Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ha! The Fact That People Are Openly Saying We Can't Leave Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 07:28 PM
Original message
Ha! The Fact That People Are Openly Saying We Can't Leave Iraq
and We Can't Leave Afghanistan says what, children?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
thebigidea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. oh, one word leaps to mind... and one defense secretary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Iraq and Afghanistan have the potential to make Vietnam
look like a picnic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Brings back memories.....
We "couldn't" leave Vietnam because...shriek.. it would become communist and then all the dominoes would fall in place and the whole world would be come communist.

So, instead of leaving on our own, we had 55,000 of our soldiers killed, killed hundreds of thousands civilians and then had our asses run out of Vietnam, live on tV in a military defeat.

Same thing will happen here. The only question you have to answer is:
"How many body bags do you want?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. The end result is always the same: US is forced to withdraw!
The only difference is whether we realize we made a mistake and leave now, or remain in denial and leave later with many more dead and wounded on our conscience.

I am having a lot of Vietnam deja vu moments lately!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Me too
I know the younger folks on DU get tired of hearing how this is like Vietnam....only 30 years ago and the whole fucking nation has completely forgotten (well most of them).

It's just in fast forward this time. What worries me is that if Dean is elected (and I support him), he believes apparently that getting the U.N. involved can fix it. Iraqi's don't care what country the infidels come from. They want them ALL out.

At least Dean isn't an idiot, knew it was a mistake to begin with, and hopefully can deal with this thing in a way that gets us out soone rather than later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
4. That we can't go fuck things up and leave without cleaning up
the mess we left first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. What if your "cleaning up" is also a
fuck-up? How the hell we gonna "clean up" when everything we're doing, is for our benefit, and not Iraq's. Another delusion designed to assuage our guilt and vanity. "We simply can't leave because it will be a mess." "We'll just stay here and suck up all the oil profits, after all, the Iraqis have to pay for us bringing freedom and democracy to them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. right on
Rumsfeld and pals are war criminals. They are not capable of cleaning anything up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. I agree
bush crime family are "cleaning up" on oil profits but not in the honorable sense of "cleaning up" a mess.

Pulling out our troops would leave Iraq in total chaos and I think we owe it to the Iraqi people to prevent that since we are the ones that caused it. And it was a GROSS and FATAL error to go in without UN support IMNSHO.

I don't know what the solutions are, Solomon, but at the very least an adequate infrastructure needs to be set up and the facilitaion of a new gov't accomplished. Having said that, I don't trust this administration to do what's best for the Iraqi people - I DO trust they will only do what's best for Haliburton and BIG OIL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Well they wouldn't need as much infrastructure if we hadn't dropped
a considerable number of bombs so that somebody could get rich re-building the infrastructure. The solution is to turn it over to the U.N. and get out. Nobody likes to hear that, but it is a solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. No disagreement from me that it was
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG to go in there in the FIRST place. But nobody listened to us. We were just "unpatriotic" fuckers. Believe me, I am not going to forget that coming from people who know me better - and ALL of them far less informed and involved than I am.

This administration is now making "noises" about UN involvement, which I support, but I don't believe it for a second coming from these asshats. They are nothing but crooks, and any backtracking they do on the issue of complete control in Iraq will come with unacceptable weasel words and terms. It ain't going to happen. We, and in our service men and women and the people of Iraq, are fucked as long as president cheney is running this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. The solution is to turn it over to the U.N.
But that doesnt mean we can just get out.

Its the only way to get us out succesfully IMHO but even turning it over to the UN wont get us out right away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrendaStarr Donating Member (491 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Yes, and we should give the UN an amount to be determined
by the agency to help with the rebuilding of Iraq.

That would be over and above our normal dues to the UN.

The UN would install a real democracy, not an puppetocracy and would not enforce the overpriced contracts for Halliburton and Bechtel and other Republican campaign donors (like MCI/World Com).

Some say that by leaving Iraq the US would be free to invade another nation, but I think the American people are wising up to the Bush administration and their imperialism.

And again the rebuiling of Iraq under these people is a rape of the country, not a real humanitarian effort.

htt://news4u.alturl.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Both projects are generating revenues as projected

Halliburton had some very impressive numbers last quarter, and is expected to finish up the year on a sprightly note.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. That we broke it, we bought it
We left Afghanistan in 1989. 12 years later, two buildings in New York got blown up as a direct result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I don't know If I follow this one.
I mean I admit I don't know as much as a lot of people about Afghanistan and such but I thought (perhaps wrongly) that the people WE trained back then, Ossama Bin Laden, et. al., were the ones that eventually prevailed so I'm kind of lost on how leaving there led to a direct attack in New York twelve years later. I mean, didn't we give Bin Laden, et. al. a LOT of money and support?

