We leave Iraq, Iran moves in and takes over.

[madmunchie]

What happens to the Sunni and the Kurds?

Don't flame me, but this is what happens when we leave.

I didn't want to go into Iraq, I hate what we have done there, BUT what will happen when we leave? How many more innocent people will be killed? Really, what will happen?

[Captain Hilts]

1. They've got their guys in power in Iraq. Already. They're the winners.

[Vincardog]

2. That is up to the fine citizens of IRAQ.

[madmunchie]

3. We are leaving innocent men, women and children to the insurgents

Iraq's military is no where ready to defend anything. I would love to be out of there - yesterday - , but I am beginning to believe that when we leave, there will be a bloodbath. That really upsets me. I don't want a bloodbath because of what we did by destabilizing the country to begin with. We have fucked up so badly that WE are going to be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

[file83]

8. Okay, so your answer is to occupy Iraq FOR EVER? Or do you suggest

something else?

[madmunchie]

11. No, I don't think occupying it forever will be the answer either

I am just saying that how will it be, say, when we withdraw and a bloody civil war (10x the size it is now) breaks out and all of the innocents are slaughtered? Which is worse? staying and stablizing (until somebody can figure out how we can leave and leave Iraq stablized) or leaving and watchings a bloodbath?

[MadHound]

17. The trouble is that said civil war is going to occur no matter what

We can set up any government we wish, and yet since that government was imposed by the US, it will be considered illegal and illegit by the Iraqi people. Once that is done, a civil war will begin. This is the outcome no matter when we leave, no matter what we do.

Therefore, instead of us staying there in some vain effort to mold Iraqi society, we should leave now. All that we're doing is killing innocent Iraqis and getting killed ourselves. Leave now, and at least the death we cause will no longer be a factor. And what follows, follows. That may sound cold blooded and cynical, but that is the truth of the matter, and there's not damn thing that the US can do ove there to prevent this from happening. It's that simple.

[Auntie Bush]

9. and hundreds of thousands of years!

[IndianaGreen]

18. What insurgents? Those are Iraqis that want our ass out of their country!

Stop reading Pentagon press releases. Iraq is for Iraqis. US should get out of the Middle East altogether, and stop selling arms to all of the countries in the region, including Israel.

[fuzzyball]

25. The "insurgents" are mainly remnants of Saddam's sunni cronies who

lost their position of power on the top rung when Saddam's
regime fell to the invading Americans.

I would have done the same thing as the insurgents are doing
if I lost my livelyhood, money and power to the opposition
majority shia Iraqi's.

I think the only plausible solution to the Iraq mess at present is
to divide the country in 3 autonomous parts with only common item
being the defense/military. That way each faction gets power yet
the military remains large enough to defend Iraq from Iranian
takeover.

[IndianaGreen]

26. You sound like Rumsfeld talking about the "hangers-on"

America has no solution for Iraq other than to get our asses out of that country ASAP. We done more harm to that country than it was ever done to us by all the terrorists plots we ever had.

How sad that we occupy the same moral level as Osama bin Laden.

[fuzzyball]

28. If that is true why did the Iraqi's bothered

to vote in record turnout to help form a democratic
government? What was it something like 70% of eligible age
voters?

I have roots going back to the that part of world myself, and I believe
majority of Iraqi's want a democratic Iraq. If we leave now, the
democracy is toast.

Don't get me wrong, starting the Iraq invasion was a blunder. There
was no big hurry to democratize Iraq. Bush should have tried other
options first which were several. But now that we are in it upto
our eyeballs it will be another blunder to get out in a hurry.

[file83]

4. Maybe that's something Bush should have thought about before

walking into the crystal shop swinging a baseball bat? YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT. So when we finally pull out of this quagmire, next year, 10 years from now, Iran will move in - it's INEVITABLE. That responsibility falls on HIS shoulders...not ours.

The decision has already been made by him, now it's just a matter of time.

Maybe the U.S. should pass ownership of Iraq over to Iran - strike up an agreement with the UN that Iran will not commit genocide against the Sunni and Kurds...just a thought.

[madmunchie]

7. That is a pretty smart idea.

If it were possible. Could you imagine the media on THAT? Their heads would explode!

[file83]

10. It would never happen, in reality. Can you imagine the RW fundies' heads

exploding when they find out Bush is GIVING Iraq to Iran! Oh the irony of history!

[madmunchie]

12. Really, though, it is a HUGE bargaining chip, Iran neutralized,

Iraq stablized and WE ARE OUT!

[welshTerrier2]

5. and the US military occupation is better?

the US destroyed Iraq and will never rebuild it ...

there seems to be a more natural tie between the Shia of Iraq and the Iranians ... intrusion of Iran into Iraq may be by invitation for mutual cooperation; that will never be the case with the US after what we've done to Iraq ...

[Auntie Bush]

6. They will execute and torture each other as they have been doing

for 2000 years...and will continue to do so until they separate into separate sections with their own laws, but remain one country and share in the oil profits. (One country with several states with strong state rights.)

[IndianaGreen]

13. Well, put Saddam back in power and give him Jenna Bush in payment

for the troubles we caused him.

The argument of what would happen if the US were to leave Iraq can be compared to that of a rapist that claims that he must continue to rape his victim in order to help her "get over it."

