What do you say to a Dem who says about Iraq: "We can't leave now."

[baby_bear]

This is driving me crazy. I get nuts and alienate the people who say this, so obviously I am not saying the right thing.

ARRRGHHHH

Okay, I will take it easy. Tell me what to say to these people, please. Why is it that we must stay in Iraq, regardless of consequesnces?

b_b

[shawcomm]

1. I don't know...

It's just crazy. All we have to do to stop the killing is load our people up and bring them home. They stop killing and stop being killed. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. There's no reason why we 'have to stay now' other than to prove just how much more murderous our country can be.

[Yupster]

20. Can we also load up all the Iraqis

that have helped us, because they will be hunted down and murdered if we leave them there.

[bush_is_wacko]

48. Sorry,

We have to find a way to stabilize the country without violence first. Read the history of Iraq. All the different Muslim and Christian (yes there are Christians in Iraq, they have absolutely NO voice, but they are there) will fight amongst themselves for power, and, the fact of the matter is, the first Iraqi's to be slaughtered by their own people will be the ones Iraqi's recognized have been working with us! I think the solution may be a more multinational group and truly free and fair elections (and no, I don't think that can realistically happen on Jan. 30th!) Once there is someone in charge there BESIDES American's and their puppet leaders, we may be able to gain a modicum of "success" and be able to back out. I am not talking about continuing to massacre the civilians by the thousands here, but we owe the Iraqi people the training to run their own oil wells and establish their own leadership, including a police force that isn't afraid to leave their protected compound. This is going to take some time. We will have to change our tactics, unfortunately, we cannot change our presence yet. I wish I could agree with you that we should just pack up and leave, but I KNOW that's not the answer. One of the Iraqi civilians population's concerns have always been that we will do just that, they have experienced that before and they really do not want NO help at all. We need to invite other nations to help us strategize! That is what *hole NEGLECTED to do from the get go! Our only hope at this point is to HELP, not HARM the Iraqi people. * screwed us all when he placed the first American soldier on Iraqi soil!

If all of the above fails, we will eventually have no choice but to do what we did in Vietnam. Just remember what happened to the Vietnamese after we left! They were slaughtered by the thousands. I don't think people realize how many "holocausts" there have been in the history of human existence. I also wonder IF there is any nation or multi-national group that the Iraqi's will accept. I know if I had experienced what the Iraqi's have I wouldn't really trust ANYONE!

[tblue37]

67. Excuse me,

but Iraqis already know how to run their own oil wells. Iraqis are famous for being a highly educated, technically skilled population. They also know how to rebuild their own infrastructure. However, this administration doesn't want them to, because those contracts go to well-connected American companies that shovel money to Republican campaigns.

BTW, those contracts are deliberately bloated, too, so that Halliburton, Bechtel, et al. can do the maximum war-profiteering. Iraqi companies could do the rebuilding at a fraction of the cost. Also, as long as Americans "rebuild," the resistance will destroy. There will be violence and killing no matter what, but as long as we stay, we prolong it and delay a shaking out that could lead to peace and security.

When we fled Viet Nam, there was violence, and collaborators were hunted down and killed. Nothing we can do will prevent that from happening in Iraq, either. But as with Viet Nam, the sooner we leave, the sooner stability can be achieved. We accomplished nothing in Viet Nam but 58,000 American deaths and 3 million Viet Namese deaths, as well as wrecking someone else's country.

We haven't managed as many deaths yet in Iraq, but we sure as hell have destroyed their infrastructure and any security or stability the population might have enjoyed.

We will leave Iraq eventually, and we will do so without accomplishing any of our "goals." The issue is how long it will take and much damage we will do before we wise up, and how many people on both sides we will kill or maim.

[bush_is_wacko]

147. Do you really believe those that had the education and the means

didn't get the hell out of dodge as quickly as they could when things started to get ugly? It is possible to escape that country, I know several people who have done just that! You are absolutely correct that Iraqi's DID have the know how. I don't think many of those that HAD that knowledge are still there. * went in to that country for the purpose of stealing thier oil! If there were any Iraqi's around with the knowledge to re-build that country that would defeat his purpose in keeping them under his thumb. The ONLY people that get near those oils wells right now are HALLIBURTIN people. Do you not think there are mercenaries in that country with orders from * to keep them from getting thier hands on thier own oil? These mass graves they are finding are convincing me that our soldiers are pawns and there is far more going on there than meets the eye!

[Debs]

194. You seem to be assuming

That only an elite few were well educated, when in fact Iraq had the best educated Arab people in the middle east. Iraq was never Afghanistan. Education was free for everyone through medical school. No all the well educated people did NOT leave Iraq. This is one reason the privitization of their industries was insanely stupid. The populace was well enough educated to know what it did to Argentina. These are not a people from the 18th century.

[bush_is_wacko]

205. As I said, I know several people from Iraq

and they have confirmed many times that the "brain drain" from that country was all but complete and during the Gulf War incident. The people I speak of are VERY reliable. They WERE the educated Iraqi's you speak of. Doctors, poets, writers, and businessmen. They have been taking their relatives out of that country for a very long time. Some may have stayed, but MOST did not! Even more left during the initial chaos in this war. THOSE people are not returning as long as they know * controls the leaders of their country!

[okieinpain]

156. very well said.

[Debs]

193. First of all

Unless we plan to stay there forever all the monsters you have described are already out of the box. Yes collaborators will be killed, that happens after WW2 in France about 40,000 Vichy French were killed. However you should ingest less right wing propaganda. According to Political Economy of Human rights there was NO bloodbath in Vietnam after we pulled out. There were some killings however you should remember that the S Vietnamese government was brutally torturing its people by the thousands and I dont know any country that can be blamed for executing torturers (though I personally dont beleive in the death penalty).

We are clearly excaberating all problems with out presence there. Nothing we do between now and the time we eventually leave will save those who collaborated with our invasion. I dont beleive that any election Bushco administers will be fair nor bring about real democracy. Do you really beleive Bush cares one whit about democracy in Iraq? Look at Florida 2000 if he didnt care about democracy HERE, why would he care about it there, are we building 14 permanent military bases to leave them after next years elections? There is NO problem in Iraq we are not making worse with our presence. Its time to come home. If you are old enough you should remember all these arguements from Vietnam. They were wrong then, they are wrong now

[baby_bear]

167. I agree, it's crazy

These people seem to think we have a moral obligation to clean up the mess we caused, but as I see it, the longer we stay, the bigger the mess.

Every death in this war, whether civilian or not, is unnecessary and tragic. If we left and one fewer death was caused, it would be enough justification for leaving.

I think these people are in denial of the human tragedy. Certainly Bush is oblivious to it, but then, that is a characteristic of a sociopathic personality like his.

b_b

[Maple]

2. They said that about Viet Nam too

But an earlier leavetaking would have saved thousands of American lives. And the result would have been the same either way.

The US will have to leave Iraq, one way or the other.

Do it now, or do it later.

How many dead does it take?

[Erika]

3. Challenge them to come up with what is acceptable

How many deaths do they wish us to endure? How many civilian casualties do they find acceptable? When do they think we should pull the plug?

[Lexingtonian]

4. Ask him what good it will do to stay

It's a 1974 Vietnam situation. The people/electorate is not meaningfully a democracy- despite all the talk, it's at best a tribally organized, highly traditional/religious society- and the people fighting the U.S. military and the puppet government have the political legitimacy plus tradition and religion on their side.

The intelligentsia and Western-educated people are going to be a small minority when the reactionary backlash (represented by the insurgency) wins- as it must.

[RafterMan]

6. You read too many books

The largest group of religious conservatives is represented not by the insurgency but by Sistani's group, which has been pushing democracy harder than the Bushies have.

If they make enough concessions to keep the Kurds in, you could wind up with something that, while less than Sweden in one direction, is also less than Iran in the other.

There is no such thing as historical determinism.

[Lexingtonian]

8. Sistani's followers are pushing democracy?

Look at Iran for a precedent and overwhelming influence on where a government by them would go. And yes, the right wingers on all sides would probably ally under an Islamist front as the largest force overall- unity or division- and have the poor vote them into power. It wouldn't be the ex-Ba'ath crew, but it could be their kids and nephews.

I can't see any two of the three major groups in a serious alliance for any meaningful duration- there's too much history/bloodshed or too little common ground. Only enough of one to counter the third group, perhaps, for a short time. But that's an Afghanistani "democracy", aka feudalism.

[RafterMan]

12. Yes, they are

Sistani just hammered out a unity party that has al Sadr and Chalabi on the same slate! Pretty good politicking, if you ask me. Further, I see no evidence that they want an Iran clone, or even that Iran wants one. There's no theocracy in Lebanon, where Iran has powerful proxies -- nor did they demand one in Afghanistan where they had enough influence to exercise a veto, had they wished.

I can easily see the Kurds and Shiites in a serious alliance. They don't compete for the same space or resources in any meaningful way, and keeping them in gives the Kurds access to the gulf and the Shiites access to Turkey. Mutually beneficial, low cost, avoids a fight neither side wants.

The Sunnis might be able to jam the works, or they might start to feel isolated and get on the bus. Some of that depends, I think, on how Iran and the Sunni arab countries respond to the situation. It might work out, or it might start World War III. I think the former is more likely.

It will never work out, however, if Bush insists on a US puppet state, so somebody has to either pull the president's head out of his ass or shove it back in, depending on where he's at right now.

[bush_is_wacko]

53. Kurds and Shiites may indeed be capable of

bringing Iraq a form of government that will work! I have great faith in the intelligence of the Iraqi people. They have been quietly praying for Saddams removal for decades. Let's just hope the removal or mass exodus of brain power from that country has not caused irreperable damage to the establishment of a working form of government! I do beleive the initial form of government may not be the lasting form of government, but once we let them create one form of government, they should be able to take it from there. Civil war or something of that nature will probably occur no matter what we do, but to leave the Iraqi people NOW with no infrastructure and no way to help themselves establish that infrastructure is NOT the right thing to do.

[bush_is_wacko]

51. So, not so...

There were MANY highly educated and highly enlightened Iraqi's in that country! I don't know how many of them are left. I suppose no one does, but believe me, they were there! THOSE Iraqi's DO have the ability to establish a nation. Not necessarily a democracy, but a nation nonetheless. We need to accept the fact that a democracy may not be what the Iraqi people need or want right off the bat. They may have a better design, that fits the needs of their people! We need to be hearing from THOSE Iraqi's. I fear many of them have either fled or been killed, but there are a lot of Iraqi populations around the world right now that we SHOULD be getting ideas from. *hole hasn't even tried that strategy! The Iraqi's CAN build a society, but they need SOME help. Saddam and his sons were horribly oppressing the Iraqi people. The only good thing to come out of this disaster is his removal. Now we need to re-establish a relationship with those Iraqi's that escaped that country but would be willing to go back and re-build.

