Sadly -- It's not time to bring troops home...

[Peter Frank]

Bush wisely calculated that by sending troops to Iraq -- the job would last beyond his 1004 re-election.

He got us into a mess & now we have to clean it up. To leave now would mean that we stormed the prison & allowed the free assholes to take charge.

Let's not give the keys to the car to the next generation of neo-cons.

[Kire]

1. So you would advocate keeping the rapists in the home with the raped...

...until they "cleaned it up"?

[Peter Frank]

5. Stupid question...

...the price of us leaving now would multiply personal tragedies manyfold.

If your driver gets you stuck in a ditch -- do you just curse the driver, or get your ass out of the ditch?

[Kire]

6. easy for you to dismiss

we're not driving the people in iraq around, we're sticking tire irons up their asses and making them scream

[punpirate]

10. Making that assertion...

... you are obligated to provide more detailed reasons than just whimsy.

How, in fact, will an occupation which inflames the Iraqis and creates the current misery alleviate that misery by its continued presence?

No platitudes. Specifics are required to justify the continued deaths of American troops and Iraqi civilians.

Dispense with the BS and address the specifics, please.

Cheers.

[Imagevision]

33. The Pentagon has already budgeted Iraq war thru 2013 if that

tells you something!

What is this "noble" cause Bush speaks of? Bush lied us into this war and now we're just, -- Stuck with it??

No, Bush got over 100,000 killed not counting our own and he should be impeached and tried for war crimes!

[punpirate]

35. Oh, yeah, I know about the budget projections...

... which I think have come out of the CBO (at least, they were the ones issuing the numbers saying that if the war continued through that date, it would cost the taxpayers a total of $800 billion).

But, to my mind, the money, large as it is, is secondary--the loss of lives for no good purpose is of primary importance. If one ends the primary problem, the secondary problem goes away, too. :)

There's just no good justification for continuing the conflict. One recent article by Robert Parry pretty much outlines most of the arguments I've been making to those who take the conventional view that we have to stay until Iraq is running normally:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/081605.html

Cheers.

[Peter Frank]

2. ...

...realistic thoughts?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[shraby]

3. No matter what we do there, they will end up

with a theocracy. That's the type of government they understand. Church and state are one and the same to Muslims. Their belief in Muhammed governs over all aspects of their lives. These people have lived like that since before time almost, so we might as well hitch up our pants and high step it out of there and let them sort it out themselves.

[Peter Frank]

8. I'd say that Bush drooped the ball - but he never had it...

...In the 80's I had many Iraqi friends here in the US -- students. They represented the more innocent times. Bush has succesfuly divided (for election purpouses) our nation into us & them.

(Don't be surprised to find that Russia is behind al Qaeda.)

[Stockholm]

9. Maybe in the short run

Everyone should have sat down last year, Sunnis, Shiite´s, "Coalition", "Insurgency" and worked something out.

Now the situationen is quickly deteriorating, never mind what the spin says.

* and his cohorts are watching their high school strategies crumble right before their eyes.

[Imagevision]

40. You're forgetting, we shouldn't have been there to begin with!!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

14. Actually, Muslims don't "believe in Mohammed"

in the way Christians "believe in Jesus". Mohammed is not worshipped; he was a messenger of God, and it is God alone Who is worshipped. And not all Muslims (by a long shot!) want to be governed by Sharia. There are many many progressive Muslims all over the world who don't want this.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. They were living in a secular society for 30+ years before the invasion

I'd be willing to bet that most of them would not want to live in an Iranian or Saudi Arabian style theocracy-- especially the women.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Excuse me, but do you know why Osama disliked Saddam, and....

...vice versa?

Do you know why a synagogue, as well as the churches of other religions, was allowed to function undeterred in the city of Baghdad under Saddam's rule?

The answer to both questions is that Saddam did not allow Islam to guide the functions of the government of Iraq.

The second answer is that Osama wants every country in the world with a majority of Muslims in the population to be governed by a fundamentalist Islamic government.

With the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, the NeoCons have pushed that country toward complete and total Islamic radicalism. There is no turning back the hands of time.

But, I do agree that we should get out of the entire Middle East as quickly as possible, yesterday, if not sooner.

