people believed in the US promise and risked everything on that, their children, their wider famalies, eveything. The killing fields of Cambodia were due to US policy in Vietnam........ 

Toss in UN Peacekeeping forces but don't have american command..........
Why should someone else clear up the after the US when they told the US not to do it?

Whatever, our job there is done, Saddam is punished...........setting up a puppet government was not a stated goal, but obviously an inheirent one in the policy.
Mr USA he speak with fork tongue?

We have won!!!!! Ha Ha LOL I saw that sign on the US aircraft carrier too.

Now, get the fuck out. Create a mess and let someone else sort it out. I won't be tempted to assault the US character. To an extent I agree but the timescale needs to be far longer than mny people would like.




NorthernGent -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 12:29:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

I was listening to the BBC World news this morning and one commentator said the US cutting and running is Britain's worst nightmare (perhaps he should have said, Blair's worst nightmare) and that such a policy would have every British politician with a memory (and one assumes intelligence) never to back another US enterprise and probably have them realigning Britain with Germany and France. Not a bad thing in my book since Britain is European and share their interests but is a nightmare for Britain's Atlanticists who are going to hear the words 'I told you so' for a generation.


Well, it's plain wrong.

The logic that underpins our alliance with the US is our shared economic viewpoint (not providing soldiers to fight a war). We both adhere to a neo-liberal style of economics that binds our two countries together. The US could quite easily pull out of Iraq and our Government's arrangement with the US would not be affected (providing the US does not withdraw into itself and pursue an isolationist/protectionist approach).

The real problem for the British Government will come if the US does adopt a far more protectionist approach to its economy. Then, we will be well and truly fucked and out on a limb because the last thing the Europeans want is our free-for-all approach impacting on their social model and if the day comes where we no longer have an economic ally in the US (which is more than possible based on history) then our Government has nowhere to go (in terms of belonging to a trading block with the clout to compete).

Unless things are not what they seem, the British Government has firmly put all its eggs in the US basket. If they retreat within themselves then it's either go it alone or go cap in hand to the Germans - which is not necessarily a bad thing as our Government would be forced into conforming towards increased economic regulation and social provision.



NorthernGent -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 12:42:16 PM)

There is no option for the US and British Governments to remain in Iraq. It is a matter of when rather than if.

Put simply, the withdrawal will come sooner or later and there will be no democracy. Whether you call them terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters they are going to kill Americam and British soldiers until public pressure in both countries reaches a level where the only option is withdrawal. The only question is, how many people have to die before people wake up and demand the withdrawal?

Post withdrawal, the next problem is that the terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters will transfer their focus and resources to Britian and the US in order to kill sufficient civilians to create the public pressure on our Governments to change foreign policy in the Middle East.

There's two options:

1) Change foreign policy now, experience a temporary economic slump and minimise civilian deaths.

2) Change foreign policy later under severe public pressure and maximise civilian deaths.




meatcleaver -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 2:58:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Post withdrawal, the next problem is that the terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters will transfer their focus and resources to Britian and the US in order to kill sufficient civilians to create the public pressure on our Governments to change foreign policy in the Middle East.



One of the claimed reasons for invading Iraq is because terrorists were already targeting the west. Remember 9/11? It was before the Iraqi invasion. Now I believe WMD was a ruse for an invasion but Islamic terrorism was a fact before Iraq and it will be a fact for a long time to come and will have little to do with Iraq.



Dtesmoac -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 5:53:57 PM)

NG - check your economics Europe is still a larger trading partner for the UK than the US is, but generally the UK is a more international economy than most - including proportionately the US. Germany has an economy that is undergoing major reorganisation. France became the worlds largest investor in other countries because it's economy is stagnant.




thompsonx -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 6:44:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

So, three or four people die in our pullout.........what is the big deal?  And I believe that is the level of support we are looking at over there..........
Thousands of people believed in the US promise and risked everything on that, their children, their wider famalies, eveything. The killing fields of Cambodia were due to US policy in Vietnam........ 
Now that is one that I have never heard...would you mind explaining your reasoning?
Toss in UN Peacekeeping forces but don't have american command..........
Why should someone else clear up the after the US when they told the US not to do it?
True, The Iraquies are the ones who should solve the problem after we leave.  If they choose to do it with bullets that is up to them.
Whatever, our job there is done, Saddam is punished...........setting up a puppet government was not a stated goal, but obviously an inheirent one in the policy.
Mr USA he speak with fork tongue?
True

We have won!!!!! Ha Ha LOL I saw that sign on the US aircraft carrier too.
Yes I think that was a pathetic little dog and pony show.