[buddysmellgood]

5. Explain it like this. There may have been a small chance early on, but

because Bush botched the planning for peace so horribly,the chance is now gone. In fact, we are the uniting force behind the insurgency. The only reason these factions are now working together is because they all want the Americans out. Once we're gone, they will fight each other again. So regardless of when we leave, they will start shooting each other. We either have to stay there for another 20 years, or leave now.

[dpibel]

29. What "again"?

Please provide me with some information about the historical fighting between the factions in Iraq. Everything I've read says there is no such history.

[buddysmellgood]

55. Please provide me with information about the harmony between factions

in Iraq. Everything I have read suggests it doesn't exist outside of the occupation.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/08/kurds/
http://www.bulatlat.com/news/3-44/3-44-readerstratfor.html

[LynnTheDem]

144. Harmony between factions

For weeks the US have been issuing "warnings" of the dangers of civil war in Iraq. They had been "touting" a letter which they claimed came from Al Qaida calling for actions to provoke conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims in order to stop the Americans' plans to "hand over" power on 30 June.

"Odd. Isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. Al Qaida has never uttered a threat against Shias....Yet for weeks the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war....Somehow I don't believe it"
- Robert Fisk The Independent 3 March 2004.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5805.htm

The Sunni Versus Shia Myth

Much that has been written about the ‘division’ between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq is not only a total distortion of the demographics of the Iraqi population, it also feeds into the propaganda campaign of ‘divide and rule’ tactics that even opponents of the war and occupation can fall into the trap of accepting as true...

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0156.html

Sowing The Seeds Of Civil War In Iraq

Bush and Blair continue to peddle the myth, beloved of old colonialists, that Iraqis will start a civil war if the "benevolent" presence of the occupation forces is removed. ...

It is the US-led presence itself which is dividing Iraqis now. The US is deepening a split between a minority for and an overwhelming majority against the US-led forces.

-Sami Ramadani is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University and was a political exile from Saddam's regime

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-ramadani030704.htm

Unembedded in Iraq

The Shia/Sunni rift is largely a CIA generated myth. There are countless tribes and marriages alike that are both Shia/Sunni. There are mosques here where they pray together.

There is the possibility of war if the Kurds go independent, but the more likely possibility of that war would be Turkey invading Kurdistan before any Shia/Sunni action would occur regarding this.

Another man pointed out that if there were a civil war, no Shia or Kurdish attack on Fallujah could ever possibly compare to the devastation the US military has caused there. I think he makes a good point.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669

End the Iraq War

The Bush administration has promoted the idea that Iraq will descend into civil war and chaos without the occupation. This argument is no more credible than the “terrorist base” argument.

Unlike the United States, Iraq has never had a full-fledged civil war. There have been various revolts and revolutions, but never a full-fledged civil war on the scale of the American civil war. This propaganda about the inevitability of civil war if the US pulls out plays off stereotypes and prejudices many Americans have about “third world” peoples – that “they” are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq.

http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Iraq.html

[buddysmellgood]

148. You will see my original post says nothing about Sunnis verses Shia or

civil war. I don't claim to understand the motive behind all of the factions, nor can I predict the level of violence after we leave. But it is clear that right now, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. Will they stop if we leave? I don't think so. Will they stop if we stay? Perhaps if we stick it out for a generation, but again, I don't think so. We cannot stay much longer without a draft and my children WILL NOT die for people who are unwilling to fight for their own freedom. We are not now preventing Iraqis from killing Iraqis. We cannot prevent them from killing us. Bush botched his war. He lost. It goes downhill from here.
It is time to leave.

[dpibel]

154. "Iraqis are killing Iraqis"

By and large, Iraqis are targeting collaboraters. During WWII, French killed French; Norwegians killed Norwegians. That tends to happen to people who collaborate with invaders.

Please show me an instance or two where Iraqis simply and purely attacked non-collaborating civilians. It's true that bombs are messy, and if you target a police station or a US military installation, civilians may be killed.

There's a term for that. What is it...? Oh, yeah! Collateral damage.

[Tinoire]

7. Absolutely nothing. Don't waste your time. Move on,

it's easier to reach uninformed Bush supporters who were lied to than it is to reach Dems who are trying to save face for having been for the invasion from the start. And it's from my experience & innumerable personal observations that I say the Dems repeating that line were never against the war to begin with. That applies to Dem politicians too. They had all sorts of reasons/excuses for going in and now they have as many reasons/excuses for not leaving.

Don't waste your time. Find a pig. Try to teach it to sing instead ;)

Or you could just be patient and wait for the oil to run out. By then, they'll be "convinced".

[raysr]

9. Say this

"That's what they said for 10 years about VietNam!!!"

[Tinoire]

11. Sadly yes...

But I find that many of their heads are buried so deep and their eyes so blinded by their portfolio or what not that they refuse to budge. Eventually you can get them to shut up when you bring up Vietnam but I think the effort is better spent on other people.

That's just me though- I've totally lost all patience with people who would have you think that the rapist can remain to help the victim get back on her feet.

[Karenina]

114. Maybe that's the line Bear needs...

Should the RAPIST be on the EMS team to "clean up" the private parts of his battered, bruised and bleeding victim?

[Proud liberal Kat]

22. I'm going to stick my head out here

I have been against the war from the beginning, I think every step since the disgusting and illegal inception has been as horrifically planned as possible. But yes I am one of those who thinks with at least a portion of my brain that we need to stay for a spell. I don't know, maybe I am horribly misinformed, have formed my opinion from sources that are erroneous etc. but I think if I am wrong perhaps you would have better luck with talking to me than trying to teach a pig to sing and definitely better luck than talking to a Bush voter.
Kathy

[Karenina]

115. Kathy, just think about it.

Had a gang broken into your home, brutally raped your daughter in front of your whole family, then done the same to you after smashing all the antiques you inherited from your grammy and ransacking the place, stuck a gun in your toddler's mouth and pulled the trigger... Would YOU want them "in charge" of the "clean-up?" Think about it.

[Rowdyboy]

10. Why can't we leave now?

Because we BROKE THEIR F**KING COUNTRY!!!

They were fine. They had a very strong school system that was the envy of most of the Arab world. We destroyed it, then built them a new, cheaper and less sophisticated one and expect to be lauded for our efforts. Yeah, America.

We disbanded their military, we disbanded their police, and we destroyed their national cohesion. Yeah, America.

I'm sorry. I have no interest in throwing away American lives in the middle east but (Pottery Barn rules), "You break it, you buy it"

We, folks, we "broke it". Now we must fix it, and thats the hard part.

I really wish just walking away was an option.

[jonnyblitz]

13. nevermind. delete

no point.

[Erika]

16. Saddam had a secular society & Christians were protected.

Now they are being terrorized by the locals and are fleeing.

"We" didn't break it. Bush and the corporate globalists broke Iraq. But they are sticking the American taxpayer the costs, human/monetary for fixing what they broke. They are also taking the profits.

I have no problem in saving our troops lives and walking away. Turn it into a true capitalistic venture in which the corporations bid the war. At least this way, they would be taking on the risk and relieving our military.

[Rowdyboy]

17. Okay, lets say we leave Iraq...

Shiites will run the new provisional government, probably with the support of the Kurds. And the (20-25% population) Sunni population will fight tooth and nail to retain power. There will be much bloodshed

[xerenthar]

172. Saddam was such a great guy...

[Skittles]

174. who is worse

Saddam or a guy who leads America to invade, bomb and occupy a country based on a pack of lies???

[xerenthar]

175. Saddam....

Torture....acid baths.....rape rooms.....etc.

[Skittles]

176. HELLO

HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT ABU GRAHIB???????? HAVE YOU HEARD WHAT WAS DONE IN FALLUJA?? PULL YOUR G.D. HEAD OUT PLEASE.

And by the way - when will you be enlisting? Your ass needs to be in Iraq as SOON AS POSSIBLE.

[xerenthar]

177. There's a difference.

I have definitely heard of Fallujah and Abu Ghraib. Things that happened at Abu Ghraib were highly inappropriate and those responsible should be punished. However, nothing at Abu Ghraib comes near what happened under Saddam's rule.

As far as me enlisting, this is the USA. Political dissent doesn't earn you a trip to the Gulag, as far as I know. We also do not have a draft.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[xerenthar]

182. Are you too cowardly? You call me ignorance, you should win, eh?

Let's go.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

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

[xerenthar]

184. Source on the 100k from Saddam?

I'm not spouting Hannity or Limbaugh. I don't listen to that shit.

2 Questions:
1) Do you think Iraq is better off right now or under the rule of Saddam Hussein?

2) Will you debate me on AIM?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

185. Why would I debate you on AIM?

you have no facts, just bullshit. We provide links for our assertions. So far I only see juvenile hubris on your part.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/28/iraq_deaths041028.html

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20352/

[xerenthar]

186. I wanted a source of Saddam ONLY KILLING 100K...

You provided me with a link of the Iraq War killing 100k, something I didn't question.

Why is everyone afraid to AIM me :(

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

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

[Phentex]

39. What if you were ordered into a Pottery Barn

blindfolded, feet and arms tied and you have no idea where the exits are? You are told to make your way through, but you must pay for everything you break on the way out. Wait, you must pay for everything EVERYONE in there breaks. And there are tons of other blindfolded groups in there crashing about.

Now, before you went in the store was fine. They were the envy of the other mall stores. Sure, they had a feud with Crate & Barrel every now and then and a few employees were secretly breaking things anyway before you showed up. But mall management ordered you in.

"You break it, you buy it" makes a lot of sense in this case, doesn't it?

How about get everybody out, turn on the lights, and let the store manager figure out how to run the store?

[LynnTheDem]

43. So yes, after breaking their country, let's CONTINUE to IGNORE what Iraqis

want and stay there.

The road to Hell being paved with good intentions...

[Debs]

195. That assumes

That we could fix it instead of being destined to break more pottery. Yet WE are part of the dynamics of violence, we are occupiers, if we leave and there is violence it will exepend itself and rebuilding can begin which we must help pay for.That is the actual pottery barn rule not you fix it, you buy it, how am I qualified or capable of fixing broken pottery, about the same way that people seen as invaders can rebuild the country THEY savaged and that the inhabitants have an enormous amount of antipathy toward. Not to mention no one will want to help us and risk being seen as a collaborator

[OneBlueSky]

14. Iraq can be a disaster in which we lose a lot of our troops, or . . .

Iraq can be a disaster in which we don't lose a lot of our troops . . . seems like a fairly easy choice to me . . .