Let's leave Iraq now, before we find ourselves leaving as we did Saigon!

Our defeat is inevitable!

[madmunchie]

I'm not talking about "our" defeat, I am talking about hundreds

of thousands of Iraqi lives...... that is what I am thinking about.

[IndianaGreen]

16. We already killed 250,000 Iraqis, how many more you want to kill?

We are the reason for the violence. We are no more welcome in Iraq than IDF is in Gaza, with the same results for the occupation.

[Vinca]

14. The newly elected Iraqi government is cozy with Iran as it is and

they support Hezbollah to boot. Whether we leave or whether we stay, Iran is going to play a part in Iraq.

[Sensitivity]

15. U.S. occupation is motivation for much of the Iraqi-Iraqi violence

With U.S. out of the picture, all the neighbouring states would be
more inclined to be helpfull in mediating the internal conflicts --
as bitter and long-live as that have been. IMHO

[gratuitous]

19. A modest proposal

Tell Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and every other Muslim-dominated country in the region you can think of that we're tired and we want to go to bed. Toward that end, we're entrusting the continued stewardship of Iraq to their hands, and we strongly suggest they volunteer some folks from their militaries to help maintain security and order in Iraq. In fact, it's a little more than a suggestion on our part. If those countries will step up, we'll match their financial commitment dollar for dollar. For example, if Syria sends 5,000 folks into Iraq to help stabilize the country, and it costs them a billion dollars a year to do so, we'll send Syria a billion dollars.

It spreads the responsibility for the region's security out over the countries most interested in seeing a stable Iraq. The cost will probably actually go down for the American taxpayer. We remove one of the biggest goads to insurgent dissatisfaction in the country, the U.S. military presence. And we reduce regional tension by giving everyone something besides hating America to occupy their time.

[Sensitivity]

20. Kerry Proposal of Regional Summit for hand-over of made sence

But Bushco is too proud to admit defeat.

Will likely withdraw in hail of bombs rather that a reasonable
transition that acknowleges U.S. impotence in situation.

[Jed Dilligan]

21. We'll have to take them, warts and all,

to save our own face. Look forward to having them as your neighbors in Denver, Des Moines, Dallas, Detroit, and Durham.

A lot will want to stay and fight it out but we will have to take as many refugees as apply.

Anything less would be despicable as well as disastrous for America's reputation (what's left of it.)

[Vincardog]

22. Ok I move that every Iraqi who wants to leave can move to Crawford tomorrow

The "western white house" will hire every one.

[ieoeja]

23. Better question: why do you think that will happen?

Serious question. What makes everyone think Iran will conquer Iraq after we leave? Iran did not invade Afghanistan after the Soviets left. They have not invaded anyone since the Islamic Revolution.

Nor have I heard of them even threatening to do so. In fact, this idea seems to have originated with ... the neo-con boys.

Of course, to be fair I must now apply the same process to this thread of thought. Accordingly, "what makes you/me/anyone think the neo-cons are just making this shit up?"

:rofl:

Okay, the evidence for that one is pretty extensive. You do not really need a list, correct?


Again, I suppose we could look to Afghanistan for a possible precedence. First, the gov't left behind by the Soviets was militarily overthrown by a coalition of Afghan forces. The constitutional gov't established thereafter was overthrown in its turn by the Taliban supported by the Islamic revolutionary movement (involved also in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malayasia, Nigeria, probably a few other African nations plus the bare beginnings of efforts in several central Asian countries bordering Afghanistan on 9/11/2001).

The Taliban then turns Afghanistan away from the liberal, Western values that had dominated the country for a century stripping everyone of their human rights and brutalizing the previously liberated women of the country.

Would something simliar happen in Iraq? I am very much afraid so. On the other hand, the secular Ba`athists did a pretty good job before we came. Would they be able to re-take control again? Their opponents might receive arms, etc from the Iranians. But why wouldn't Syria in turn supply the Ba`athists?

Yes, Syria is supposed to be part of a Shia Crescent with Iran. But where does this idea originate? Again, with the neo-con boys! In reality, what organization has ruled Syria the past fifty years? The pan-Arabic Ba`ath Party! Presumably, Syria would arm their Ba`ath Party friends in Iraq against the Iranian armed Shi`ites.

And if they have a problem doing so, I know a certain super power with a heckuva an arsenal already there who might be persuaded to sell some of it on credit. We (1) created the problem and (2) owe it to the liberal women of Iraq to ensure their continued freedom, etc. We can NOT abandon these women as we did the women of Afghanistan.

But we need not get too directly involved. That only serves to rally everyone against us.

And then there is the Murtha Plan. We leave the Marines in Kuwait. Any army tries taking down the constitutional gov't of Iraq, we send in the Marines. The Marines massacre the rebel army then return to their bases in Kuwait. The Iraqis run their own country. We only act when the rebels are out in the open where we CAN act against them with ease.

[LSK]

24. Iran has not invaded anyone in 200 years

Your claim conflicts with their history.

[CarlVK]

27. Nonsense. They wont have to.

The US's stupid war and occupation has set the makings of an Iraqi Islamic Republic in motion. That will mean Shi'a leadership of Iraq coming in the near future. THAT means an alliance with the Shi'a leadership of Iran. And THAT, my friends, means a nascent fundamentalist Islamic Federation.