New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Post US Iraq

post #1 of 28
5/1/07 at 12:45pm
Thread Starter 
So what's the plan should the President not veto the current spending bill and the US begins to pull out of Iraq?

The Dems have been decrying what's happening in Iraq as a civil war despite outside interference on the part of several players in this situation.

So let's say we do pull out in something that doesn't resemble Saigon in '75. What next?

I think that once we leave, the wholesale slaughter of innocents will begin. All three major groups in the nation will fight for survival and domination.

The president at the time, at this point likely Democrat by party, will decry the situation and want to send in troups like in Kosovo and Somalia for humanitarian reasons. So why pull them out in the first place, other than to score political points with the far left and cost hundreds of thousands of lives?

At this point, neither party is offering any hope in keeping this scenario from occuring. The Right wants to stay the course--right off the cliff, the Left won't be satisifed until the US pulls out of North America.

These religious rivals have despised one another for 1400 years, and we're only offering them someone else to hate more. I think we should extract ourselves, just as the evident majority of Americans want according to the poll numbers. I just don't want to have to go back in again after the bloodbath happens.

So what do we do when the Dems get their way at last?
Reply
post #2 of 28
5/1/07 at 12:59pm
It doesn't really matter. There will most likely be another major attack on US soil and that is pretty much going to be the end.

Never underestimate the US's insatiable appetitive for racism and killing. Bin Laden knew what he was doing when he exploited the hell out of it and our Monkey/Cowboy/Whatever president.
Reply
post #3 of 28
5/1/07 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by In Tyler we Trust
Never underestimate the US's insatiable appetitive for racism and killing. Bin Laden knew what he was doing when he exploited the hell out of it and our Monkey/Cowboy/Whatever president.
"Insatiable appetite" for racism? Please.

If we leave it's going to be a bloodbath between the different factions, so no plan can work without some international presence in the country.
Reply
post #4 of 28
5/1/07 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector,
I think that once we leave, the wholesale slaughter of innocents will begin.
I hate to burst your bubble but the wholesale slaughter of innocents has already begun. Several dozens of civilians are killed every day in Iraq.

And before someone says that that's exactly the reason why US troops should remain, I'd like to remind you that the reason those people die is the invasion and occupation. Not to mention that there really is no plan to end the bloodshed.
Reply
post #5 of 28
5/1/07 at 1:13pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
I hate to burst your bubble but the wholesale slaughter of innocents has already begun. Several dozens of civilians are killed every day in Iraq.
Sad to say, but the numbers of dead we're seeing now will be a pittance once we're gone. Think Rwanda, not Northern Ireland. Thousands of new dead every day.

Their hatred of one another predates the creation of the US by 1200 years, so our involvement is but a minor blip on their hatred-radar screens. But of course, they'll hate us forever. They clearly know how to hold a grudge.
Reply
post #6 of 28
5/1/07 at 6:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector,
Sad to say, but the numbers of dead we're seeing now will be a pittance once we're gone. Think Rwanda, not Northern Ireland. Thousands of new dead every day.
I keep hearing this repeated, usually from the same corners that dragged us into this nightmare to begin with, and I've never seen one credible explanation as to why this will be so.
Reply
post #7 of 28
5/1/07 at 6:10pm
The Neo-con insistence to "stay the course" in Iraq is arrogant assholery of immense proportions.

It's like they are saying "yeah, we know you were right about not invading Iraq but now that we have there's nothing you can do. We fucked up but we fucked up in such a way that it's impossible to force us to abandon the war. Even if we can't win it".

The bottom line is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who died because of the invasion and yes, they were better off with Saddam.
Reply
post #8 of 28
5/1/07 at 6:24pm
Quote:
The president at the time, at this point likely Democrat by party, will decry the situation and want to send in troups like in Kosovo and Somalia for humanitarian reasons. So why pull them out in the first place, other than to score political points with the far left and cost hundreds of thousands of lives?
Because they aren't there for humanitarian reasons now. They're a failed force for conquest. That's why.

Keep in mind you're asking why 'the far left' as you call it aren't reacting to situations that exist only in your head. No Democratic candidate has mentioned anything like what you claim so far.

Please explain this 'far left' business. What is it you consider 'far left'? Is it being fed up with Bush's incompetence? Is it the opposing of invading and occupying countries on false pretenses? Or is it having the savvy to know that the US military presence in Iraq is counterproductive to these alleged humanitarian goals we hear so much about.

Or is it just the same attempt to villify Administration critics Bill O'Reilly uses? I'm betting on the last one, because there IS no far left to speak of in the United States.
Reply
post #9 of 28
5/1/07 at 6:30pm
Hell, I'm not so sure there is even a near left in the United States.
Reply
post #10 of 28
5/1/07 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Vivisector,
But of course, they'll hate us forever.
Beef with the West is a fairly recent development. Saying 'they'll hate us forever' is a cop-out. We're certainly not helping our cause by initiating the self-immolation of Iraq.

I also think we may have all misunderestimated the neo-cons. It is possible their plan, all along, was to set off a Sunni-Shi'a conflict in order to deflect Mideast attention from the United States mainland.