[kskiska]

15. Reagan left Lebanon

Nixon left Vietnam
The Russians left Afghanistan.

[blackangrydem]

21. Yes he did, and abruptly.

[okieinpain]

18. you don't have a choice now but to stay. we broke it, we have to

fix it now. we need to get others to volunteer so that it doesn't look like we are trying to run iraq. but we have to foot the bill for this until iraq can get on it's feet.

if we do a complete pull out now, the terrorist will go crazy blowing up shit. we will get attacked left and right. I don't understand why you do see this.

[Erika]

24. Huh? Let the Bushies worry about this.

Why should our troops lose their lives so corporate globalism can reap profits? Do you get the picture?

Bush "broke" Iraq, not the American people. Let Halliburton/Bush bid out the war and keep our troops alive. Stop the corporate/fascism.

[okieinpain]

151. sorry, but bush is the president of the united states, his fuck ups

are our fuck ups. some of the dumb ass troops help elect the ignorant bastard. so they have to stay put, and we have to endure this fuck up, because as you know (you may not want to admit it), if we pull out now, we will have a 9/11 once a month from every asshole that has a gripe against america.

[dpibel]

153. Why are you conflating Iraq and 911?

The only sense I can make out of what you're saying is that, since the US invaded Iraq to punish the terrorists, withdrawing from Iraq will demonstrate to terrorists that we can't effectively punish terrorism.

I trust you see the flaw in that analytic.

For that matter, what is stopping these thousands of terrists who want nothing more than to blow up things in America from doing so right now?

You are aware, are you not, that there's a rather strong concensus that what the US is doing in Iraq is about the most effective thing it could do to foster terrorism?

[okieinpain]

157. have you ever had someone break a promise, you ever take

their word again. we have to stay and put things right, we broke it, now it's ours. it would be in everybody's best interest if we were not the major players there. but with bush in charge we are stuck with it. I understand what you're saying, but the only way this is going to work out for the best is we're going to have to do it.

[dpibel]

159. What promise?

The US promised to rid Iraq of WMDs. Ooops!

The US promised to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Well, that's done. But the US is still there.

Now the US promises to establish democracy. If you believe that is the intention of Boosh, I have some mountain property in Florida you might be interested in.

Please, just tell me why withdrawing from Iraq is going to inflame the passions of terrists everywhere. Why will we have 911 every week?

[okieinpain]

166. Now the US promises to establish democracy. we pull out,

enemy thinks, kill enough americans they will go home. will not finish what they start.

[dpibel]

30. What *are* you talking about?

Which terrorists will go crazy blowing up shit?

We will get attacked left and right by whom? And why will they do this because the US withdraws from a horrible war of aggression?

[okieinpain]

152. any terriorist group that has something to bitch about. I mean

after all if we fuck up iraq, and then pull out before the damn thing is set straight, iraq will go up in flames. gas prices will go through the roof. shit saudi will probably fall, and iran will probably become the super power in that area.

when and if a dem ever gets elected he/she would have a hell of a time getting the world to listen to us. because if we pull out of iraq we would be undependable.

hell you ever have a friend promise something, and then not deliever. you ever take that persons word again.

[Debs]

199. Our oblilgations and promises

Man that sounds familiar, where did I hear that before, the feeling of deja vu is enormous. Thats right VIETNAM

[Debs]

198. But

We ARE trying to run Iraq, and that is the problem

[kamqute]

19. Depends what you mean by "we"

[unblock]

23. IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO:

let's just say that the rest of the world got together and decided that america was planning to drop nukes on china and so they invaded.

suspend disbelief and pretend that they somehow managed to win. they take away our leaders and completely dismantle our government and also do a number on our infrastructure. things stay a mess long enough so that the south decides to create their own regional authority, as does new england, the midwest, the central states, the west coast, and texas. coordination between these regions is impossible because the infrastructure is such a mess.

meanwhile, all americans continue to try to free ourselves from our invaders.

finally, the invaders realize, oops, there WERE NO SECRET PLANS to nuke china after all! they're awfully sorry, but no, you can't have your leaders back anyway.

now, would YOU want these invaders to stay and continue to kill hundreds of americans every day until "order" is restored, or would you want them to get the F*CK out of america and let us rebuild our country ourselves, thank you very much?

[Erika]

25. Excellent Post

We should offer our apologies to Iraq and get the hell out.

[RafterMan]

27. Yes

I would not want nutjob militiamen to take over and would line up with a smart political leader who I thought could take care of both halves of the problem.

This assumes, of course, that our deposed leaders were as bad for our country as Saddam was for his...

[mtnsnake]

112. I think you hit a home run.

Sometimes, actually most times, it takes putting yourself into someone elses shoes to know what they're going through. I guess it's called empathy, something that few of our leaders in this country know anything about.

[izzie]

26. I am having trouble with this also

Guess just leave as we do not seem to know what to do but kill these people.

[RafterMan]

28. Do we not know what to do

or does Bush just refuse to do it?

[Disturbed]

31. There will be much bloodshed.

Is there a crystal ball that someone has? Maybe the Sunnis won't keep fighting but start to organize politically? Maybe the Kurds and Shi'ites will give the Sunnis a slice of the power? Maybe after the Iraqi election there will be a surprise and all of these groups will decide to get alog and only the Al Q. like factions will still do violence? If the U.S. stays there will be a whole lot more death,maiming and suffering. There is not much bloodshed now so the U.S. troops should stay?

[RafterMan]

33. If Bush had made an honest effort

at a political resolution rather than trying to set up a puppet state, and we found ourselves in the situation we're in now, I'd lean toward getting out. I don't think he has.

If I thought the situation in Iraq was as bad as it could possibly get, I'd say get out. I don't think it is.

To stress my point, it's clear that getting out means giving up Bush's imperial ambitions, but I don't think that giving up Bush's imperial ambitions means getting out immediately. I do think that giving up our imperial ambitions without getting out immediately would be easier for the Bushies to accept (and hence more likely to happen) and might hold value for Iraq's future reorganization. Therefore, I think we should do that first. If it doesn't work, we just have to leave.

As for political integration of the Sunnis, remember that al Sadr is running for office in Sistani's umbrella party. A few months back he was public enemy number one. It's not hopeless.

[shockra]

32. We should just leave.

I saw Ted Rall on Book TV a month or so ago, who thought that we should get out of Iraq, and a guy in the audience asked him "How do we leave with our dignity intact?"

And Rall said something to the effect of "When you do something stupid, you don't deserve your dignity."

I got a good laugh out of that, because of course it's true. But the U.S. is so macho, it would never accept embarrassment or humiliation. Better that more people die, and keep dying indefinitely, than the manhood of the leaders be questioned.

[itzamirakul]

50. But the U.S. IS accepting embarrassment and humilitation

right now. Everytime the Iraqis (sorry, I don't think of them as "insurgents")land a hit on our troops, whether they kill one or 22, it is an embarrassment and humiliation, because WE SHOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. We are reaping what Bush sowed when he said "Bring it on!" If what our toops are going through right now is not embarrassment and humiliation, the I don't know what to call it.

[tsuki]

34. Why not?

[Skittles]

35. I don't say anything to them

I treat them the same way I treat idiot conservatives - kick their stupid, ignorant asses and tell them to please f***ing ENLIST immediately

[eridani]

36. Saying that we have a moral obligation to stay--

--is roughly equivalent to saying that people who squeeze all the toothpaste out of a tube have the moral obligation to put it back.

[0007]

37. What do you say to a Dem who says we should re-think the

abortion laws?

[dreamcollector]

38. LEAVE!

NOW!

[dreamcollector]

40. The invasion of Iraq was illegal

It is deeply immoral, a war crime. Terrible war crimes have been committred there. The whole world hates America for being there. Iraqis now hate you and want you out. So get the hell out! Read Riverbend. Canadian DUer who cannot believe how little msm debate there is on this. And on top of that it is a no win situation. The American occupation is indefensible.

[GOPBasher]

41. Sorry, but that's what I think.

I was totally against the invasion in the first place. But if we leave now, Iraq will sink into civil war. We need to stay, and we need to UN to come in as well. The entire world should try to make Iraq stable. It is in everyone's interest.

The people of Iraq are suffering now, but they'll suffer for a much longer time if we pull out now. Yes, we created this mess, but at this point, I do think we need to see it through.

[LynnTheDem]

42. The vast MAJORITY of IRAQIS want us to leave NOW.

WHY can't we...JUST FOR ONCE...do what the IRAQIS WANT us to do???

It would make such a change.

[tngledwebb]

44. The horrible reality is we must stay until there is stability.

The EU countries that could help us will probably not do so until BushCo is long gone. If that day comes, our old EU allies, and many others, might bring some semblance of order.

Even then, given the strategic importance of the region, I can't see how there will ever be an independent, free or democratic Iraq, not in a hundred years.

Kerry's team must have know that much, and probably a lot more.

[LynnTheDem]

45. There will NEVER be stability until we LEAVE.

The UK tried for 30 years.

They failed.

We're failing badly after 2 years.

Iraqis WANT us to LEAVE. NOW.

If anyone really cared about the IRAQI PEOPLE, then WHY would they be willing to IGNORE what the VAST MAJORITY of Iraqis want?

[tngledwebb]

47. In a better world, but not presently. Oil, geo-politics impinge.

Even though the Iraqi people want us out, in the new world disorder created by BushCo we are stuck for decades. Even via a UN peace keeping mission, the sheer number of troops would have to be supplied by our military. But the industrialized western economies know they must maintain control over the region's resources and Iraq is their only foothold. The wishes of the Iraqi people are last on their list.

More depressing, most of this debate is moot until BushCo is booted out. Here's hoping we only have to wait another month...

[LynnTheDem]

54. bush & Cartel invaded Iraq NEVER INTENDING to leave.

They expected the "rose petals & choccie" and for the Iraqis to beg the USA to remain forever.

bush & Cartel didn't have any plans for occupation & they didn't have any plans for withdrawal, because they NEVER PLANNED TO WITHDRAW.

And now that their immoral illegal and ujust invasion & occupation has fallen apart & reality can no longer be hidden from the rightwingnut bushbots, now bush & Cartel must find a new excuse to keep occupying Iraq and hoping that some year the Iraqis will just give up and allow the occupation.

That new excuse is "we must stay in Iraq or worse will happen."

1. That's total bullshit. The Iraqis say it's bullshit; they also say that's THEIR right to deal with, NOT ours. History of Iraq says it's bullshit. Common sense says it's bullshit.