[xchrom]

7. uh -- that would put off the inevitable.

the iraqi's have to figure out their own future -- our presense stabilizes nothing.
and only insures that more hostility is directed at the u.s.

civil war may very well be the price to be paid for whatever the future of iraq is -- and may have been probable, saddam's family not withstanding.

all we are doing now is digging the quagmire hole deeper.
no foreign force has ever successfuly occupied iraq -- and we're not going to start now.

if you want to create several generations of entrenched terrorists -- then just ''stay the course''.
and by terrorists -- i don't mean the current insurgents -- but folks who are willing and able to hit us back at home in greater numbers than currently exist.

[DemInDistress]

11. my plan for iraq

1st accept these 3 diverse ethnic groups who lived for decades under oppressive tyrants,the hatred for each other is deeper than my hatred for bush..Anyway,I suggest 3 states of Iraq.In the North the Kurds rule,in the South,the Sh ia and Central Iraq would be run by Sunni's.
Both the North and South would contribute 45/50% of oil revenues each year to Baghdad for they have the least amount of known oilfields.Each State of Iraq should have a President and V.P...Two times a year a meeting of all parties should be held to help move Iraq forward.If during the years Iraq heals itself it may one day desire to be a united country..
The Bush Crime Family Plan for Iraq is patently obviously.This Crime organization is fighting atop of 212 billion barrels of crude.How do they part themselves from that crude...thats like a coke fiend fighting off all comers for that hugh coke supply..Suppose the New Iraqi Government decides to nationalize their vast oilfields..no private companies especially from the west.

[newswolf56]

12. If you reason from the premise that Bush's so-called "blunders" are...

in fact manifestations of clandestine policy, then what you get is an entirely different picture: the deliberate imposition of theocracy in Iraq, (as if) in precise compliance with the secret demands of the Saudi Arabian royal family -- not to mention the Bush/Grover Norquist scheme for building a domestic (and possibly world-wide) alliance between Muslims and Christofascists on the basis of mutual hatreds: of women, gays, intellectual freedom, liberty itself. (The picture-perfect alliance to control the global workforce, the defacto slaves of the global oligarchy.) Think about it, damn it: not Bush as a moron, but Bush as an ultimate Machiavellian capitalist.

[HamdenRice]

16. Interesting idea with some modifications ...

I agree that the number and scale of the "blunders" the administration has made -- and moreover, in the face of realistic, well thought out advice from the State Dept. -- makes it increasingly unlikely that these were mistakes rather than "manifestations of clandestine policy."

What that policy was, however, is the issue. I disagree that it involves Saudi preferences, because the result of a theocracy in Iraq is a Shiite theocracy, whereas the Saudis are fanatical Sunni/Wahabis, who don't even accept Shia as a legitimate form of Islam.

Nor is it likely that there is planned a Christian-Islamic alliance, because the kind of fundamentalist Christian that bush appeals to does not accept Islam as a legitimate religion, and would see the expansion of Islam as condemning countless souls to eternal damnation.

I do think that the administration was influenced, however, by Israeli thinking on how to "govern" the "Arab mind," and on the necessity of a weak Iraq. The Likudists of Israel, the only kind of Israeli politicians the neo-cons listen to, believe that "Arabs only understand force" and violence, and the only way to govern Arabs is to humiliate them. This is the core of Likud thinking on Arabs: they must be so crushed and humiliated that they won't think of resisting. There is a direct intellectual link between Sharon's overall thinking about Arabs and "shock and awe."

I don't think it was a completely well thought out policy, but I do think the neo-cons envisioned conditions similar to the West Bank and Gaza, of constant checkpoints and humiliations, and the use of overwhelming, indescriminate deadly force against any resistance or even perceived resistance. But the neo-cons simply didn't predict the level or effectiveness of the resistance that the "Westbankization" of Iraq would unleash.

Secondly, neo-cons thinking, in line with Likud thinking, did not want a strong, democratic Iraq, as the administration propogandized; they wanted a weak, destroyed state that would never pose a threat to Israel's hegemony again.

The only task left in this "clandestine policy" is the similar destruction of the Iranian state.

[Ms. Clio]

38. Yes, a strong and stable Iraq was never the neofascists' goal

And if it's in three or 4 pieces split along ethnic/religious lines, so much the better, as far as they're concerned.

[mogster]

13. True - it's time to bring in the UN

And it is time for Bush to go.
He is no president, he is not smart enough to fight this war, alternately he is fighting this war with the purpose to harm US relations with the muslim world/Europe/China/Take a pick.

Of course with oil as the happy by-product ;-)

> To leave now would mean that we stormed the prison & allowed the free assholes to take charge.

Ummm... there is a slight error in this allegory.
The free assholes actually own the prison, it is theirs to do with as they please, according to intnl. law.
Besides, the new guards of the prison randomly arrest and torture those that oppose their views.

There is only one option left: Get Bush out of the White House and replace him with a legal president that has the trust of the world outside the US.
That will do wonders for the Iraqi situation.

[Telly Savalas]

25. Which UN member states are anxious to get their citizens killed in Iraq?

[mogster]

31. Well, they will be no more anxious than the American soldiers

I guess ;-)

The UN member states will share the burden of this war, but not under this president.
Besides, the whole point is to reduce the number of killings by sending troops for peace, not occupation.

The bread and butter for the Iraqi conflict are the lack of credibility by the occupation forces. They aren't there for the Iraqis, they are there for the oil.

[teryang]

15. Bush isn't wise and he can't calculate

He didn't send troops to Iraq - he invaded the country for no justifiable reason in an illegal act of overt belligerence, a war crime.

Some messes can't be cleaned up, like mass murder. Our presence only prolongs the violence.

Your mixed metaphors are senseless. It is war that empowers an illegitimate neo-con regime that wasn't elected or re-elected. This regime is robbing the treasury and nation's future blind. Their trumped up war is the justification for oppressing Iraq and us.

[Q]

17. Grab a gun and get your ass over to Iraq...

...and become one of the Cannon Fodder, Sitting Ducks that you think should stay there until 'wise' George declares victory.

It seems very easy for armchair generals like yourself to claim that more Americans and Iraqis will have to die before someone decides it's the 'right time' to bring the troops home.

[matcom]

18. Sadly -- You couldn't be more wrong

:eyes:

we leave now, the Iraqi's figure it out.

we leave 10 years from now, the Iraqi's figure it out.

we have fucked it up enough. we'll fuck it up worse.

btw, the ranks are thin. feel free to lend a hand.

[charlie]

20. I'll leave it to you to tell them, then

I'm not up to it.

You guys hunker down and hang tight for a few more years, we've got a job to finish on the home front. We're gonna thwart the heck out the neocons by giving them exactly what they want.

[Roland99]

21. A simple cost-benefit analysis (which Repubs love so much re:environment)

would show in a heartbeat that staying in Iraq is a lose-lose situation.

Of what benefit do our troops serve over there? Being targets for insurgents and terrorists? There's not much else they're doing.

And, for one, our military was NEVER meant to be a reconstruction force. That's what the UN and invaded country's own citizens are for. Not for farming out work to mercenaries and companies that are part of the vast military-industrial complex.

There are two things this administration has managed to do successfully:

1) Find a way to have a sort of economic recovery where the only beneficiaries are corporations and holders of large amounts of stocks.

2) Invade a country to make an even smaller portion of Corporate America experience tremendous windfall profits.

Oh, I guess one more thing:

* Manage to make the U.S. government the most hated and feared than at any other point in history.

[seabeyond]

22. i dont know the answer peter so, i am listening to the iraqi's who

live in this shit. bush has messed up every step of the way of this war. staying will do no good if you dont change things up. doing hte same thing over and over, WILL end up with hte same results and that we know isnt working. bush is not changing things up, trying to solve the problem. he just closes his eyes and pretends all is well but....

i have been reading hte iraqi bloggers. and they say the u.s. has to go to allow all the shit to settle. saying u.s. fucked up, and they will have to live with it, but cannot even start being fixed with us there. i will trust the iraqi's over my own judgment

[Inland]

23. You're thinking same people who caused the mess can clean it up?

If Kerry had won, I'd have some sympathy for the argument: I know we would have a president who had a brain and who wasn't pursuing some wacked out agenda.

I would be a long shot but it might be worth a try.

But Bush and Rummy and Cheney are incompetent. Furthermore, their number one priority is keeping themselves from being blamed. Therefore they can't change course, no matter who it helps. Sticking to failed policies helps them.

[HereSince1628]

24. You mean the US should pick who and how new Iraq gets run?

You wrote "To leave now would mean that we stormed the prison & allowed the free assholes to take charge."

I guess you mean we should stick around to make sure that only the assholes who agree with us should be in charge. That would seem a recipe for permanent engagement in Iraq, because no people are going to accept being ruled from outside.

[KG]

27. so, you're ready to sacrifice your loved ones to this noble cause, right?

[steve2470]

28. Are you willing to die in Iraq for that cause ?

How about your children, if you have any ?

(crickets chirping)

I didn't think so. Argument over. Bring them home NOW.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. Sadly, you would condemn to death still more Americans and Iraqis...

...by continuing to illegally occupy Iraq.

The "mess" is not going to get any better no matter what we do.

[ladjf]

30. Leave Iraq immediately. I mean as soon as the troops can be

loaded onto the planes. How are we helping Iraqis by driving up and down the roads until we get blown up? Don't listen to Bush, Kerry, Dean or anyone else that says we've got to stay.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Yes. We must accomplish the "mission"! Kill more people! USA!! USA!!

Good lord. Why not throw in a chorus of "God Bless America" to go with your nonsense.

[Strelnikov_]

34. Quagmire. We Can't Stay. We Can't Leave.

Next edition of Webster's dictionary will have the entry 'Quagmire, see Iraq'

Ramping up (along with with massive aid/rebuilding) is one solution. That is, make a real effort.

The other approach, of course, is to pull out. If we do, we had better put a WW2 level mobilization effort into energy transformation, because we will be losing Persian Gulf oil within several years thereafter.

I cannot say in which path the least risk lies. But, just on what I know, I say pull-out. My rationale is as follows:

- There is no guarantee that the rampup would work in preventing general gulf-wide civil war.
- Either path will take vast amounts of resources. At least with the pull-out option we will have begun the transformation of our energy supply.
- Even if rampup works, the region will be out of oil in 20-30 years anyway.

One thing I can say for sure, the current approach is not working.

And if we do exercise the pull-out option, and a massive energy transformation is not implemented concurrent with this event, we are in big trouble. Rent or read Brin's 'The Postman', it doesn't sound like fun.

The extremely dangerous situation the GOP has placed us in does not end with a pull-out from Iraq, it simply changes the nature of the threat.

[Imagevision]

39. Can't stay or leave? and can't put a time limit on it? Sounds like

Vietnam all over again. Bush: "until the Iarqi army can stand up to the "insurgents" we won't be pulling out of Iraq"

Get real...are you saying if the number of dead US. troops reaches 50,000 we'll still be waiting for the Iraqi army to get their shit together??!!

[Strelnikov_]

42. The Region Around Vietnam Did Not Have 66% Of The Worlds

remaining oil reserves.

A region that the Chimps ham-fisted military adventure has now destabilized.

The current conflict is a much more dangerous situation from a strategic standpoint than Vietnam ever was.

[Tinoire]

36. How loathesome.

How loathesome. How smugly superior in a freeperish Anglo-centric sort of way to think that one of the most ancient civilizations on earth, one that contributed so much to the world, needs gun & coke America to stick around to control the mess.

Time for America to get the fuck out of there throwing money around generously and profusely apologizing for being part of the Axis of Evil.

[FreedomAngel82]

37. Two words

Vietnam war.

[Imagevision]

41. Two words? you nailed it!! Viet Nam all over again - when the number of

US. dead reaches 2-5-10,000 killed - will it be any easier to pull the troops out for a war started under false pretenses?

[leesa]

43. Nonsense. US presence is the PROBLEM in Iraq. WE are the

bad guys. WE are the occupiers. Our continued presence will only excalate the violence. Haven't you been paying any attention to what has happened?

[Beelzebud]

44. How high do the bodies have to pile up before it's time?

Simple question, really.

What is an unacceptable death-toll?

In vietnam it was over 50,000. Do we need to get to that point before we say ENOUGH?

[lonestarnot]

45. More bushit!