I have unpopular thoughts regarding Iraq

[WillParkinson]

I don't think we can leave.

We invaded the country. We brought it to the brink (if we haven't pushed it over) of civil war. We've killed innocent civilians (beyond those who died during this illegal war).

What do we gain if we pack up and go home? We'll be leaving the people whom we pledged to "free" to anarchy. People whose only crime is that they're in Iraq. Hey, we ravaged your country and now we are going leave you to pick up the pieces?

How can we just turn our back on a problem we caused? Yes, I understand that Americans are dying over there. But that would never have happened if Dems and Repubs hadn't folded and given Bush exactly what he wanted. But we started it and I don't honestly believe we can abandon those people who actually are looking for our help now.

[Teaser]

1. when are you going to enlist?

you can take responsibility for Iraq if you want.
And if you do so, please back it up by enlisting.

[WillParkinson]

7. I tried when I was 18...

Due to skin conditions I can't enlist. Air Force and Marines both told me no.

[Teaser]

8. The army has reportedly softened its admission standards

I suggest you try again.

and report back to us.


Also, you could additionally try and go work for a security contracting firm. Sure, you'll be a merc, but you'll be helping the people whose country you (apparently claim to have) wrecked.

[WillParkinson]

11. Nice try...

I didn't say I wrecked it. I said we. As a country. We went to war as a country. Sadly a majority of our people agreed with the war at the time, just as a majority now say it was wrong. I am morally opposed to war in any shape or fashion but I'm equally opposed to leaving people to be victims twice. Once when we invade and once when we leave them to be victimized by the stronger factions.

[grytpype]

33. A majority supported the war, but they were lied to.

Essential to note. The war didn't get majority support until Cheney and Rice started saying Saddam was going to attack us with nuclear weapons. They had to get the fake WMD story up to that level before the public came around.

That plus the lies connecting Saddam to 9/11, which a big chunk of the public still believes!

What are the people supposed to do when their leaders lie to them like that? Shouldn't we be able to trust them when they say we are about to get hit with nuclear weapons?

[WillParkinson]

38. I'm not saying the war wasn't a sham...

I am saying that a majority of people bought into it. (Surprisingly the only people who didn't were those here at DU and no one listened to us then.) A majority thought that we were there to keep our interests safe. Obviously it was a lie. But I think it's wrong to leave without a viable plan to keep the weaker people in Iraq safe from the people who are likely about to grab power once we walk away.

[grytpype]

39. It can't be done.

You're just rephrasing the security problem in a different way. There isn't enough force available to solve the security problem in Iraq, it is going to boil for 30 or 50 years, like what's happening in much of Africa now. No one can impose order on that kind of a situation.

[zanne]

64. I know where you're coming from.

I thought that for a long time, too. Now, I think that there will be chaos no matter what. I'd rather they have chaos without our soldiers getting killed.

[Teaser]

48. I had shit to do with it, jackson. Keep me out of your "We".

nt

[Teaser]

49. So are you going to try and enlist again?

I await your report of what happens.

Really there is nothing else to say until you try and enlist again, or get a job with a merc firm.

Put yer ass where your mouth is.

[WillParkinson]

54. Hostile much?

As I said, unpopular opinion.

But mine.

You'll notice that I haven't had to resort to rudeness to discuss the opinion.

I'm not saying mine is right, only that it's mine.

Unlike some people I'm willing to look at other viewpoints. Perhaps someone who has something to say other than snarky comments may point out something that would change my mind. I don't have answers. I have questions that are in need of answers. Thank you for helping point the way.

Good day to you.

[Teaser]

60. are you going to try and enlist again?

straight answer, please.

[WillParkinson]

67. At 42 years old and 255 pounds...

I doubt that I'd be useful for much. Are you happy now? I've said it for you.

But remember one thing. I DID try to serve my country. More than nearly any Republican can say.

Now answer my question. Is leaving Iraq and letting the chips fall where they may for the Iraqi people the only option you see? Is it OK for us to illegally invade a country, take what we want, and then tell the people that it's too bad, so sad but they now have to deal with the mess?