2. WE OWE the Iraqis to do what the VAST MAJORITY of the IRAQIS want us to do; GET OUT NOW.

America must PAY FINANCIALLY for Iraq's rebuilding; we should OFFER any technology, expertise, supplies, equipment, manpower etc that the Iraqis ASK us for, for THE IRAQIS to rebuild THEIR OWN COUNTRY that we destroyed; but we need to PHYSICALLY GET OUT of THEIR country, just as the VAST MAJORITY of the IRAQIS want us to do.

[tngledwebb]

61. Agreed, we, the people of the USA, owe this to the Iraqis, but...

it will not be allowed by the US or any other players. The western industrialized nations could not afford to give up this foothold, even if the US did pull out. The natural resources, the geo-political locus, are too essential to their economies to be left to an independent Iraq.
Especially with the new, deep and probably eternal hatred of the west engendered by BushCo's many war crimes.

(And that must have been the plan all along and why they allowed our soldiers full license to kill, why the torture photos got out, why Guantanamo Bay.)

[Q]

46. You tell them that...

...Bush* lied this nation into an unecessary war and that the lack of Democratic opposition is why we're still there. Blood is on the hands of both parties.

[mattclearing]

49. I'm one of those people. I think we need to fix it.

I was out there on the Mall protesting before the war started, but now that we're there, we have to make it work. Maybe you were out there protesting before the invasion?

I'm not hearing it from people who say we need to leave. We bear collective responsibility for this mess as a nation, even if we didn't elect Bush, because we failed to stop him.

We have killed over 100,000 people since the invasion, and killed half a million with our sanctions in the decade prior.

We broke Iraq, it is a huge mess now, and we have to make it work. Anything less is totally irresponsible.

[LynnTheDem]

52. So we just continue to IGNORE what the IRAQIS want, we continue to KILL

and we continue to DIE. Every day the situation in Iraq WORSENS. Every day we increase the hatred the MAJORITY of Iraqis feel towards us.

But we should continue to stay in Iraq, against the wishes of the vast majority of the Iraqi people.

And this will fix it...HOW???

[mattclearing]

57. I think we're going about it all wrong.

What we should be doing is making good faith gestures of solidarity with the people. What we are doing is killing anything that moves. This is not effective or helpful.

I think that if the US had taken a more sane approach in the run-up, as a certain presidential nominee contended, we would have had more international support, and more acceptance from the Iraqi populace.

Also, if we had not been so careless in the immediate aftermath, and not been so wrong-headed in our tactics, i.e. demolishing Fallujah rather than trying to work for some kind of workable peace, or treating Iraq's insurgents like they were Al Qaida, we might have been able to make some kind of deal that would have enabled us to rebuild and establish some kind of productive working arrangement.

Of course, Bush wants to deeply entrench us in Iraq, so he did none of those things. It may be too late to do them, and I don't claim to have all the answers. However, I do feel that a sane president could make something of this situation with an apology to the people of Iraq for the way we went about our "liberation," and a good faith effort to try and win their trust, a distancing from past tactics and strategies of the insane.

Of course, if the election holds up, all of this is moot, and we should probably try to find a way out that encourages the world community to clean up after our mess. I just don't think we should be saying, "cut and run," because it's our fault it's broken. The minor problem of our crazy unelected president doesn't change that.

People need to back up what they say with logic and rationales. Saying, "We're killing people, we should go home, the Iraqis want us out," isn't very helpful unless there's something logical behind it. If we are just going to leave and let the country collapse into civil war chaos, then sorry, they're better off with us there, even if we lose people in the process.

[Q]

58. Of course the Bushies COUNT ON...

...opinions like yours as a rationale to stay in Iraq. In fact...Powell and others have said pretty much the same thing.

So it seems that many are stuck in the mindset of WE BROKE IT WE HAVE TO FIX IT.

And we never seem to get PAST that mindset. Saying that WE have to fix it stops the dialogue right where it is. It's also why the Democrats are helpless to do anything about it...because they've done nothing in the way of offering alternatives.

'Logic' dictates that nothing will change until we LEAVE Iraq. If Republicans and Democrats were interested...they would be calling for international forces to take the US's place and start directing the billions of dollars being spent on war to the Iraq people to rebuild their own country.

[mattclearing]

60. That wouldn't be a bad idea either.

Try reading what I said. Your last paragraph isn't wildly different than my best case scenario. I know it's pretty bleak right now. I just feel that it will become even worse if we leave. Bush promised these people freedom and democracy in OUR name. Even if we know he's a liar, he will have made liars of us all if he is allowed to fail.

Like I said before, I protested BEFORE the war. Did you?

[LynnTheDem]

59. I hear what you're saying

But I disagree that regardless the approach bush took we'd ever have had international support.

bush INVADED. God, I still can't get over the SHOCK of hearing "INVASION" and "AMERICA" in the same sentance.

NO approach of any type would have got us international or Iraqi support for an invasion of Iraq.

NO approach would have gotten international support for US invading CANADA. And Canada is far more a viable threat and CAN reach the USA, and had as much to do with 911 as Iraq did; ie NOTHING.

The Iraqis NEVER wanted us to invade & occupy their country.

We lost the war, morally and physically, the minute we committed the SUPREME CRIME and invaded Iraq.

We can all toss "if only"s around 'til the cows (or our troops) come home, but the bottom line is this;

When you platinum-plate a pile of stinking shit, you still have just a pile of stinking shit. Our invasion of Iraq, no matter what approach we could have or should have taken, is still just a pile of stinking shit.

For your need of logic; THE IRAQIS WANT US OUT. They do NOT CARE if THEIR country were to become MORE of a civil war; it is THEIR COUNTRY.

Are the Iraqis TOO STUPID to know what's best for THEIR OWN country? Isn't that what you're saying???

You KNOW the VAST MAJORITY of Iraqis want us OUT NOW, no matter what the results of us leaving may or may not bring. THAT is all the LOGIC needed.

[mattclearing]

62. I appreciate where you're coming from too.

Perhaps the power vacuum created by kicking out Saddam is going to require civil war either way. I don't claim to have all the answers. I also don't believe dumbly what they tell you on TV, that we have to stay for liberating the people, or to bring democracy to the Iraqis, because I think we all know how much these people (edited to note:Bush Administration) care about democracy, both abroad and at home.

The ONLY reason I feel important enough to keep our troops there is because it will prevent even greater bloodshed. I would have sent troops to Rwanda for the same reasons.

Can you imagine the US pulling out of Iraq and being faulted by the World for causing the greatest human calamity since the Holocaust and taking no responsibility for helping to fix it? I can.

[LynnTheDem]

63. The only thing US troops could and maybe should do, is line up

facing OUTWARDS around Iraq's border, with their backs to Iraq, to ensure no other nations try taking Iraq over. What happens INSIDE Iraq is the business ONLY of the Iraqis.

Let the Iraqis FINALLY sort their own country out by themselves.

The vast majority of the world wants US out of Iraq, too. So actually no, I can't see the world doing a rightwingnut-hypocrisy and blaming us for doing what they, and the Iraqis, want us to do.

When we had our civil war, would we have allowed France to remain, occupying us, to prevent it?

HELL NO.

If we had another civil war in the USA, would we allow Canada or Saudi Arabia or the UK or China to occupy us to prevent it?

HELL NO.

We'd just all attack the occupiers first...and THEN carry on with our civil war.

The Sunni & Shia have NEVER waged civil war against each other; it was the CIA who first started the bullshit that they would do if we pulled out. The IRAQIS THEMSELVES say this is bullshit.

If we TRULY give a flying about ANY Iraqi people, if we truly give a flying about democracy, then we MUST abide by what the VAST MAJORITY of Iraqis themselves want; and that is for us to GET OUT NOW.

We are the problem. We are not the solution, and we will never be the solution.

It's just that simple.

[mattclearing]

66. Yeah, it's always the simple solutions that sound best.

We created the problem. We have a responsibility to fix it.

How's that for a simple solution?

Perhaps if I sprinkle capitalized words through my post I will be more persuasive.

I don't think Bush is capable of fixing it, so you may be right that the best we can hope for is to pull out and hope for the best.

That doesn't mean it's the best thing we could do. Just that it's the best we can expect under these nutty people who have hijacked our country.

[LynnTheDem]

73. No; we have a responsibility to fix it AS THE IRAQIS WANT the fix to be

And the IRAQIS want us OUT of Iraq RIGHT NOW.

THAT is the FIX as the Iraqis see it. And THAT is what we owe the Iraqi people.


Some Americans think the "fix" is to nuke Iraq into a glass parking lot.

Some Americans think the "fix" is to remain in Iraq while daily the situation worsens.

But THE IRAQIS think the "fix" is for us to LEAVE.

And as it's THEIR country, and as it's WE who are in the wrong, the ONLY possible correct "fix" is the one the Iraqis want.

[RafterMan]

74. Who do the Iraqis want

to govern their country when the US leaves?

[LynnTheDem]

80. Ask the Iraqis when we leave.

They never wanted us to invade their country in the first place.

They want us out of Iraq right now.

When we're out of their country, the Iraqis will decide who will govern their country.

It's none of our business whatsoever who the Iraqis want to govern them, or who they will choose to govern them.

It never was our business.

[RafterMan]

86. Which Iraqis will decide?

Once we're out of the country, I mean.

[LynnTheDem]

88. WHICHEVER Iraqis decide.

NOT my business. NOT your business.

That's IRAQI business.

I'm sure once we finally leave, be that in 5 years or 50, the Iraqi people will inform us of their decision.

[RafterMan]

105. But what if you decide which Iraqis

by your decision to leave? You did set the table, after all.

[LynnTheDem]

110. I really don't have a clue what you're on about.

The VAST MAJORITY of IRAQIS want us to get out of Iraq right now.

YOU apparently don't give a shit what the vast majority of Iraqis do or don't want; I assume YOU think YOU know better than they do what's best for them.

I think they know far better than we do, and I think it's their right to decide for themselves what they want.

THEY want us OUT.

That MAY or MAY NOT be what I PERSONALLY think is best for the Iraqi people. But MY opinion DOES NOT MATTER. YOUR opinion does not matter. It is NOT your country; it is NOT my country; it's THEIRS.

ONLY their opinion about what THEY want for THEIR country matters.

And THEY have made their opinion loud and clear. Too bad so many in this country refuse to hear it.

[RafterMan]

111. So you'll go back in then,

if things go to hell and they want you back? Or you only listen to them once, I guess.

Sorry. I'm going to wait a couple of months and see what Sistani has to say.

Capitalization is not a compelling argument.

[LynnTheDem]

113. I'm not talking "capitalization", for grief's sake already!

LAST TIME:

I WANT for Iraq & the Iraqis WHATEVER it is that the IRAQIS WANT.