Now, get the fuck out. Create a mess and let someone else sort it out. I won't be tempted to assault the US character. To an extent I agree but the timescale needs to be far longer than mny people would like.
Leaving would only piss off corporate amerika.
 
thompson





Sinergy -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/12/2006 10:13:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline

Where did this come from at all?
 
In th analogy (which had nothing to do with China) coal represented oil for the sake of trains... which was comparable to your "car" analogy and was my way of asking you to not be so simplistic... having graduated the third grade, I am confident I can read a spread sheet.



Regarding trains, you are the one who insisted I use Thomas the Tank Engine.

I was merely pointing out using my car analogy that in a cost / benefit analysis of the Iraq Debacle, the United States is paying an enormous cost for something which we may never benefit from, and which will ultimately result in the bankruptcy of our country.

I would recommend you read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Collapse, and American Theocracy if you want to understand the economic issues behind oil and how the US paying for it. 

The Earth is a limited system space.  In a limited system space, there is an end for everything.  The problem with oil is that the more you pump out of the ground, the harder and more expensive it becomes to pump more out of the ground.

The cool thing about Iraq is that with the sanctions imposed, they still have some that is easy to extract.

quote:
 
On US oil purchases:
We would never "have to purchase" from any particular country (per se) - and (but), seldom let politics interfere with our business - look at Venezuala - we are their largest customer for their oil.



I find it amusing that you think the United States would never have to buy oil from anybody. 

Never is a really long time.

When Venezuala started making noise about making the United States purchase their oil using Eurodollars (because Monkeyboy savaged our currency by dropping interest rates out the bottom) the Conservative led media and administration started comparing their democratically elected leader to Hitler. 

quote:


quote:

My point, which it seems you missed, is not about what China is doing.  It is about the potential future of the United States.  I would suggest you look long and hard at where we get our oil from, and then consider what would happen if those people should run out of oil, and then mix that up with a simpleton President from the oil industry who has just been given control of the US military.


1. We get our oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuala, Kuwait and domestic sources along with other dribblings here and there.

 

 
Have you read anything about the state of the oil industry worldwide in recent years?

Oil in the countries you mentioned is becoming more expensive to come by as the years go on.  There comes a point in oil extraction where it costs more to obtain it than the oil sells for.

quote:



2. An oft repeated slander on this board and others indicative of a poor means of communicating dislike for US policy:
The President is not a moron - just because someone does not agree with his politics and/or motives does not mean he is "stupid" and generic and subjective associations will not make it so. Let's face it - he was elected twice - and, IF he was as dense as purported, he would have said something something damning that would have ended it.
 
This is kinda like Gerald Ford presidency and his alleged clumsiness.



I will refer to the person the confederacy of dunces in this country elected to be king in any way I feel like referring to him.  I apologize if that offends you.

It seems you have a high opinion of him, but I imagine the answer I would get to the question of "what exactly he has done that had a positive outcome during his life" would make me go cross-eyed and dither nonsensically prior to taking 800 milligrams of Ibuprofen to deal with the headache I would get thinking down to that level, so I will simply state that I am happy you have found a true inspiration in life.

To bring the thread back on point, the issue on the table is what to do about the situation in Iraq.  The issue is not about how I refer to the Simian In Chief and whether or not that offends you, so why dont we keep the thread on topic.

Thank you,

Sinergy



LordODiscipline -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/13/2006 7:55:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Regarding trains, you are the one who insisted I use Thomas the Tank Engine.


That is because Thomas is so much more evocative than a mundane car with a half tank of gas... do you not think so?

quote:

I was merely pointing out using my car analogy that in a cost / benefit analysis of the Iraq Debacle, the United States is paying an enormous cost for something which we may never benefit from, and which will ultimately result in the bankruptcy of our country.


I am not at all aware of any country ever going bankrupt  - that is a very specific legal and economic term denoting loss of majority holdings and the associated manuever to avoid paying the people owed. It is an incorrect analogy and/or way to think of a countrys monetary system as it is not accurate and completely off base.

quote:

I would recommend you read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Collapse, and American Theocracy if you want to understand the economic issues behind oil and how the US paying for it. 


I avoid such politicized looks at the economy, as they are designed exclusively to play to the lowest common denominator in American (or, any country's politics and have no relevance beyond the point where their first indicators of doom and gloom pass by.
 
Economics is about a fluid amount of indicators and the abbnility to read them as they progress - not about some static op ed piece written by someone who is trying to cash in on a bear or bull market and/or on the optimism or pessimism of the people.