I don't have insight into what the Iraqi people as a whole want. I get my information from talking heads just like most others do. You've brought no point to this conversation other than harping on the same thing. I've answered it now. I gave my opinion and all I'm asking is for someone to give me some facts to change my mind.

Or is that too much to ask for?

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. William the only thing we can do

under International law, is pull out and pay war reparations to whoever emerges as the government of Iraq or to the three successor states. Now getting there will only be done if the next government of the US has any conscience left... and against the will of plenty of people in this country. But that is what happens when you go to war over fictitious reasons. (And if you think paying reparations will be popular in this country, I have a huge bridge to sell you)

Our staying there makes things far worst and lengthens it.

as to service... yep you tried to enlist, but you surely cannot say you did not expect that from people here.

[SammyWinstonJack]

59. When exactly was "war" declared? And Pinhead** , his group of

warmongers and supporters are responsible for Iraq. It wouldn't have matter it a majority opposed the illegal invasion, these a$$holes were going in no matter what. It's way past time to leave, or be stuck there forever. These giggling murderers aren't getting my two sons to use as bait, protection for Halliburton, and World domination. NO draft and No more "wars"! Enough! Why is it that the people who can't or refuse go fight, are the ones screaming that we should stay, that we just can't leave now? It so easy too commit someone else for that "noble cause" right? :argh:

[WillParkinson]

65. Hm...

I don't recall myself "screaming" that we should stay. I made an observation and gave an opinion. And opinions are subject to change as new information is made available. (Case in point: The majority now say the war was a "mistake", something we knew from the beginning.)

I want a way for everyone to be safe and happy. I understand that my want is an unobtainable goal. That realized, I hope that we can find a way to solve the problem with a minimum of hurt and loss for the people of the United States and the Iraqi people, too. Neither wanted what happened and yet both have to deal with the repercussions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Under international law

you and I are responsible as well... whether we opposed it or not... it is called war reparations.

And yes, you and I are also responsble for Abu Grraib, and other horrors. They were commited in your and MY name.

[acmejack]

20. I have found it easier to support military action from the safety of home

It is much easier to be for a war when one has no personal stake in it-such as getting their own ass blown off. You want other People's children (OPC) to go & continue to do the dying. Are you going to deliver the news to the bereaved that their loved ones died for this bullshit war because Bush fucked up and you think we need to stay and "pick up the pieces"?

They want us to leave, it is their Country, we should get the hell out-NOW. Cut our losses.

[WillParkinson]

34. Did I want this "war"?

No.

Do I want us there now?

No.

Would I like a way out that won't get anyone else hurt and yet still keep the Iraqi people safe?

HELL YES!

Like I said, unpopular thoughts. But I'm sorry. We broke it and we're responsible for making sure that it gets fixed.

But, hey, give me a plan that accomplishes both goals and I'm right there with you.

[bryant69]

12. Nice response

Very well thought out and meaningful.

"I think we have a problem with poverty in this country." "Than you better sell all you own ang give it to the poor."

"I think we have a problem with crime in this country." "Than you'd better quite your job and become a cop."

"I think we need to be concerned about emissions and their effect on the environment." "Than you'd better give up your car"

"I think we we need to have taxes equal to the amount we need to spend." "Then you better not take any deductions when tax time rolls around."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Perky]

47. Thank you and Spot on!!

[leftofthedial]

2. SURVEY SAYS . . .

The majority of Iraqis want us out.

Why do you hate democracy?

[Yupster]

21. I'm for leaving, but

before we do we have to let all the Iraqis who've worked with us get out before we leave.

I'm assuming that once we leave the Iraqi Army will dissolve into militias and the elected government won't last long. A fundamentalist government will take over to restore order and order will include sawing the heads off the collaberators live on national TV.

One Killing Fields is enough for a lifetime, so I'm for leaving as long as we get our collaberators out first.

[leftofthedial]

25. considering that king george's collaborators are mostly

wanted for fraud and other crimes in other countries, we should just extradite them

[OwnedByFerrets]

3. Just tell me what staying will solve?

I know we broke it but its not gonna be "unbroke" by staying. Monkeyboy has put amerika in an unwinnable situation. And the idiot has already said that its someone else's problem.