IT DOES NOT MATTER whether I agree or not with what it is they want; what is important is for us to do for Iraq WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT us to do.

WE OWE IT TO THEM to do what THEY want us to do.

THEY want us to GET OUT of Iraq NOW.

Yes, YOU continue to IGNORE what the vast majority of Iraqis want; YOU continue to put what YOU want ahead of what the Iraqis want. And THAT is exactly what I disagree with you about.

I put what the IRAQIS want ahead of what I want. Simple, really.

[mattclearing]

78. Have you taken a poll of the Iraqi people on this issue?

I appreciate that you are their self-appointed spokesperson.

If we had actually done what we said we were going to do, namely depose Saddam, let their oil help to pay for a reconstruction effort, and actually rebuild the stuff we broke, I think we would have a degree of faith. A different president might have had a fighting chance at making it a better place.

Just because it's the best that can be expected under this current regime doesn't make it the absolute best course of action.

[LynnTheDem]

94. Yes there have been several polls taken in Iraq.

The latest by the CPA itself.

It's no surprise you're unaware of the polls. The MSM has been very diligent in not reporting them.

The vast majority of Iraqis want us OUT of Iraq NOW, even if that meant a civil war.

Would you like me to go google links to the polls for you?

By the way, the ONLY excuse bush gave for invasion & occupation was to disarm Iraq of WMD.

All the other side excuses are immaterial; the IRAQIS did NOT want us to invade & occupy their country. Not for any reason.

And last time; the VAST MAJORITY OF IRAQIS want us OUT of THEIR country RIGHT NOW.

That DOES make it the best and the ONLY right course of action.

[mattclearing]

98. Fair enough then.

I am glad that you are the final arbiter of ultimate truth, completely sure of yourself and the righteousness of your words.

What the Iraqis want is important, indeed, if we actually believe in the inalienable rights of all people, then certainly their will should be paramount.

I think you are a bit bent on this as the only course of action that will help matters, though.

Is it possible that you would be willing to question, even for a second, whether or not this withdrawal is the best of all possible ideas?

Because if you believe what you believe regardless of any facts to the contrary, then I'm obviously wasting my time talking to you.

The reason I ask, is because discussing this with you is like talking to a brick wall.

You can't seek truth when you aren't open to it not being what you think it is.

[LynnTheDem]

108. Look, it DOES NOT M ATTER what *I* want or what *I* think is best.

IF the Iraqis said: "Lynn, YOU decide what's best and we will abide happily by your decision; we don't want to have any say at all in it, YOU decide totally."

Then us just up & leaving Iraq and handing over $ billions wouldn't be my way of doing things.

But the Iraqis have NOT asked me to decide for them; THEY have decided for themselves. And THEIR decision is they want us OUT of Iraq. NOW.

[mattclearing]

142. But *YOU'RE* the one arguing about it.

eom

[Debs]

201. You

Are argueing practicality, the problem with that is that what is practical is not that clear. Whichever choice we make MIGHT make things worse. Lynn is argueing morally. We have no moral justification for staying, and since the Iraqis want us gone whatever happens then morally we should go. Now since any practical solution can go either way you must go with the moral arguement. If you go and it is worse for the Iraqis then you can say at least you tried to do the right thing. If you stay and THAT is worse you are stuck with the fact you did the thing that hurt them and had NO moral rationale. Saying that you THOUGHT it was best for the Iraqis, that you thought you knew better than them what was good for them, but were wrong is not morally persuasive

[Debs]

200. I think we

should have sent troops to Rwanda. Then again the people of Rwanda would have been overwhelmingly glad we were there, the Iraqis are not. We wouldnt have privitized all Rwandas resources and built permanent military bases there and thats the main point as long as we stay there is nothing we can do to convince the Iraqis its not about running their coutry, about imperialism for the very simple reason that it IS about imperialism. Since we are seen as the invaders, committing a war of aggression, which we are, WE cannot fix the problems and must leave. The same mindset that caused a problem cannot seriously be trusted to fix that problem.

[welshTerrier2]

68. "they're better off with us there"

you know, when i saw your first post in this thread I thought, "here's another one of these pro-war idiots" ... but i've read what you've written and respect where you're coming from ...

but i'm afraid your reasoning is seriously flawed ...

here's the problem ... we are in full agreement that Iraq is a total disaster ... it sounds like we're in full agreement that bush's policies have, and will, result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis ... i'm confident you're aware we've destroyed the infrastructure in Iraq and that we've poisoned the country with depleted uranium ... Iraqis will continue to die from U.S. actions for generations to come ... OK so far ??

but here's where you lose me ...

If we are just going to leave and let the country collapse into civil war chaos, then sorry, they're better off with us there, even if we lose people in the process.

this statement can only be valid if by staying, we will ultimately prevent a catastrophic civil war from occurring ... agreed ?? because if we occupy Iraq for ten or twenty years and civil war occurs when we leave, we've gain nothing and the costs in terms of human life, international prestige and money are staggering ...

so the question becomes, will occupation by the U.S. ultimately prvent a civil war in Iraq ??? and my answer is "NO" ... i fail to see how occupying a country and setting up a U.S. puppet government, which is exactly how any "elected official" will be seen in Iraq, is going to reduce the tensions among the various factions there ... implicit in your argument is the idea that U.S. presence will ultimately lead to stability ... let's at least acknowledge that we haven't seen an iota of stability thus far ... agreed ??

Democrats must call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq because bush's purpose for being there has nothing to do with benefitting the Iraqi people ... your own words show the folly of remaining there: However, I do feel that a sane president could make something of this situation with an apology to the people of Iraq for the way we went about our "liberation," and a good faith effort to try and win their trust, a distancing from past tactics and strategies of the insane. ... THE REALITY IS THAT bush IS IN POWER ... you can't call for keeping troops there with bush in the White House because you've made the case as articulately as anyone that he will not do the right thing in Iraq ... you can't argue what the policy should be with a different President ... you have to play the cards you've been dealt ...

the bottom line is that you either believe U.S. presence will lead to stability or you don't ... i see very little evidence, given the madness of this administration, that anything positive will come from this invasion ... our troops are dying; Iraqis are dying; our treasury is bankrupt; our alliance are suffering; anti-U.S. fervor is building all over the world and things are getting much worse in Iraq, not better ...

your position that we have an obligation to help Iraq is commendable ... I'm in full agreement with you ... but I can't see how ravaging the country with our military will alter Iraq's inevitable destiny ...

[mattclearing]

70. Thanks for this.

I am of the impression that you are right, and we have to play the cards we are dealt with the President we have been swindled by. Like I said, we could do better, would be doing better with Kerry in the White House, or anyone else for that matter.

The strategy of cut and run only holds up because Bush is in power though. That's my main problem with it. Any other president would re-frame our troops as "peace-keepers," stop using Iraq as an excuse to bleed the treasury dry and actually fix the place up and invest in the infrastructure. I believe these efforts would make a difference to the Iraqi people.

But yeah, we don't have anyone who can do that. It may be fantasy, but it COULD be done. Just not by these people.

[welshTerrier2]

79. no problem ...

and so, you are in agreement that, given the republican control of our government, Democrats should be calling for the removal of all troops from Iraq ??

no matter what bush does now, and this was an argument Kerry made during the campaign, bush will NEVER have credibility in Iraq ... we can't "fix his strategy" ... we have no alternatives but to leave ...

When will the Democratic Party take some responsibility for this insanity ??? sniping at Rumsfeld for his lame press conference and the failure to protect the troops is "good for business" (and it's the right thing to do) but it doesn't change the fate of the Iraqi people one bit ... calling for more troops, as Johnson did in Vietnam, leads to more war and more death, not peace and stability ... sending in U.N. workers and humanitarian aid while U.S. troops are present is viewed skeptically by Iraqis as trying to "buy favors" for the eventual establishment of a U.S. puppet regime ...

we have a huge debt to repay in Iraq ... let's put a rapid end to the spending of $100 billion a year on military madness and spend some of that money on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure ... I believe civil war is inevitable in Iraq ... I believe we cannot prevent the hurt we've created there after toppling Saddam ... we've built a huge power vacuum and cannot control what will eventually fill the void ... let's spend some of America's budget doing the right thing for the Iraqi people instead of prolonging the suffering ...

[mattclearing]

84. It's hard to say, honestly. I think we can push for the right thing.

What we should be doing is holding Bush accountable on the fact that rather than fix Iraq and equip the troops with the $87+ billion we've already spent, he has given it away to Halliburton and the rest without anything to show for it.

The Iraqi people would probably be more accepting if we had ceased hostilities, started acting as peacekeepers, and immediately taken to the task of fixing it.

Our failure to do that is an opening for the Democrats to exploit. I think they should be screaming bloody murder over where our money is.

[spanone]

56. Support Our Troops.....BRING THEM HOME NOW!!!

[Phentex]

64. My sister has this exact sentiment on a banner on her house....

her son is in Iraq and is basically losing it right now. It IS Vietnam as far as I'm concerned.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[welshTerrier2]

71. but what should we say to Democrats who support the invasion ?

welcome to DU, Tagbrds43 !!

i agree with you that bush will not be willing to acknowledge the total failure of his Iraq policy ...

the problem is, though, that many Democrats, including many who voted for Kerry, believe we can't leave Iraq now because we "have an obligation" ... of course, i fail to see how occupying Iraq and destroying the country's infrastructure and pushing to establish a puppet government there is going to meet that obligation ...

[tngledwebb]

93. They did vote for Kerry, in record numbers.

Just need to count the votes correctly.

[zulchzulu]

69. Well....we can't leave now..at least not immediately

I don't agree that we just up and leave Iraq after we bombed the living crap out of the country...its infrastructure...its resources...its people...

We have been bombing that country for almost 15 years in various stages. We have starved the country and its people and killed millions.

We can't leave right now. We need to completely change direction.

We have to take war profiteering out of the mix, we have to allow Iraq to manage its own oil resources AFTER we repair what we've done, we have to help reconstruct the bridges, highways, schools and other infrastructure, clean the rivers, de-mine the countryside... and mostly we need to help the Iraqi people get back on their feet before we ever even think of abandoning them.

You might say "we have to leave" where I would say "we cannot abandon".

The country has the blood of the Iraqi people and the evil we put on this country on our hands. Leaving Iraq so that it turns into a humanitarian disaster beyond our imagination would be the worst thing we could do right now.

I've wondered about the same people who say they are for "peace" would also see nothing wrong with being complicit with genocidal chaos due to being xenophobic.

If you feel the need to flame me, please look at how we need to take the whole reason Bush went to war away and turn it into a humanitarian effort that we could hopefully get the support from our presently alienated allies. Then after we have the country back on its feet, we leave...and respect them.