I don't know. I thought we were very fortunate that Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and caused its eventual collapse. I saw no reason why after that we had to go fucking around over in Afghanistan. But now I see that some business people have an opportunity to make tremendous money in Afghanistan, IF, they can get the natives to act right.

Also, does this mean that we have to maintain a military presence in every country in the world since to leave, could conceivably lead to a "direct attack" twelve years later? I hope you come back and help me understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Here you go
The Other American Dream
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Sunday, 1 September, 2002

(wow, one year ago today...creepy)

http://truthout.com/docs_02/09.01A.wrp.am.drm.htm

(snip)

This other American Dream is not solely a creation of Bush administration officials, nor has it just recently come to fruition, nor is it fixated solely upon the Middle East. The bloody history of Afghanistan represents a clear example of the kind of geopolitical gamesmanship that characterizes the plans these people have for America. Afghanistan in 1978 was ruled by a Communist puppet regime called the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). To foster a destabilization of that regime, so as to counter the growing Soviet influence in that strategically vital region, America began arming and training Afghan mujeheddin warriors, with Pakistan's assistance, in an effort to undermine the PDPA.

This effort, however, had more in mind than the overthrow of the PDPA. Elie Krakowski, in a study written for the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in April of 2000, described Afghanistan's importance as going far beyond the dictates of the Cold War:

"(Afghanistan) owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has become an important potential opening to the sea for the landlocked new states of Central Asia. The presence of large oil and gas deposits in that area has attracted countries and multinational corporations. Because Afghanistan is a major strategic pivot, what happens there affects the world."

This places American aid to the mujeheddin in 1978 in a broader perspective. Our actions were not simply about attacking communism. In attempting to destabilize the PDPA, we were hoping to tempt the wrath of the Soviet Union. It worked: The USSR invaded and eventually destroyed its ability to extend influence into the region against the unyielding rock of Afghanistan, eliminating a strategic enemy and opening the region to broadening American hegemony.

Zbignew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor for President Carter during this period, bluntly confirmed this in 1998. "We did not push the Russians into invading," said Brzezinski, "but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. The secret operation was an excellent idea. The effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap."

Brzezinski's brag is revelatory, for it describes the lengths to which the proponents of this other American Dream will go to achieve this goal. Afghanistan was utterly destroyed by the Soviet invasion in 1979, by the ten-year war fought by Afghan warriors to remove them, and by the ravaging civil war that descended in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. In that span was born the Taliban, trained to fight, and to propound their deadly interpretation of Islam, in Pakistani religious schools funded and supported by the American CIA.

Brzezinski's "Afghan trap" gave birth, as well, to Osama bin Laden, whose reputation as a heroic anti-Soviet mujeheddin warrior made him a demigod within Afghanistan. None of this - the Soviet invasion, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, the wretchedness of life in Afghanistan - would have come into existence without the forces behind the other American Dream playing out geopolitical strategies designed to augment American control in the world.

This other American Dream was codified by Brzezinski in 1998, who authored in 1998 a study for the Council on Foreign Relations entitled, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives." The study describes in detail the importance of Afghanistan and the entire Central Asian region, which is described in its entirety as "Eurasia." According to the study, America must gain military and economic control of the region to stave off competition from China, Russia and Europe. The guts of the study are quoted below:

"But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals including gold...It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America...A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions.

"To put it in terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

Profoundly disquieting are the conclusions reached by Brzezinski regarding the means by which the American populace could be directed into supporting the actions required to achieve control in that region. "As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

The danger is clear. This geopolitical strategy of dominion in Central Asia, begun in 1978 with the "Afghan trap," put in motion a series of events that ultimately led to the creation of the Taliban, the empowerment of Osama bin Laden, and the attacks of September 11th. The plans described to Richard Perle's Defense Policy Board that target not only Iraq, but Egypt, Saudi Arabia and indeed the entire Middle East, were born from the same strategic imperatives.

...more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Oh. I already understood all of that.
My question was I don't understand how leaving there (especially if we were never really there, only training) could lead to a "direct attack" against us 12 years later. I don't follow that.