[Perky]

22. That is the problem

We broke it. We clearly can not fix it. They can't fix it either.

SO if it is broken and it can't be fixed. There are great risks in us staying in th that it fules the insurgency and great risks in leaving becauce of the sectaraian violence and the breeding ground for AlQuada and Hezbollah.

We can go round and round on next step, but this is a quagmire. The best we can do is hold Bush in check against making more stupid decision by electing Democrats to congress.

We need to negotaites a new equation that takes us out of the Sunni Triangle by a date certain.

[TahitiNut]

4. "Don't pull the knife out! He might bleed more!"

Such a rationalization on the part of someone stabbing someone else rarely flies.

[Recursion]

44. And yet, for that, it's sometimes true

I don't know how well the analogy carries over, but in a literal sense there are some wounds where you need to not pull out whatever is sticking into the guy. Like I said below, I don't have a solution for Iraq and don't know that there is one, so I can't criticize people who want out yesterday. But sometimes it is more dangerous to right a wrong than to leave it. I don't know.

[Warpy]

5. There is another way to consider

We ask the people what they want. If they want us to stay and help them train an army and police, we stay for that. Quite possibly, we train outside that country while trying to maintain some sort of order within it.

If they want us to go, we go. We do it in an orderly fashion, north to south, and we take our war junk with us.

Once we're out, we owe them rebuilding supplies. We negotiate delivery with whatever government shakes out and if we have to do it through a third country, we do that. We do owe them.

In any case, they are not going to be favorably disposed to the US. "We invaded your country, wrecked everything and killed part of your families. Let's be friends," just isn't going to work.

Cutting and running without offering support is not the answer, but staying under the present circumstances isn't, either. Staying without a clear vision of what to accomplish is Vietnam.

[WillParkinson]

9. I can agree with this...

As long as we follow through on it and the people there truly do want us out. And as long as we're not going to leave the weaker people to be preyed upon by those we hand it over to.

[madokie]

6. The problem here is the Iraqi did not ask us to come save them

I repeat did not ask us to interfere in their countries or their personal affairs. Simple

[TahitiNut]

19. Indeed! And this is part of why I reject the notion it's like Viet Nam.

As abominable as Viet Nam was, we were there under (the thin veneer of an?) invitation and a treaty 'obligation'. At the very least, there WAS an opposing state and we at least formally recognized Geneva Conventions and Rules of War.

Iraq is far, far worse than Viet Nam! The fascist Bushoilini Regime cast off virtually all pretense of being a law-abiding country. We are an outlaw nation.

[Dhalgren]

10. There is a difference between withdrawing our troops and

abandoning the Iraqi people. That is the Bushists' false dichotomy. We can withdraw our troops, who are there illegally, and then support the Iraqis to the hilt in their rebuilding and external security. There are all kinds of things and ways to help the Iraqis (because we owe them) that do not include continuing this illegal, murderous occupation. Our presence there is a major (if not THE major) reason for their problems. We don't have to "leave them to pick up the pieces", but we do need to stop making more pieces...

[WillParkinson]

14. Yes!

I agree wholeheartedly with that.

The only problem I see is "how" to leave the country and ensure that those we leave aren't going to be crushed by the stronger groups who will step in to fill the vacuum.

[azurnoir]

13. No, we can not leave

but we can not stay as we are presently either. First off Halli-burDon has to go, all contracts for rebuilding payed for by America to contractors from neutral countries with no connects to US government or military. Any military presence only to guard the rebuilding effort, UN peacekeepers do the rest, we train and supply the Iraqi military and police and we have no say in who Iraq is signing agreements with.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[WillParkinson]

17. Well, I do want to know...

How will we know when it's "finished"?

I can't see a "democracy" working so well in Iraq. If it takes root, that's fine. But if the Iraqi people decide they are better off without it do we leave hands off?