You are better off reading the "Economist" and simply understanding how the markets work historically and really.

quote:

The Earth is a limited system space.  In a limited system space, there is an end for everything.  The problem with oil is that the more you pump out of the ground, the harder and more expensive it becomes to pump more out of the ground.


And, how much oil (in estimated years of consumption)have they just discovered in hte Gulf that was not there previously - and, what is the outlook for all sources of energy going into the future? What is the status of fussion energy? How has solar energy advanced over hte last ten years and what does this ensure for the future?
 
There are a lot of aspects besides the statement that any closed system is "limited" - that is a given, and usually the precursor of someone proclaiming the enfd of the world (figuritively or literally) without consideration of some aspects of the chaotic elements that are involved inthat system.... and, a thourough understanding that all things tend toward entropy - abnd,,ntherefore of course energy within this system of consideration shall be depleted... that is a natural situation.

quote:

The cool thing about Iraq is that with the sanctions imposed, they still have some that is easy to extract.

[I find it amusing that you think the United States would never have to buy oil from anybody. 

Never is a really long time.


Apparently you are missing the meaning of "per se" and the stated codicile of politics involved in that statement - I find that it is also very narrow minded in that you assume that the politics of any country will remain stagnant and/or repulsive toward our purposes.
 
Iran is and has been the dominant force in that area of the middle east - and, as such is something we are trying to not accomodate.. it does not mean that they shall always be reprehensible to us - or - that we shall avoid dealing with them... just that we shan't sasist them in their endeavors toward the southern/eastern portions of Iraq.

quote:

When Venezuala started making noise about making the United States purchase their oil using Eurodollars (because Monkeyboy savaged our currency by dropping interest rates out the bottom) the Conservative led media and administration started comparing their democratically elected leader to Hitler. 


And, what makes you think that a transfer of money from our country to another would ever use Eurodollars - that is rather silly.
 
If we sent them money that we had somehow obtrained from Europe, it would be in American dollars - as those would be the units reflected in the transfer.
 
And - you are assuming a lot.



quote:
 
Have you read anything about the state of the oil industry worldwide in recent years?

Oil in the countries you mentioned is becoming more expensive to come by as the years go on.  There comes a point in oil extraction where it costs more to obtain it than the oil sells for.


Until it is such that the price of oil rises - and, it is economical and profitable to do so - hence th reason that oil companys do not get rid of land where the oil is pumped to that point - and why the whole shale oil situation is still in the offing - and, why the Canadian Pacific is now pumping again after several decades of silence.

quote:



I will refer to the person the confederacy of dunces in this country elected to be king in any way I feel like referring to him.  I apologize if that offends you.


It does not really offend me except where it refers to the leafder of my country in a smaller than life way...
 
What it does do is narrow a consideration of yourself by your demeaning of the conversation and therefore the people you are speaking to... in other words - it inhibits good communication.
 
I cannot help but feel that someone's argument is so weak that they have to refer to someone in that way in order to feel better about it - and, to try to sway the weak willed and the "on the border" into their camp.
 
But, that is me.

quote:

It seems you have a high opinion of him, but I imagine the answer I would get to the question of "what exactly he has done that had a positive outcome during his life" would make me go cross-eyed and dither nonsensically prior to taking 800 milligrams of Ibuprofen to deal with the headache I would get thinking down to that level, so I will simply state that I am happy you have found a true inspiration in life.


And, you ass-u-me too much about me and my politics... unlike yourself aI am not swayed in one way or another by people and their place in a heirarchy... (which part of that is missing in my diatribes, etc.?)
 
You - however - often take it to a moronic level of personality in a discussion of economics - and, that level does nothing to enforce your position... only deminishes it as an annoyance as mentioned above.
 
Consider that.

quote:

To bring the thread back on point, the issue on the table is what to do about the situation in Iraq.  The issue is not about how I refer to the Simian In Chief and whether or not that offends you, so why dont we keep the thread on topic.

Thank you,

Sinergy


I am not the one refering ot others in the dimin utive - so, I am not the one that made it an issue...
 
Label me disappointed but not surprised that you are incapable of communicating without bolster of your position through purile means..

~J



Amaros -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/13/2006 8:17:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
I agree, which is why I think we can't just withdraw, but must stay and do our best to prevent a bloodbath in a situation we caused with our foolish rush to war.