By that logic, we can never ever ever leave Iraq, since it could lead to an attack against us later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. The place was destroyed. We were directly responsible
for its destruction. We did nothing to fix that destruction, but instead left it there to rot. 2+2=4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. No, In Iraq they did not and cannot buy anything but
more blood and suffering.

THEY broke it. WE will be forced to pay the price, but neither they nor we own it. The only question is what price and in what currency we will pay for what this vile bunch of cold-hearted wheeler-dealers have done.

If we could absolutely repudiate every thing this gang of thieves and thugs has done, that would help. If we hand them over to the ICC, that would go a long way toward paying the price.

But unless we want a price paid in blood for generations to come, we need at a very minimum to remove the occupation forces from Iraq and see them replaced by multinational aid workers.

Iraq's future will depend on the relative powers of the forces at work in Iraq, whether it turns out well or not. Ability to work with international aid teams will be a factor that may strengthen the more moderate unifying forces, but the odds are that the future will see two or three tyrranical fiefdoms emerge, and the likelihood of extreme Islamic fundamentalism winning there increases with every day that Rumsfield uses US troops to attempt to exert control over thqat future.

What could a Dem pres do? Prosecute these mass murderers for one. But failing that, as seems likely, replace the billion-dollar-per-week pricetag for attempting to use military force to turn Iraq into a vassal state with a contribution to the UN Rehab mission of half that size and put the rest toward a reconstruction of the US's defensive infrastructure (hospitals and health care, education, firefighters, roadways, alternative trans and energy sources, etc.

Etc. You get my drift.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. History check
Edited on Sun Aug-31-03 10:49 PM by NNN0LHI
How could we have left Afghanistan in 1989? I don't remember the USA even being in Afghanistan in 1989, or before. The Soviets did leave Afghanistan in 1989, but I don't remember the US ever having any troop presence there. We sent guns and money to Osama bin Laden and his other "freedom fighters" to fight the Soviets. And perhaps a few congressmen slipped in to see how our money was being spent, but I really don't remember us actually having any presence in Afganistan until just a couple of years ago.

Now had we moved into Afghanistan in 1989 to try and pick up where the Soviets left off, what makes anyone think that our occupation there would have been welcomed any better than the Soviet occupation was? I don't believe we would have been welcomed there? Does anyone? Kind of reminds me of picking up where the French left off in Vietnam during the 1950's after they left. That didn't work out so good either.

We invaded Iraq in 1991 to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait and then left US troops in Saudi Arabia and several other other Arab countries when we were finished with Iraq which I think directly led to the two buildings being knocked down in NY 10 years later. Osama bin Laden offered to do the entire job of removing the Iraqi's from Kuwait himself with his fellow mujahideen fighters without any assistance from the US or anyone else, in hopes of keeping westerners from stepping foot on Arab holy ground. The US turned down his offer. That is the way that I remember it anyway.

Don

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. A couple of questions.
1. Why can we not turn administration of Iraq over to the Arab League?

2. Why can't we do the same for Afghanistan? If not the AL then maybe Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. great questions
I hope someone can shed some light that approach. Sounds good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. because then we would loose control n/t
peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Birthmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. In order to lose control...
...we would first have to establish control. I missed the news today, but as of yesterday I can say that we control very little in Iraq. We can't even keep the oil flowing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. This is what I'm talking about.
We're committing crimes against humanity just to maintain our "face". Pure vanity. And greed of course, can't forget greed, we're actually rather proud of that here in America. People should be a little greedy we feel, or you'll never make it.

We don't control anything there but we won't admit it. We'll keep brutalizing Iraqis because we want their oil. Bottom line. If we didn't want the oil and the rebuilding projects so bad we could turn it over to U.N.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booberdawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. The control this administration wants is $$$$$
and a foothold in the mideast. It never had ANYTHING to do with Saddam or WMD. That was just the bullshit fed to the public. You and I know better.

It's not going to get better as long as the bush regime is controlling things, I'm sorry to say. You are right, but being right doesn't count for squat anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. Oil? Someone finally mentioned oil?
That's why we can't leave. We'd all be riding bicycles in 3 months. That's how bad bu$h&co have screwed things up. The Arabs would turn their tap off and we would die of thirst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solomon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. Good Point.
I forgot about that. The possibility that this thing may have finally succeeded in uniting the Arabs, something no one could ever do, I forgot to consider. Since we counted our chickens first and jumped out of Saudi Arabia, we wouldn't have a toehold there would we - even Afghanistan since we don't really control it either. But why should the Iraqis have to pay for our mistake? Oh yeah. We are better than them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC