Why can't we cut and run?

[dwckabal]

Seriously, what is the big deal about pulling our troops out of Iraq? Sure, we'd look like losers (briefly) to the rest of the world, but I bet future Presidents would think long and hard before doing the same thing again.

My take is that Bush is more afraid of his high-powered buddies at Halliburton, Unocal & the Carlyle Group than he is of looking like a fool (he does that well enough on his own, anyway). If we pull out now, his buddies are screwed.

Agree/disagree?

[trotsky]

1. Disagree.

Saddam was terrible, but he was at least a stabilizing force. That's why the Reagan/Bush administrations supported and armed him.

We pull out now, we could end up with someone/something a whole lot worse than Saddam. The only way we can get out is to turn over EVERYTHING to the U.N., including the planning & reconstruction. But since the PNAC crew will never allow that, we're stuck.

[trogdor]

3. The last thing we need is anarchy in Iraq.

Yes, it is indeed about the goddam oil. If warlords get control of it, the situation with Saddam in charge will be a fond memory in comparison. We will have to deal with it somehow; the question is, how much will it cost (a shitload), and how long we will stay there getting our asses shot off.

[terrisel]

If Sustained Open Warfare Breaks out

If sustained open warfare breaks out in the next 6 months I believe that we will have to accept whatever the UN offers and leave.

The argument that we have to see it through even though we went in based on false assumptions is too weak for the public to accept, especially when there is an alternative.

I believe the extra 20 billion of our money that Bush is getting from Congress is just lost money that is being passed to private corporations and won't do much rebuilding and will never come back to the US Treasury.

[JitterbugPerfume]

2. you got it

he also stands to gain more than he wil lose (he thinks)

[bowens43]

4. disagree

We destroyed their country, we destroyed their infrastructure. We are obligated to the people of Iraq to rebuild that which we have destroyed. To leave now, at least to leave completely, would greatly increase the suffering of the people of Iraq. We are responsible for the well being of those people.

[bryant69]

7. Dead on

You do have to spend a bit of time thinking about the Iraqi people. I mean I know it would be fun to see President Bush humiliated, but who would pay the price for that humiliation? The Iraqi people.

We are in a Catch-22. If we rebuild Iraq and it becomes a relitively prosperous stable nation, particularly if it becomes a democracy, than that will stand as the "proof" that President Bush's policy was the right one. But opposed to that is the suffering of the Iraqi people and the concern over what might happen if we leave. Anarchy in Iraq leads a couple of different places, none of them good.

The best solution is to bring the UN in and admit that we need their help. But President Bush won't do that. On the positive side, I think any of our candidates (even Lieberman) will reach out to the UN and bring them in.

Bryant
http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[kentuck]

8. If we destroyed the infrastructure, it was before the invasion...

We marched straight to Baghdad in a few short days and by-passed most of the cities on the way. If the infrastructure is destroyed, it was done by the 12 years of bombings before the war.

[bowens43]

17. !2 years of bombings,

the first gulf war , the second gulf war and sanctions......

[xJlM]

5. Someone thinks there's some money there

What else could it be? Halliburton and the others have their no-bid contracts all set up, so they stand to lose a killing if we turn it over to the UN to oversee.

I don't understand how any democrats could support staying there, or the 87 billion dollar question. Bombing that country was a war crime, and now they want to try to bleed it dry. And the blood will flow from America as well as Iraq, as evidenced by the continuing attacks.

[RichM]

26. This is the right answer. Control of Iraq is worth trillions of dollars -

that was the whole point of seizing it in the first place. To "cut and run" would be walking away from all that wealth -- just leaving it sitting there, undefended.

That is something greedy capitalists are quite unable to do. Even if the US did walk away from it (zero chance of this, BTW), there'd be plenty of others eager to get their paws on it. To prevent this, the US would not only have to say, "We are willing to give up this fabulous prize," it would also have to say, "We are willing to fight anyone else who tries to grab it after we're gone." I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen.

[melv]

6. We broke it, we bought it.

The morality issue comes into play. We destroyed these people's lives, their livelyhoods. We are obligated to help them rebuild, although it should be on their terms, not ours.

[nyjew]

10. Don't forget Israel

I think we also have to consider the threat posed to Israel, both direct and indirect, from Iraq. Sadam gave money to the families of suicide bombers. He gave money to groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He had weapons (such as they were) aimed to strike at Israel, as he did in the first Gulf War. I think if American forces hadn't struck so quickly and covered so much ground, then Sadam would have attacked Israel again.