[springhill]

53. First of all........

You have to get it through your head that our intention when we invaded Iraq was not to form a democracy. We are there to occupy the country, not liberate it. Please read PNAC. Either people forget about it or they just don't know about it. I think sometimes we get caught up in this "democracy" rhetoric because we hear it so much from our ever so compliant and ignorant media, and of course our lying corrupted administration. We could give a rats ass about a free and democratic middle east. We just want to control the region for our own gain.

[WillParkinson]

57. Of course.

That's a given. Hence the reason "democracy" is in quotes.

Bush (and his cronies) don't care if democracy works there. They want to foment unrest and destabilize the region. My concern is with the innocents (ours and theirs) who are caught in the crossfire.

[springhill]

79. But you are under the impression still........

that if we stay longer that things will change. You know, it's not only the question of how many US troops are being killed, but how many Iraqi citizens are being killed. Not only by our troops, but by the civil unrest that our OCCUPATION is causing. As long as we are there this will never change. They do not want as there, and most of those fighting us are Iraqi's themselves, not insurgents and not terrorists. We will help them in no way by continuing to rape and pillage their country, which is most definitely what we have been doing and what we will continue to do. However, as I am sure you know, we are currently building numerous bases there and also are in the process of building an embassy about as big as 10 football fields if I remember correctly. Even with good intentions there is no way to occupy a country without dire consequences, but without them, forget it.

[cmd]

18. Define the mission

I need to know just when the job will be finished.

[acmejack]

26. Put you sig line to work then.

You can make your hobby your profession. Simply fill out a DD 4/1 and go do your thing, Sport. They are always looking for a few folks like yourself.

[sinkingfeeling]

37. I'm yet to hear exactly what the 'job' in Iraq is. But from the Chimp's

implied and his rah-rah supporters, it must be to kill every last Muslim on the planet.

[lonestarnot]

16. I am absolved of any guilt from bushitler acts. Leave now!

[CollegeDUer]

23. The vast majority of Iraqis say: "LEAVE NOW"

The head of almost ever civil organization, group, and union says LEAVE. All the opinion polls say LEAVE.

What happens if we stay when everyone wants us out? Isn't that called tyranny?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. The Iraqis are booting us out with good reason.

They certainly don't need any more of our "help" which has destroyed their country and brought on a civil war.

[Tyo]

27. There is no military solution for this

As long as we have forces over there we will be a lightning rod for the Insurgents, the Terrorists, the Resistance, whatever you choose to call them.

We have demonstrated that at current force levels we can't keep the peace or make the country safe for anyone. We can't even guarantee the safety of the road from the Green Zone to the airport. Barring a draft, force levels can't be increased to the point where we have any hope of imposing any sort of stability

The longer we stay there the more we are seen by foes and allies alike as occupiers rather than liberators and rightly so. This undercuts what little credibility we have left and makes it increasingly difficult for us to move into any sort of role as arbitrator or "honest broker" between the warring factions.

Our military simply can't sustain this operation much longer. It has already been weakened and demoralized to the point where its ability to deal effectively with trouble should it arise in other areas of the world is in serious question.

I don't see that we have any choice but to make an orderly military pullout while continuing to provide humanitarian aid and working with interested third countries in helping to negotiate an end to the civil war.

[Dhalgren]

32. Very well said! Thoughtfully worked!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[boolean]

28. It sure is a pickle, isn't it?

There is NO good option regarding Iraq.

Staying ensures the continuation of bloodshed.

Leaving ensures the continuation of bloodshed.

[WillParkinson]

35. And that's my problem...

I don't want us there but I don't want anyone hurt because we leave them, either.

You are quite correct. It's a no-win situation. And I'd forever love the person who came up with a viable solution.

[lectrobyte]

29. You can think unpopular thoughts, but it doesn't change the fourteen

bases we are building, or our largest embassy complex. We (in the USA sense of "we") are planning on being there a while, no matter what we (in the DU Community sense of "we") are thinking.

[slor]

30. We are the catalyst for the problems in Iraq...

and we need to pull out NOW. We can redeploy near the borders and take on a rapid response role for some of the problems, but to "stay the course", as the idiot in charge sees it, is only going to continue the current downward spiral of the country of Iraq. How is this still not painfully obvious to anyone anymore?