[spanone]

75. I think you are correct but it's NOT gonna happen that way.

America will eventually become distracted or tired of the war and some administration will pull us out(it will take years). All hell will break loose for a while and we will conveniently lay the blame on the Iraqis themselves or some other outside force. We will NEVER TAKE THE BLAME. We were only trying to propagate democracy, remember. This had nothing to do with greed or profiteering or at least that's what we will tell our kids and the world. Damn noble effort.

[LynnTheDem]

76. Fine; convince the VAST MAJORITY of IRAQIS that we should stay.

And if anyone can do that, then I'd say yes, we should stay.

But the vast majority of Iraqis want us OUT of Iraq RIGHT NOW.

Period.
So unless one argues that the Iraqis are too dumb to know what's best for them, or that we don't care what the iraqis do or don't want, then one has NO argument whatsoever against doing what the vast majority of the Iraqi people want...which is for us to LEAVE Iraq right now.

[zulchzulu]

83. I'm sure if you said we would stop fighting and start rebuilding...

...then you can bet the Iraqis would want us to not "stay", but fix and repair before we leave.

I suppose the chances of the US leaving NOW are about the same as the US doing the correct thing and cleaning up our mess while we take away the war profiteering part of the story.

I understand your frustration. But I also understand that it's not just that easy to just "leave" and not expect even worse things to happen in the region. Think mass genocide. Think mass starvation. Think regional destabilization all throughout the Middle East that would spill all over the World.

[LynnTheDem]

89. No; All I think about is what the IRAQIS want us to do. PERIOD.

We OWE THEM to do what THEY WANT us to do, WHATEVER that may be.

That's the VERY LEAST we can do for them.

And THEY want us to get OUT of their country.

NOW.

[zulchzulu]

95. You're like a broken record...

Tell me what would happen to Iraq if we magically left "now"?

Answer these questions:

1. How would Iraq repair its war-torn country by itself? It's broke, broken and leaderless.

2. What would Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria, and by connection, the rest of the World do while Iraq goes into a genocidal civil war and humanitarian disaster due to having its rivers poisoned, its highways, bridges and other infrastructure decimated by us? Would they just sit there?

3. What do you tell the starving people of Iraq as you are leaving knowing that they will starve even more than they are now?

Saying we have to leave now is far too simplistic.

[LynnTheDem]

96. It is NOT OUR BUSINESS what would happen now if we left.

IT IS UP TO THE IRAQIS. It is THEIR COUNTRY.

THE IRAQIS want us OUT of Iraq RIGHT NOW.

WHAT about this do you NOT understand?????

OTHER NATIONS have already said they would send PEACEKEEPING troops, IF and WHEN the USA gets the hell OUT of Iraq like the IRAQIS WANT.

I will keep on being a "BROKEN RECORD" until idiots in this country get it: IRAQ BELONGS TO THE IRAQIS. It is THEIR COUNTRY. It is THEIR DECISION what happens to THEIR country, and THEY want us OUT of Iraq RIGHT NOW.

And THAT is all that matters...IF we gave a shit about the IRAQIS and what THEY want.

[zulchzulu]

100. What about repairing the country?

Should we just scadaddle and watch the country explode into itself? Do you think other nations would go into peacekeeping efforts while it tumbles into a genocidal civil war?

I want the US to leave, but like any bully that destroys the playground, we have to clean up the mess we made first.

[LynnTheDem]

107. We should HAND OVER the MONEY for repairs.

We should OFFER to send supplies, equipment, expertise; whatever THE IRAQIS ASK us to send.

We DO NOT have to stay, we SHOULD NOT stay, it's WRONG to stay and "clean up the mess" WHEN THE IRAQIS DON'T WANT US TO STAY.

Just FOR ONCE, put what the IRAQIS want AHEAD of what YOU want.

JUST ONCE.

[zulchzulu]

123. I see where you're going with this now...

I offer a Marshall Plan as a solution for a war that I never supported...but you seem to want to now paint me as someone who wants to or thinks that the war is good...

Sorry...your chant is a tired cliche. We need intelligent and compassionate solutions, not bumper sticker kneejerk reactions.

[LynnTheDem]

139. No actually you most certainly do NOT.

And in fact no, it never crossed my mind that you think the war is good etc.

I do think you have GOOD INTENTIONS. But what YOU want for Iraq IS NOT what the IRAQIS want, and I wish you could understand that.

They don't want us to stay, they don't want us to stay & fix anything. They just want us to get the fuck out of Iraq right now. And I believe we owe it to the Iraqi people to do what THEY want us to do, NOT to do what WE may think is best for them.

That's all I was trying to go with this.

But I sure do give up completely.

We should ignore what the Iraqis want, & just do whatever we think is best for them, fine and dandy, that is the American SOP anyways.

[Debs]

202. YOU

Cannot answer that first question any better than anyone else unless you have a magic crystal ball. We can assure that no other country invades, we can also insure an amount of foriegn aid so that they wont starve, this is an unpersuasive arguement. Lynne is right. We cannot tell the Iraqis we know better than they what is best for their country. We are not staying for that reason anyway, if Iraqs main export were artichokes we wouldnt be there we all know that. Its an excuse not a valid reason. We were morally wrong in invading, staying against the Iraqi will does not stand up to a moments moral scrutiny. We have to leave because its the right thing to do. We have no moral justification staying. WE cannot decide for THEM what is best for them nor can we be certain that the level of violence will be lessened over time by our staying

[welshTerrier2]

82. if the Democrats were in control ...

if the Democrats were in control, perhaps your arguments would make some sense ... perhaps we could believe that they would put the best interests of the Iraqi people ahead of all other motives ...

and then we could look at doing all we could to help rebuild Iraq while gradually decreasing our military hold on the country ...

but Democrats are not in control ...

what is it you're calling for? are you arguing that we should honor our commitment to bring peace to Iraq and rebuild its infrastructure with bush in power ?? that's great but what's the point? the only way this would happen is with a new President ...

we are in full agreement about helping the Iraqis ... but with bush in power, unless you have some kind of magic bullet to get him to see things your way, our only course is to leave ... doing more of the same will only yield more of the same ...

[zulchzulu]

85. Perhaps after Bush is impeached in 2007...

It's not as simple as just "leaving" Iraq to turn into an even worse mess than it is presently in.

I believe leaving the country immediately without doing anything else (the Picking Up Our Marbles And Walking Away) would not only be irresponsible after utterly destroying the country for nearly 15 years, but would allow utter chaos and genocide in the region. Would those that want to leave now accept the repercussions of what would happen next? Would watching genocide happen be any better?

Some would say that's not what happened in Vietnam, but if you look at what we have done by destroying Iraq's people and infrastructure, there is barely a comparison geopolitically.

I protested the first Gulf War, this present war and continue to believe it was done completely wrong on several levels, but we as Americans are responsible and need to see it that way.

The only way any of this is going to happen is when Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/PNAC/etc. have been impeached or removed by any other means. Until that happens, we are not leaving or changing the present nightmare strategy...

[welshTerrier2]

90. how long are you willing to keep things as they are ??

what if a republican wins in 2008? 2012? 2016?

hoping for a new administration doesn't do much to stop the killing over there ... how many more American lives are you willing to invest in the current policy? how many Iraqi lives? how many domestic programs will be cut to pay for this madness?

you may be right that withdrawal of American troops will lead to "chaos and genocide" ... of course, one could readily label the current situation the same way ... i believe we will see a civil war in Iraq and I don't see how continued occupation is going to do anything but delay its onset ... the American military has made Iraq a living hell ... we are not stablizing the country ... no one who gets elected while the U.S. occupies Iraq will have any credibility there ... bush is trying to install a puppet ... the U.S. will have to stay there forever to protect whoever gets elected ... and when the U.S. finally does withdraw, and someday they will, the government will fall and the fight for power will occur ...

calling for continued occupation may have good intentions, but it will not change Iraq's destiny in the long run ... horrible things will occur in Iraq whether the U.S. stays or goes ... we have a very real obligation to the Iraqi people but occupying their country will not make things better no matter how long we stay ...

[zulchzulu]

97. OK...what's your suggestion?

I mentioned that we need to get rid of Bush---PNAC before we can even do anything about leaving Iraq. That seems like a reasonable assessment to me...

Should we all just go up to the Pentagon, knock on some doors, knock some people out and get on the PA and command everyone that we are leaving Iraq pronto?

You call what I have suggested "continued occupation". Cute...but...it is not that.

It would be a level of healing and repair for what we have done while we help them get back on their feet. And after that, it would be maintaining a level of respect for their choices.

[LynnTheDem]

104. The Iraqis DO NOT WANT OUR HELP.

What the hell is it going to take for the Iraqis to get it through American heads; THEY DON'T WANT OUR HELP.

They WANT us to JUST LEAVE.

They DON'T CARE how we feel about leaving.

They DON'T CARE how it would look.

They DON'T CARE.

They just want us to get the hell OUT of their country.

[zulchzulu]

118. Source?

All through the thread, you've been saying this... ALL of them want the US to leave...so the Kurds? Really?

[LynnTheDem]

124. I said the MAJORITY of IRAQIS want us to leave.

Google is your friend;

CPA suppressed poll showing most Iraqis want US troops out now

http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=557

Iraqis Want Elections - and Foreign Troops to Leave Now

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0917-07.htm

London Free Press: News Section - Most Iraqis want troops out: poll


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/04/30/441558.html

Poll: Iraqis out of patience

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

[zulchzulu]

132. These polls are based on the current policies NOW

Perhaps you don't get what I'm saying. It's really simple. We do a few things BEFORE we leave. Surely I would assume that I knew that Iraqis don't like what's happening NOW. My idea is not to continue with what is happening now, but to make a bold change for the better and WITH the Iraqis.

We admit that we did the wrong thing and set up a Marshall Plan-style effort that repairs the Iraqi infrastructure and helps get the Iraqis back on their feet.

We are the US, our allies (including Germany, France, Russia...), the UN (who most of our troops would be anyway), NATO and other support that clean up from 15 years of US policy in Iraq. We HELP them. Then we leave AND respect whatever they do AFTER we go.

Otherwise, if we just leave like a bunch of embarrassed bullies that leave a country in shambles and headed into a genocidal civil war with mass starvation and possible attacks from Iraqi neighbors, we may be doing just as badly to the country that we are NOW.

Get it?