We certainly cannot allow another goverment hostile to Israel to come back into power in Iraq.

[revcarol]

14. We go to war so Israel won't feel threatened by planes buried in the

desert and a nuclear power plant already destroyed by Israel? Saddam was NO THREAT to any of his neighbors after the first inspections!!

Depend on DU for accurate news, not the GOP!!

[newyawker99]

21. Hi nyjew!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. well then let the Israeli citizens pay for the cost of the war and the US

occupation and for the reconstruction of Iraq...seems only fair

[terrisel]

12. We Will Be Expected To Pay

The "we broke it, we have to fix it" concept does not require that we be in control of fixing it--we will be asked to help fund the reconstruction and be offered a small share in the planning. It will be a major defeat for the US.

The next 6 months is crucial--if we are not in control by then in a mostly peaceful Iraq that accepts our presence, I believe we will be out.

[bowens43]

19. I agree.

The UN should be in charge and the rebuilding should be primarily financed by the US and Great Britain.

[dwckabal]

18. We broke it, so keep on breaking it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=525994

To get out of this mess, we will need a STRONG leader who will NOT bow down to special interests (i.e. corporations). As long as Big Business runs the show, Iraq will be a shambles, our soldiers will be killed, and we will come off as imperialistic morons.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi melv!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[screaming_meme]

9. Are you familiar with the Somalia debacle?

And its ramifications? Withdrawing from Iraq would be like Somalia cubed. If a Democrat is elected, he wont withdraw either.

[maha]

11. Somalia cubed -- that's good.

Succinct. I like it.

Iraq was not a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism before the invasion, but it sure as hell is now. If we cut and run now the country will be taken over by a combination of fractious warlords and Muslim extremists who will be able to do lots and lots of damage to the rest of the world for many years to come.

On one hand, we absolutely must get lots of people and resources from the rest of the world in there as soon as possible. But if we just cut and run we'd be cutting our own throats, and Iraqi throats as well.

[revcarol]

13. When we get Kucinich as President, our troops will be out in 90 days,

replaced by experienced UN peace keepers.

And WE have an obligation to restore the country to the state it was in before, with OUR money.The UN would take charge of all reconstruction, include the Iraqis and the other nations of the world and not just feed the Halliburtons and the rest of the war machine.

We broke, we gotta fix it.But it will be a LOT LESS COSTLY in American lives, in Iraqi lives, and in money when the UN is in charge.

[maha]

15. You're assuming a lot ...

... like the UN will go along with this plan. Much negotiating will have to be done. In fact, I believe all the Dem candidates and a lot of Republicans are saying the UN should take over reconstruction and a lot of other things in Iraq. It never fails to amaze me that the Kucinichistas assume this is an original idea of their guy.

Beware, beware of "leaders" who make it all seem too easy.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. If US left, who would destroy the crops? Who would cut off UN food?

Who would shoot the children? Tear down the homes?

Who would torture all those "detainees?"

How in the world would Halliburton make more money if the US left?

[maggrwaggr]

22. Bush is like Homer Simpson with his hand stuck in the coke machine

All he has to do is let go, and he'll be fine.

In other words, he could make a deal in five minutes to let the UN come in, take over, and we could get most of our guys out, but he doesn't want to give up 1% of control of the oil.

It's his pure greed that's keeping this situation so messed up.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

23. it's not cut and run..i suggest that we give Iraq the $50B of the $87B.

for his FRAUDULENT war to the UN earmarked for Iraq reconstruction and get out...only logical solution.....imho

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. Iraq needs to be stabilized, BUT

the U.S. is not the party to do it. Bush would never do this, but what we need is to invite the UN in and tell them that they can divvy up all the oil revenues for their expenses.

And Bush would no more do that than pull his hand out of the Coke machine.

Seriously, though, I am disgusted with the way we really did cut and run in Afghanistan. The money spent on Iraq could have gone a long way toward putting Afghan people back to work rebuilding their country. If instead of turning our attention to the non-existent threat from Iraq, we had spent a few billion repairing the infrastructure, building schools and hospitals, giving microcredit to small businesses, and inviting international aid organizations (especially staff members from more liberal Islamic countries like Turkey, Tunisia, and Bangladesh) to come in and administer relief efforts, that would have done a lot more to stabilize the Middle East than conquering all the countries there.

[opihimoimoi]

27. Somalia, Beruit, come to mind where it was PRUDENT to leave

Come, we search for Wisdom, she around here somewhere/