[lectrobyte]

45. Yes. I try to use this analogy with RWers and other "don't-get-its".

Since they all love Red Dawn, I say imagine that Hilary Clinton is President and is mandating abortions (yeah, I know, but I have to reel 'em in with something, bear with me here a bit). Then imagine the Pope sends in the Italian army to liberate us. D.C. is bombed, the Smithsonian is looted, the power is off, and random patrols of U.N. troops are raping women and looting. Rumors of a new government are formed and major pieces of infrastructure are being turned over to foreign companies... OK, Wolverines, now what are you going to do?

[grytpype]

31. Winning the war now would require a massive escalation.

I think winning the war would require at least 500,000 US troops in the country, and even then there would be no guarantee of success. But no one is talking about that as an option, because we don't have that many troops and we would need a draft. So failure is inevitable now, and has been since Bush invaded with 1/4 of the troops we needed to win.

And Bush invaded Iraq, not "we." Don't count me on in that, I marched in NY and Washington before the war and Bush didn't listen.

[xchrom]

36. i think the iraqis are quite capable of working out their own problems.

our own revolution was brutal as was our civil war -- but that's what needed to happen in order for the country to grow and change.

that's part of the history for the french, the germans, the russians, the chinese, -- the iraqis for better and worse MUST face their nightmares on their own now that saddam is gone. it's part of gaining self determination.

we have plenty of reparations to make re: halliburton, bechtel, kellog and root, etc -- and there is a bill coming due here.
that no one can help us work out.

the problem with the west is that they think THEY have the answers for others -- when we don't.

[Recursion]

40. Pericles once said to the Athenians,

"It was wrong to take (this empire), but it will be perilous to let go of it".

I don't yet have a good idea for how to get out of Iraq so I tend not to criticize others' ideas unless they have obvious flaws.

A lot of the problem is simply tactical and logistical: how quickly could we really remove 200k (or however many it is now) servicemen and women from an active combat theater without taking an unacceptable number of casualties in the process?

I'm afraid it's a simple political fact that no US government is going to negotiate a cease-fire with "terrorists" long enough to withdraw our troops. When we were leaving Vietnam the communist leaders saw the wisdom in holding back for as long as it took us to get out (eg, they deliberately held off storming Saigon as we evacuated the embassy) because they wanted to govern a whole Vietnam and a few hours wasn't worth more destruction to them. The Iraqi groups fighting us, however, know they have a lot more war with each other to look forward to, so I don't see why they wouldn't want some more feathers in their caps from attacking (and looting, another plus for them) convoys of withdrawing US personnel.

As I understand it, the argument for immediate withdrawl is this, at least from Murtha:

Every minute that we stay in Iraq we are making the situation worse. Whatever stability and security we are creating in the areas we control is nothing compared to the violence our presence is causing, both by inflaming insurgent anger and by emboldening militias and death squads who think we have their back. In short, they agree with you that this will cause anarchy, but they disagree that anarchy is worse than what is happening now. If the US leaves now (the argument goes), the Shi'ite militias will be forced into a more negotiative stance against the Sunnis and Kurds.

I'm not entirely sold on that idea, but I also can't come up with a realistic justification for keeping our forces so exposed as they are right now. There is no national security, political, or even tactical military objective they are positioned to accomplish, and as such I can't in good conscience say that they should stay on for the "good" of the Iraqi people, even if I thought there was such a good they were accomplishing.

Basically, as bitter as it is to say this, * and Rummy have lost this war so badly that we have to put our own security above the interests of the country we have smashed, and withdraw to a more defendable position even if it means the situation in Iraq will worsen. At times countries have to act in their own security interests, no matter how painful that is from a moral standpoint.

I mean, seriously, can you imagine what would (will?) happen if (when?) a powerful Shi'ite militia cuts off the north-south highways from Kuwait to Baghdad? Or even threatens to, to get our help or acquiescence in their ethnic cleansing campaigns? 200,000 American personnel starving to death does not play well, and could make our leadership do something even more desperate and irresponsible than they have to date.