[welshTerrier2]

109. Cute? what you called for IS continued occupation ...

here's exactly what you said:

Until that happens, we are not leaving or changing the present nightmare strategy...

what you're saying is that until bush and the republicans are impeached or voted out or whatever, we will not change the current strategy ... and that strategy is ?? continued occupation ...

as for what I would do? i would start by acknowledging that the Democratic Party has failed to convince enough Americans that we can never succeed militarily in Iraq ... do we never learn this lesson? soldiers and tanks and guns and money and Pentagons and neo-cons cannot "make democracy happen" ... we cannot build stability and freedom in a country that does not trust our motives ... so the first thing i would do, and have done, is to call on the Democratic Party to stand in opposition to this madness and start making a real case to the American people that bush's Iraq policy is in shambles and it can never succeed ... education is job one ...

next, i would acknowledge, and I fully agree with you on this, that when we leave, Iraq faces a horrible humanitarian disaster and a civil war ... but recognizing what will happen doesn't justify our continued occupation ... we are making the situation there much worse, not better ... and if civil war is in Iraq's future, I fail to see how our military plans to prevent it ... so, my second step would be to educate the American people on the critical need to transition from a failed military intervention towards humanitarian support ... we could end up spending more than half a trillion dollars in Iraq if we continue this madness ... and we will have nothing to show for it ... let's start making a case for a transition from military intervention to humanitarian support ...

none of this will happen on bush's watch unless the American people scream out for a change in policy ... and if the Democratic Party continues with its current "vague position", a position that does not stand in very clear opposition to the republicans, then the American people will be silent on Iraq and demand nothing of bush ... and that's exactly where we are today ...

[zulchzulu]

121. Was the Marshall Plan an "occupation"?

I don't think so.

That's what I think should happen in Iraq. Hell, we could even act like "we won"...just start repairing the country and THEN get out of there.

I think you and I agree on this more than you might think.

[LynnTheDem]

125. Sorry but ROTFL!!!

The Marshall Plan so has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Iraq. There is NO similiarity whatsoever. And I NEVER thought I';d hear ANYONE outside of rightwingnuts suggest otherwise.

We are indeed OCCUPYING Iraq. Both by LEGAL definition, and by the Iraqi view, which is 97% of Iraqis who view us as OCCUPIERS and not liberators.

We CAN'T repair the country. There's a WAR going on. Contractors are LEAVING Iraq; one of the big ones just left Iraq last week.

We CAN'T even safeguard the oil pipelines.

[zulchzulu]

129. You are not getting what I am saying at all

OK...was the Marshall Plan (do you even know what it was?) an occupation?

[LynnTheDem]

137. Speaking of brick walls.

REALLY listen for once. Or try to. Let's try this a line at a time;

1. I would LOVE if the Iraqis wanted us to stay and fix every single thing we've broken.

2. The IRAQIS do NOT want us to stay in Iraq and fix ANYTHING.

3. The IRAQIS want us OUT of their country RIGHT NOW.

4. BECAUSE that is what the majority of Iraqis want, for us to JUST LEAVE RIGHT NOW, that is what I want, too.

5. I believe what THE IRAQIS WANT is THE FINAL WORD on the subject. Or should be.

End of this discussion for us. :)

[zulchzulu]

141. None of your poll references talked about how Iraqis would not...

..want the help of the US, our allies, the UN, NATO and others to repair the country before we leave.

I would bet that if the question was:

"Would you support the US to begin a peace-keeping strategy and form a new alliance with all of our allies, the Iraqis themselves, the UN and others to repair the country like the US did with Germany after WWII WITHOUT US contractors or attacking US Coalition military forces?"

...you would get a very LARGE MAJORITY of Iraqis who would agree with that.

That's what I'm talking about. I think it's better than just cutting and running like a bunch of cowardly bullies and watching the country go through genocide, starvation and worse.

[LynnTheDem]

99. So we'll IGNORE what the IRAQIS want, stay, and keep making Iraq MORE

of a mess, killing MORE Iraqis, losing MORE troops, day by day by day.

Gee that's brilliant.

[zulchzulu]

103. Let's leave like irresponsible cowards and watch the Iraqi genocide!

Fantastic! What a great plan!

[LynnTheDem]

106. IRRESPONSIBLE was invading in the first place. IRRESPONSIBLE is

worrying MORE over our IMAGE than over WHAT THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES WANT.

WHY is it impossible for you to PLACE WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT ahead of what YOU want???

Also could you please priovide any proof whatsoever that a civil war will break out when we leave?

No civil war when the UK gave up their occupation; no civil war in Iraq's history; no civil war between Sunni & Shia in thier very long history. Tribal wars, yep. But Shia & Sunni belong to many of the same tribes.

So other than bushCartel & neocon bullshit, have you any such proof? A crystal ball, perhaps?

TIA.

[zulchzulu]

116. I hope we get a Time Machine for Christmas

Otherwise, we have to deal with the cards we have now. Also, you asked me to prove a civil war would happen IF we leave. It's ALREADY happening.

I guess you'll just turn off the TV and feel good about yourself when we just up and leave and let the genocide begin...no worries...hmmm.

You don't answer my questions, so it's really hard to take you seriously.

[LynnTheDem]

117. It's already happening BECAUSE we are THERE.

The IRAQIS want us to leave.

I want for the Iraqis whatever the IRAQIS say they want.

THEY say they want us TO LEAVE.

SO SORRY that YOU cannot understand this, so sorry that what YOU want is more important to you than what the IRAQIS want.

Good day to you.

[zulchzulu]

119. One last question...

What do you think will happen to Iraq if we left immediately knowing that there is:

- A civil war happening in many parts of the country
- A destroyed transportation system of highways and bridges
- A destroyed telecommunications infrastructure
- Completely polluted water sources with the river systems
- Depleted uranium deposits all over the country
- Starving Iraqis and destroyed land
- A headless, leaderless government
- Countries nearby ready to invade once we leave

I could go on, but perhaps you have a nice, concise solution that would offer some level of intelligent humanitarian scenario.

As I have said, we need to leave AFTER we repair what we have done WITHOUT war profiteering and perhaps having a Marshall Plan similar to what we did in Germany after WWII.

Maybe you're so wrapped up on your tiresome mantra that you even think I support the war because I "don't get it"... I offer a realistic solution instead of just banging a drum and a bumper sticker chant.

[LynnTheDem]

127. You REALLY refuse to get it.

IT's NOT YOUR BUSINESS and it's NOT MY BUSINESS what happens; what IS our business is to do WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT us to do.

THE IRAQIS DO NOT WANT US TO STAY IN THEIR COUNTRY.

They DO NOT WANT us to repair what we've done.

They want us to LEAVE.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY do YOU think the Iraqis are TOO STUPID to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what they want for THEIR country???

WHY do you REFUSE to allow the IRAQIS to DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES what they want us to do???

WHY do you REFUSE TO LISTEN TO AND SUPPORT what the IRAQIS want from us???

No more of this shit; the majority of Iraqis DO NOT CARE what YOU want for them, they DO NOT CARE about easing your guilt for what we've done to them; they JUST want us to LEAVE them ALONE and GET OUT of their country NOW.

And you have repeatedly made it very clear in your posts that YOU do not agree with the Iraqis, that YOU do not care what they want, that YOU think you know better what's best for them.

That's ARROGANCE.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[LynnTheDem]

130. THE IRAQIS want us out. DUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH!!!

GET IT??? FINALLY???

NOTHING to do with what *I* do or don't want. NOTHING to dow ith what *I* think is or isn't the best for Iraq.


THE MAJORITY of IRAQIS WANT US OUT NOW.


They DO NOT WANT us to stay and repair ANYTHING.

But YOU just KEEP ON BANGING on YOUR bongo about FIXING what we broke...EVEN THOUGH THAT IS NOT WHAT THE IRAQIS WANT.

YOU just KEEP ON IGNORING THE IRAQIS.

You're DAMN GOOD at it.

GOOD fucking GRIEF!!!!!

[zulchzulu]

135. Abandoning Iraqis after we blew up the country is ignoring them

That's what it is. Just leave....ignore them.

Find a poll on Google where the Iraqis don't want the country to be fixed after we blew up the goddamn place. Find a poll where they don't want our (US/UN/NATO/Allies...) assistance AFTER we change our policy that we are currently on...

I know you know the H1 tag...try the marquee tag too...

Get it?

[LynnTheDem]

140. speechless...

We have to stay, against what the Iraqis want, because to not ignore them by leaving would be ignoring them.

:wow:


buh bye!

[shockra]

158. Thanks for being a broken record, Lynn.

I am of the exact same opinion. And I was thinking something along the lines of Q's post below, too. That if somebody beat you up would you want that person to stay and nurse you back to health? Hell, no. The most important thing for your mental and physical healing is for them to get the hell out. First. Their mere presence inhibits healing.

And bullies or abusers don't make good healers. Even if they propose to care, they aren't able to hear the victim's real needs. They only care about regaining control of the situation.

The American hubris on this issue is astonishing. Trying to manipulate the situation to resemble some sort of stability that suits our definition of the word is never going to work. It's just plain arrogant to believe we have the ability to do that. We have no right to play God there, trying to figure out how to do that, either.

[LynnTheDem]

160. Thanks, Shockra!

Astonishing, indeed, the hubris. And very frustrating.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[zulchzulu]

163. Have you sorted out what I've been talking about yet?

I understand your intentions. I personally protested in the streets for any wars that any Bush has started.

I know we need to immediately change the mission from one where it is (a disaster) to the reality and intelligent mission of getting out of the country by forming a new repair mission (much like the Marshall Plan) that fixes WITH the Iraqis those things we destroyed. All this is done independently from ANY PNAC member, any American war profiteer and done with the intention of helping Iraq to get back on track.

This means that we don't just leave with the mess we left behind.

Happy holidays!

[Q]

134. Calling a DUer 'delusional' and thinking like a '12 year old'...

...is worthy of someone that doesn't want to face facts...the foremost being that why would the victim of a rape want the rapist to try to 'heal' them?

The US CAN get out now...but the Neocons and Neodems don't want that to happen under any conditions. Like Pirates...they're more interested in the war profieering and sharing the loot than even entering into discussions about ending the 'war'.

Put in a peace-keeping force and spend the billions of dollars now used to blow up Iraq to put Iraqis back to work rebuilding their own country. It could be just as easy as it sounds. But the warmongers are too busy installing puppet governments that will give US corps pipelines, Halliburtion military bases and favored access to oil fields to be bothered with discussing an exit strategy.

[zulchzulu]

138. I see you don't think like one

My point has been to now put in a Marshall Plan for Iraq that uses the US, our allies, UN , NATO, etc. and fix the country before we just up and abandon the mess we created.

It's easy to chant "US Out Now!" if you have no clue what would happen to the country if you just abandoned the country like a spoiled bully tired with his toy. There would be great repercussions to that "solution".