For once, I have to agree with Caitlyn, although to suggest staying the courswe without a gameplan is merely to compound the original mistake.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

The best proposal I have heard, is the one where we redeploy our current forces to southern Iraq, in order to:

a) establish a humanitarian center that will be much needed as the country lapses into civil war,
b) protect Iraq's oil assets,
c) discourage Iran from overt actions in Iraqi affairs,
d) place our forces in a more defendable position, cutting down on American casualties

With the goal of allowing Iraq to determine it's future the old fashioned way. I believe this was an option presented by John McCain in Meet the Press, but don't quote me on that.


Hadn't heard this, but it sounds right - forget "winning", in order to even continue the fight, we need to maintain a presence in the region - a foreward base of operations if you will, adn Southern Iraq is much easier to defend - it's under mostly Kurdish control, and the Kurds are probobly our most reliable and predictable allies, if only for the simple reason that we're the only ones who aren't actively trying to eradicate them - although Bush did flirt with the worst case scenario there, i.e., selling them out to the Turks.

In order to persue this conflict, which Orson Scott Card defined well enough, although his admiration for Bush and the republicans is badly misplaced - we need Iraq to be both democratic and self sufficent - that is the definition of winning in terms of this conflict - but we can't do it, and our failure to stabilize the country has actually make less likely as an outcome.

What we have is, number one: the Iraqi government wants us out - they've said so, they look like fools when we're calling all the shots, and hence it undermines their authority, without which, they cannot govern effectively.

Number two, conversely, the Iraqis largely lack at this time, the ability to control the country themselves, without help.

Withdrawing to Southern Iraq satisfies both problems: it gets us out of direct interference in what are, essentially, Iraqi affairs, while at the same time preserving our ability to run support missions for the Iraqi police and armed forces - close air support, armour, covert ops, etc. - this will help preserve the morale of the Iraqi stabilization forces - which might collapse if we withdraw entirely - and bolster their effectiveness (the original Chalabi plan for toppling Saddam involved the use of Kurdish ground forces, with US's role confined to support - the plan rejected by the Neo-cons who thought they pull the same old puppetmaster routine we've been playing for the last 50 years - played out, I'd say).

The thing is, I do believe they want democracy, they just don;t know what it is yet, because they've never experienced it - this wouldn't be retreating, more like regrouping, it cuts our losses, and allows us the chance to see just what the Iraqis can do, without drastically reducing our ability to intervene as necessary - we'd actually be doing them a favor.

We also need to get back on good terms with Syria, etc. We might be the biggest kid on the block, but it never hurts to have friends - that's the other way to define winning here.

Back when #41 pulled out of Iraq the first time, I predicted we'd be back: there was no way sanctions were going to be enough to topple Saddam, and he had no reason to play nice - and here we are.

I also predict that if we pull out now, we'll have to go back in again - whether next week or ten years from now, we'll have to go back.







JohnSteed1967 -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/13/2006 8:19:25 AM)

Well you caught me at the right day and time. Its time to really give my feelings on Iraq and the like.

Iraq was not about WMD it never was, is or shall be, It Has always been about the OIL. Not George W. Bush but defiantly Bush's handler's have been wanting in there for years remember they wrote the "Plan for the New American Century" That little tidbit seemed to just fall by the way side.

Had Clinton's boys written that little monograph he would have been branded a war hawk and accused of planning genocide.

Now please don't get me wrong, W. Bush and HW. Bush are fruits of the poisonous tree. It just seems to me that all of America forgets how the founders of the Bush family tree were arested by the FDR Admin for "Trading with the Enemy" and how that Prescott Bush stole geronimo's skull right out of the grave. That HW Bush was the paymaster for the CIA during the bay of Pigs invasion, and possibly could have had a hand in the JFK assination.

I Guess America can just forget all these little issues and America can forget how HW called for a "New World Order" during his presidential acceptance speech.

However, it does seem that America is quite sick of watching their hometown heros go off and die in the desert for that we now discover  was a LIE! (SHOCK)

As Bob Dylan Said "Steal a little and they throw you in jail, Steal a lot and they make you a king"



Amaros -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/13/2006 8:22:34 AM)

In fact I would suggest this be our stategy from here on out in all these regional conflicts: let local troops do the heavy lifting, while we provide support - logistics, training, close combat support, etc. - they don't really lack manpower, which is what we're short on, but they do lack the support and training we have in abundance.



Amaros -> RE: Iraq Withdraw (11/13/2006 8:34:05 AM)

Half the problem in Iraq is that there are in essence, two conflict going on simultanously: one, is the Muslim fundamentalists we're fighting, and the other is an internal Iraqi conflict, the civil war between Sunni and Shia - by withdrawing towards the border, we can practice border control, i.e., insurgents filtering across the border who are the people we are actually supposed to be fighting, and give the Iraqis some room to deal with their own internal conflicts.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875