[bigtree]

41. problem is

our presence there, our soldiers fighting and dying on one side of a multi-front civil war, is creating more animosity and causing more violent recriminations, not lessening them as Bush would have us believe. Is there no accounting from the 'stay the course' folks of the rapid and continuing escalation of killings, despite the heavier hand of the increased forces? Where is the benefit from the soldier's presence there, except to defend the propped up, puppet regime which is hunkered down with our troops in the Green zone? I don't know how anyone can view what is happening daily to our soldiers, and conclude that they should stay and continue, unless they are toying with some brainy notion that our soldiers are invincible like a hollywood movie army and not our country's flesh and blood, our sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers, sacrificing their lives in support of a failure that Bush has yet to admit to. They are at the point of the GOP's election politics. They are locked in this bloody occupation without a goal outside of the endless defense of the indefensible; the propping up of an already defunct puppet regime in a civil war. They need to be brought home now.

[NNN0LHI]

42. Yea, the Iraqis would be just lost without our US trained death squads

They wouldn't know how to act.

Don

[Jacobin]

43. Viet Nam only got well after we left

What makes you think foreign invading military forces can 'fix' Iraq?

I don't get that line of thinking. Yeah, a guilty feeling for blowing it up and leaving is normal, but I don't think we're gonna make it any better. A bull in a china shop is not going to make things better by staying and trying to put the tea cups back on the shelf.

[enigma000]

50. Events in Vietnam weren't so pleasant

Two years after the Paris Peace Accords were signed, and US troops were withdrawn, North Vietnam invaded and quickly annexed South Vietnam. The new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "re-education camps", and others to "new economic zones." The Communists mismanaged the economy causing millions of Vietnamese to flee the country. They were called the "boat people".

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge regime murdered over a million people in the "Killing Fields" massacres.

[Jacobin]

81. And now we trade with Viet Nam

And tourists are free to go there from the U.S., unlike Cuba.

IraqNam post American occupation will undoubtedly be worse before it gets better.

Bottom line: It's not our country. We don't own it. We had no reason to invade it. We need to leave and let them sort things out for themselves, as they have been capable of doing, sometimes well, sometimes not so well, for the last five thousand years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. You turn your back on a problem you caused when you can't fix it.

What we've done is criminal, largely because it's irreparable.

The country will degenerate into bloody civil war. The result of that war will be emigration of secular Sunnis into neighboring countries and a partitioning of Iraq into a dangerous fundamentalist Shiite theocracy in the south and a terrorist-friendly Kurdistan in the north.

The most powerful country in the world does have the capacity to light the fire, but once lit it doesn't even have the capacity to slow it down very much.

[Tigermoose]

51. Here is what will happen.

The US will withdraw its troops into well fortified bases, and hand over the security of Iraq to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government, military, and police force will splinter into several factions and the sectarian violence will escalate until all out war. The US will sit back in its bases and warn Iran and other countries to stay out of the Civil War. The US will blow up any detected arms shipments from Iran or Syria. The US will "find" chemical or biological weapons in one of these shipments from Iran, and then will (with Israel) conduct a major airstrike on Iran (possibly combined with land support). US and Israel will hope that the more secular minded folks of Iran will revolt and overthrow the religious fundamentals running the country.


End result:

Iraq in chaos, but with fortified US bases.
Iran in chaos, but with a less powerful Iran.

Destabilization is the desired effect. Long term goal is the acquisition of the Iraq and Iran oil fields by major US Oil corporations. Other long term goal is the elimination of regimes not friendly to the US.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

52. You know what?

I just don't know. I don't trust any information I get on Iraq, no matter the source. The situation is being exploited by everyone. The left uses it as a rather faint rallying cry hoping to get their turn at power. The right uses it to pound their chests.

The talking points by now are so stale they are brittle and I have no idea who is right and who is wrong.

[WillParkinson]

55. Nor do I

My opinion is only based on what I've heard and read. As you said, is that right or wrong? Sadly I don't know and really have no way to know.