[Q]

145. I would think that very few have suggested that we just...

...withdraw without having a plan to keep the peace. But it should be obvious by now that the US can't accomplish that goal...with either GOPers or Dems in control of the government.

Perhaps there is 'no clue' because neither party is bringing a discussion about the issue? Why is that? Could it be that the two major parties in the US want what Bush* is offering? Both parties can get away with pretty much anything during a 'time of war'. Republicans can plunder our treasury and Dems can get part of the loot (campaign cash) as long as they keep their mouths shut.

Don't underestimate the intelligence of those who chant 'US Out Now'. They too realize that it would entail more than just withdrawing troops. But first both parties must agree that there is no place left to go in Iraq except OUT.

[mainer]

72. I say: "No, another 50,000 Americans have to die first. THEN we can leave

It's the only way we can leave with honor.

[YNGW]

77. I would agree with them.

Whether someone agrees with the war in Iraq or not, this one thing is for certain; we pull out now and to the eye of the terrorist world it will send a message that all you have to do is hold out long enough and eventually the USA will fold and run. It's the same message that bin Laden noted when the USA was in Vietnam and when we went into Mogadishu and bugged out once the blood started flowing. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that they would be satisfied with us gone and that would be it. We leave, they become emboldened to do even more. These militant Islamics already have their eye on overrunning Europe eventually, so to them it would be on to the next step.

[Walt Starr]

92. In answer to the Vietnam War protestors

Whether someone agrees with the war in Vietnam or not, this one thing is for certain; we pull out now and to the eye of the communist world it will send a message that all you have to do is hold out long enough and eventually the USA will fold and run.

So, do we get out after another 50,000 GI's are dead?

[YNGW]

120. That might hold water.....

...if the Vietnamese has made overtures that they held interests beyond just uniting the country of Vietnam under one communist government, but they didn't. Not true with our current situation.

The Islamic militants have made it quite clear that any people who do not bow the knee to Allah, wherever they be are, are to be killed and that all countries who are not ruled by the laws of Islam are to be destroyed. Like I said, we leave and it gives them even more encouragement that Allah is with them and they need to move on to the next objective, that objective being that the whole world either worships Allah and his prophet Mohammad or they die. Leaving won't make them stop.

[Walt Starr]

143. By staying, all we do is accomplish recrutiment for the armies

of the radical Islamic fundamentalists.

Your way is actually the more dangerous road.

[YNGW]

165. And them saying that Allah is with them....

... and has driven off the infidel and that Allah calls for all Muslims everywhere to join in the jihad ISN'T going help recruit more to join the fight? Because sure as thunder, that's exactly the claim they will be making, that Allah is with them and has given them victory, and now he calls upon Islam to continue in their conquest of killing the infidel. Yeah, that type of recruiting tool will be extremely effective for these terrorist groups. I don't see how anyone couldn't see that.

[Walt Starr]

81. Same thing was said about Vietnam

all that bullshit got us was 55,000 dead G.I.'s.

[txaslftist]

87. we're making it worse.

The Iraqis (most of them) were grateful we got rid of Saddam. That's as far as it goes. They don't want or need a foreign power coming in and telling them how to set up a democracy. They don't need our troops to protect their security (they are almost universally armed). Will there be a bloody civil war if we leave? Maybe...maybe not. When did the US become so much smarter than or more capable than the Iraqis? Who are we to say what form of government they should have? The arrogance of the idea that we need to "help those poor people" because 'we broke it and now we have to fix it' stuns me. Who says they are poor people? Who says they are more ignorant than we are?
Geez...get the Hell out, let them fix it themselves. They'll probably do a better job of fixing it than we can. They are the ones with the vested interest.
Besides that, why are destabiliizing "insurgents" streaming into the country from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Pakistan? They are going in to kill US soldiers, who they see as invaders, not to grab power in Iraq. Get our soldiers-and contractors- out of there and the "insurgents" will lose their primary motivation.

[Lefty48197]

91. The Islamic Republic of Iraq

.

[Obviousman]

101. It's complicated

But I really want to see the troops out of there. Here's why. I can see the need to stabilize the region. But, how can I ask someone to keep fighting in a war I myself am not willing to fight in?
William Donohue

[zann725]

102. Say "I assume your son/daughter isn't serving there...or isn't Draft age?

Or "I assume no one personally close to you hasn't been killed or maimed there yet?"

[truthisfreedom]

122. i'd say "read what the founder of USATODAY said today."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000741680

Al Neuharth, in Christmas Column, Calls for Bringing Troops Home from Iraq


By E&P Staff

Published: December 23, 2004 11:00 AM ET


NEW YORK In a column noting the high number of U.S. military personnel in Iraq who will be far from home on Christmas, USA Today founder Al Neuharth declared today that if he were eligible to serve in Iraq, "I would do all I could to avoid it." He also wrote in his weekly column for the paper that America's New Year's resolution should be to bring the troops home "sooner rather than later."

Neuharth, 80, a World War II vet, said he would happily volunteer for that kind of "highly moral duty again." But he would avoid serving in Iraq, likening it to the Vietnam war, which "many of the polticially connected" managed to escape.

He concluded that "support our troops" is a wonderful slogan but "the best way to support our troops thrust by unwise commanders- in-chief into ill-advised adventures like Vietnam and Iraq is to bring them home. Sooner rather than later. That should be our New Year's resolution."

[sampsonblk]

126. They're right: we can't leave now

IMHO, that's one reason Bush was so anxious to get us into this mess. He knew once we went in, the debate was over. We can't create this disaster and then leave. It will be disastrous for us and for a lot of other countries.

For one, it will really become the terrorist haven that Bush claimed it was before the invasion. Secondly, it will become a humanitarian crisis of our own making, since we are the ones who went in and destroyed their means of feeding themselves, and keeping their own lights on.

Etc etc. We broke it. We have to fix it. Or people will die needlessly, and our reputation (such that it is) will be destroyed for generations, if it isn't already.

[Clarkie1]

131. We must not stay in Iraq regardless of the consequences, however to leave

now would be immoral. It would leave Iraq in even greater chaos.

We have assured people we will be there at the very least to help implement the elections at the end of January. We are commmited morally at least to that.

[Q]

136. Have you really bought the 'free and fair elections BS of the Bushies?

What's 'moral' about pretending to bring democracy to the desparate people of Iraq?

[Clarkie1]

146. No, but to leave now would cause more hardship for the Iraqi people

And we have already caused enough of that already. We are obligated to clean up the mess we created, or at least to try.

[buddysmellgood]

150. How does staying help?

[Clarkie1]

203. It's probably preventing a civil war, at least for the time being

[Q]

164. More hardship than they're already experiencing?

How is that friggin possible? At least if the US leaves they won't have to worry about bombs dropping on their houses and weddings.

You really DON'T seem to get it...or you're being intentionally obtuse. WE CAN'T CLEAN UP THE MESS BECAUSE WE'RE PART OF THE MESS. We're going to have to pay others to clean it up for us...or should I say clean it up for Bush?

The Bushies plan on continuing the violence until every last Iraqi they call 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' submits to their will. Practically nothing is being done to rebuild Iraq because of the violence incited by the US occupation. The violence on both side will continue until the US leaves.

We may be obligated...but not to clean up the mess. We're obligated to leave and allow peace-keeping forces to take over. We're obligated to pay reparations for the loss of life and property. Beyond that we're doing more harm than good...pretending to 'liberate' the Iraqi people and bring democracy. They know it's a charade. We know it's a charade. Let's stop now and save lives.

[Jesus H. Christ]

133. I say they're a fucking idiot and should be ashamed of themselves. nt

[buddysmellgood]

149. Heeeey! Jesus. What up? Can you clarify that whole shellfish/gay

abomination thing? Also, I know you got really angry in the temple that one time and smashed shit and stuff, but later, after you had a chance to cool down, did you look at the numbers? You can make some serious cash in the temple/church. Do you know about Jim and Tammy?

[dpibel]

155. Preventing the bloodbath

There's this assumption, based, as far as I can tell on nothing but what we hear from the US propaganda machine, that a bloodbath of unprecedented proportions will ensue if the US withdraws from Iraq.

Could someone please help me understand what's going on there right now? If as many as 100,000 civilians dying, plus the uncounted Iraqi military casualties from shockenawe don't constitute a bloodbath, I'm not sure what does.

[Gyre]

161. May I suggest...

"You are a moran! Time for you to sign-up or you are a moran AND a hypocrite!"

In tact I trust. :)

Gyre

[Kahuna]

162. Tell them that * is going to cut and run after the bogus elections

are over with. The elections will give him the out that he needs. So what's the difference since we're going to leave anyway. It's georgy's MO to leave his chimp droppings. He will surely do the same with Iraq.

[Obviousman]

168. Here's a gun, go and fight

not willing to fight? then dont ask others to do it in your place.

[Q]

170. A statement that should be 'obvious'...

...but it seems to go right over the head of many. Those who support this 'war'...beyond reason and common sense...should offer to put their own or the lives of their children in harm's way. I wonder how gung ho they would be if they had to back up their words with action?

[Zhade]

169. "Please reference 'Viet Nam'".

NT!

[IndianaGreen]

171. Enlist!

If you want war, then you should fight in it!

[gulliver]

173. Dems should not call for withdrawal until the people do.

The failure in Iraq is already apparent. By definitition, it became a failure the second its justifications were rendered false and its desired outcome was rendered impossible. The war to eliminate WMD and install an America-friendly democracy in the middle east has failed. The thing we are in now is Bush's Folly.

We are all learning a great, historically significant lesson. Bush has done the world a big favor by being such an ass at this point in history. His immense failure has the potential for re-establishing respect for reason and compassion.

If Dems call for withdrawal, they will be tarred with blame for the inevitable failure of Bush's Folly. That would reverse the lesson in humility we so desperately need and set up ten-fold carnage down the road.

Wait until the people themselves are 80% against the war. Then all sides will start to call for an end to it together. And the cracked mental model that enabled a crippled micro-man like Bush to sit in the Oval Office will end.

[Hippo_Tron]

189. Would the UN be willing to take on the job?

Basically, I'm 100% behind the solution that ends the violence the quickest. What Americans don't get is that the insurgency is a never ending problem, they will continue to grow, so long as we are there. But I also wonder if when we leave Iraq, will another group just overthrow the government by force and install a totalitarian regime? The best temporary solution that I can think of is to get the US presence out and put somebody in that the Iraqis would be more welcoming to, the UN for example.

[quaoar]

204. The best thing to say to someone who says we must stay

is to ask them to read the Old Testament, Hosea - Chapter 8, Verse 7

For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.