[porphyrian]

56. Why is military presence the only way to solve the problem?

Everyone on the ground says our military presence is only making things there worse. I agree that we've made a mess we are responsible for cleaining up, but I don't agree that we need soldiers present to do it.

[WillParkinson]

58. Never did I say military presence...

Though, as someone else pointed out, I think it'd be a wise thing to stay at the ready in case.

But I don't think the United States can cause a problem and then walk away from it. Deal with it in some way but deal with it.

[porphyrian]

66. Then we agree, at least that we need to clean up our mess.

Actually, I'm not sure a single American needs to be on the ground there at all to accomplish this.

[WillParkinson]

68. That's all I want...

For our mess to be cleaned up. Not to close our eyes and try and wish it wasn't there.

[seabeyond]

61. we stayed in vietnam 10 yrs then walked away. tell me, how long

do we stay to lose. if in three, four, 6 years we walk away at a loss does it make it easier, better, what? this is the question i have for your questions i would like for you to answer.

if iraq was winable, fixable,.... then i get it. but again, vietnam 10 yrs for a loss when they knew within the first couple years they lost. what is the morality of that?

[savemefromdumbya]

62. What about the UN?

that's what the UN are for picking up the disasters the US have caused.

[bleedingheart]

63. A Pyrrhic victory is what we may end up with if we don't get out

I am sorry to tell you this, but history has taught us that sometimes it is best to leave...Our presences is only exacerbating the situation and adding more recruits to terrorism.

I say we back off and work on humanitarian projects so that through generosity and real compassion we might show our "might".

[WillParkinson]

70. A valid point.

I'm not a student of military actions. I don't have a strong grasp on other conflicts that we were involved in that we ultimately walked away from.

I only know my humanistic response is to help those in need to the best of our ability.

[bleedingheart]

71. It is not just the US history of military actions, but those of the past

as well.

We aren't a peace keeping force there. We are the "conqueror" that brought them "democracy".
We have unleased a pandoras box and there are two ways to "win".

We declare our victory...which would be the overthrow of Hussein and leave.

or we follow the examples of conquerors that came before us and we throw ourselves into this full throttle and commit such atrocities that the Iraqi people will literally stop fighing to just save the few souls we leave behind...that my dear is how real war is fought...we will of course alienate the world, and perhaps cause more problems...but truly...we must ask...what will it take to win? Think Carthage...and that will give you an idea...

[OwnedByFerrets]

72. Hell, we dont even work on

humanitarian projects here in amerika: re NO.

[bleedingheart]

78. point well taken...and it is all an example of how Republicans

have poisoned our society with their selfishness...

[ACK]

69. Some thoughts on this probably just as unpopular

I think there are still things to do in Iraq that are our responsibility.

1. Stabilization of the government.
2. Rebuilding of infrastructure.
3. Training of the new military.

We cannot do these things on a "stay the course" policy. The sad part is that we have to strain or troops and infrastructure for a short period of time even more than we have as of now.

There are 3 common lessons of Vietnam commonly expoused by military theorists from a ground level as oppossed to a political never should have been there point of view.

Go in with overwhelming force.
Go in with clearly defined goals.
Go in with an exit strategy ready.

We do NOT even now have any of these things in hand. If we get the hell out of dodge now we face the prospect of having to go back when things turn into another Somalia, Beirut or hell Afghanistan.

Initially you have to go in with overwhelming force with defined objectives and once those objectives are achieved you leave. We need to set goals for the government, military and infrastructure strain our forces even more by going in with overwhelming force and get things done. The problem is that stay the force feeds the kitty in terms of money going out to civilian contrators making a bundle of this war like Haliburton. We have to force these folks to a deadline with real infrastructure goals. We can not slowly bleed ourselves on the altar of the almighty dollar.

If we concentrate our forces, set ourselves real goals then we can achieve reasonable objectives and withdraw and we can do it just as quick or actually quicker than most current Democratic phased withdrawl objectives on the table right now. I understand that many peace advocates will hate the idea of moving for a few months more troops into Iraq and corporatists will hate putting the contractors hands to the fire.

And yes I am talking about as quick as the Dean goal of by the end of 2007. But it will not happen and I know it.

[ComerPerro]

73. That's by design. People die if we stay, people die if we leave

[Jed Dilligan]

75. The people responsible

should take responsibility.

Meaning: the Bush and Cheney families, Rove, the whole membership of the PNAC, Halliburton, Bechtel, all the oil companies, most Republicans in Congress, and whoever else pushed this war on us, should pay the entire cost of reconstruction and provide private security forces until Iraq stabilizes. That includes paying the backlog of expenses since 2003 back into the US Treasury.

[Buzz Clik]

77. Your attitude is not rare, though it's unpopular here.

Most pragmatists recognize that simply walking away right now will result in a total meltdown in Iraq with unknown, but potentially horrible, consequences.

Great post.

[OwnedByFerrets]

80. And, unfortunately,

staying has unknown, but potentially horrible, consequences as well.

[T_i_B]

83. Yes

I for one was out on the streets protesting on a regular basis until we took Bahgdad. Once that happened I waited, saw what was happeing and came to the conclusion that leaving straight away would do more harm then good. Ideally I'd like a UN lead reconstruction force in Iraq. I'm certainly not happy with the way things are at present. But does that mean that I'm going to hitch up with the anti-war mob any time soon? No way. The solution proposed by the likes of the SWP would cause such harm that we would probbably have to re-invade at some point to sort it all out all over again. It's not a good situation over there.

[baldguy]

82. I'm going to come to your house.

I'll kill your dog, start a fire in your bedroom, tear our one of the main support walls, and make it so your toilet empties out into your basement.

All the while, I'd say "I'm just trying to make things better!"

Do you want me to stay and continue to "fix" things, or do you want me to go and never darken your door again?

[Hosnon]

84. I agree with you for the most part.

I certainly didn't support the invasion but I think a full withdrawal will only make matters worse. However, if the Administration is not committed to doing what is necessary, we need to simply cut our losses and leave.

[newspeak]

85. "we" cannot fix it with our present administration

giving mass quantities of money to their favorite corrupt corporate buddies. One of the reasons the people in Iraq are retaliating (not just because of foreign occupation), is because the infrastructure that we destroyed is not being rebuilt and employment for Iraqis is low. When you have multinational corporations hiring those from other countries to do rebuilding (whatever rebuilding actually has been done) and syphoning our hard earned money into their coffers without said services or merchandise; how will Iraq be built with such corruption? When you have a plane load of money being delivered to Iraq with no accountability, how will such corruption and irresponsibility build Iraq? If Iraq is to be rebuilt, it will be a true international effort, like an effort headed by the UN, not the US!!!! Majority of Iraqis have no electricity, no safe drinking water, no jobs; and the only thing this administration is worried about is building their Disneyworld embassy and controlling the oil flow.

[KurtNYC]

86. Imagine one of those vacuum cleaner salesmen

comes to your door, when you open it, he throws dirt on the carpet and quickly says 'let me show you what this vacuum cleaner can do!' Before you can answer, he is inside. He plugs in the vacuum and it blows out your electricity (for 3 years). Pretty soon your spouse comes home, you start arguing about how to get rid of the vacuum guy. Meanwhile he is siphoning the gas out of your cars....

How long should the vacuum cleaner salesman stay? and would you be better off if he left?

[newspeak]

87. I'd like to add

if funds under the Clinton Administration were set aside for the levees of NOLA, and *'s administration took those funds and redistributed them to other areas, then they are also responsible for the destruction of NOLA-not even mentioning the lack of response by this administration after Katrina hit. So, when are they going to rebuild NOLA? See, they started this war based on lies, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and now we are supposed to rebuild it. Well, they squandered levee funds meant to reinforce the levees, they allowed people to die of dehydration and drowning when the levees broke--so I'm asking, when are they going to rebuild NOLA? They let their corporate buddies have a field day in NOLA (also hiring immigrants-rescinding the Davis-Bacon Act), as they let their corporate buddies have a field day in Iraq. Get the picture? In the present environment, WE CANNOT FIX ANYTHING!!!!!