Partition Iraq, withdraw U.S. troops to Kurdistan, involve Saudi Arabia and Iran at a fundamental level with what happens in the Iraqi interior. It's not like this is a problem that cannot be dealt with in a rational, adult manner. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen with our current Commander in Chief at the wheel.
Reply
post #11 of 28
5/1/07 at 9:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
Hell, I'm not so sure there is even a near left in the United States.
Perhaps Vivisector et. al. refer to Near Left Related Program Activities.
Reply
post #12 of 28
5/2/07 at 12:58pm
Quote:
"Insatiable appetite" for racism? Please.
Please? Did you not see major media outlets trying to link oldboy to the virginia tech killer? Do you not watch the news or pay any attention to history? I always thought it was pretty obvious..
Reply
post #13 of 28
5/2/07 at 1:01pm
I've got Iraq fatigue, honestly. If we pulled out entirely and the Sunnis and the Shia began a fullscale massacre, I'd probably bring marshmellows. I'm tired of giving a fuck about any of those people.
Reply
post #14 of 28
5/2/07 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
Hell, I'm not so sure there is even a near left in the United States.
To be fair, while citizens claim to be pretty conservative, it's not really true. Tell an American than their Social Security benefits will be tossed aside to ease the tax burden on future generations, and watch the conservative Boomers throw a fit. Americans are more liberal than they want to admit, just so long as those liberal programs are something that directly affects them. They're more socially conservative than politically.
Reply
post #15 of 28
5/2/07 at 6:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
I've got Iraq fatigue, honestly. If we pulled out entirely and the Sunnis and the Shia began a fullscale massacre, I'd probably bring marshmellows. I'm tired of giving a fuck about any of those people.
What an Asshole-ish thing to say. Dude?
Reply
post #16 of 28
5/2/07 at 6:55pm
Maybe so. But there's a reason for it... THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. Everyone's letting religion blind them to their own goddamn best interests. If real progress was happening with the government, and they actually were working at making it a better place for everyone to live, then I absolutely would have no problem keeping the troops there because at least there's a goal in mind. Bush may be an asshole in all of this, and tons of bad decisions may have been made by the USA, and I think all of that has happened, but these people simply will not do what they need to be doing. People are suffering because everyone wants a piece of some oil profit pie, and they are fighting over something that happened a thousand years ago. I've had it.

I want the troops home. I want to not hear the word "insurgent" again. It may be some sort of pipe dream. I don't care anymore. If spectacular death is what it takes to get their attention and understand that maybe they should take a page out of most of the rest of the world's book and figure out how to get along with each other, then so be it. That goes for Israel/Palestine too. Fuck 'em all.

I'm pissed off and tired of caring.
Reply
post #17 of 28
5/2/07 at 7:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny
Maybe so. But there's a reason for it... THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT WILL NOT DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. Everyone's letting religion blind them to their own goddamn best interests. If real progress was happening with the government, and they actually were working at making it a better place for everyone to live, then I absolutely would have no problem keeping the troops there because at least there's a goal in mind. Bush may be an asshole in all of this, and tons of bad decisions may have been made by the USA, and I think all of that has happened, but these people simply will not do what they need to be doing. People are suffering because everyone wants a piece of some oil profit pie, and they are fighting over something that happened a thousand years ago.
People are suffering because the country has been massively destabilized by the war, and whose fault is that? I don't see how you can claim that the Iraq government is not doing what it's meant to, when there are major terrorist attacks every day, and the reporters can't even go out into the country to see what's going on. I want the troops home too, but not before they've done what they were officially sent there to do: turn Iraq into a peaceful democracy. After all the death and destruction wrought illegally upon that country by the American military, it's the least it can do.

Fine, you've given up. That doesn't mean the country needs to destroy itself just because you're tired of hearing about it.
Reply
post #18 of 28
5/2/07 at 7:47pm
I'll jump in and say that you can't bring freedom and peace at the barrel of a gun. Everyone has been saying this since the beginning. I'm with Nordling. This shit cannot go on, and I'm sick of people saying that we can fix it. Repeat, this is FUBAR. Humpty Dumpty's been fucked, and we cannot put the pieces back together again. I agree we had a shot to do this, but because of the incompetence and bad fucking planning, there is no way we can do it now. We lost our credibility and any goodwill we had for bringing "freedom" to the Iraqi people. We've brought death and destruction, and we owe it to them to just get the fuck out of their country without fucking it up even more. It's maddening to think that more troops and power will lead to results. Newsflash: It didn't work before, and it won't work now. And it's arrogant to think that our muscle can fix this. It can't. We need a political solution.

Go to the international community, say we fucked up and need help, get the fuck out of Iraq. It's easy if you're not arrogant. Or oil hungry.
Reply
post #19 of 28
5/2/07 at 7:48pm
Sometimes you just have to be an adult and recognize when a relationship isn't working out. It's time to turn over the keys to the country and says thanks and good luck.
Reply
post #20 of 28
5/2/07 at 8:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by juan23
We've brought death and destruction, and we owe it to them to just get the fuck out of their country without fucking it up even more.
We've brought nothing compared to what will happen if we just vanish and leave them all to it. I really like the idea of going to the international community and appealing for help, though. That should have happened years ago.
Reply
post #21 of 28
5/2/07 at 8:48pm
That's something they will have to deal with. If Saddam would have been toppled w/o our assistance, they would've started killing each other anyways. A unified Iraq would not support terrorists in their midst, killing of their people. But they're not. They bitch at each other, and allow death squads, suicide bombers and the like to continue. If they want to continue killing each other, fine. But get our moving targets outta there. We're just refereeing a civil war that was gestating under the surface, and we unleashed it because of the stupidity of our foreign policy. We should pay for that, and we have with more than 3,000 of our soldiers. No more.
Reply
post #22 of 28
5/2/07 at 10:20pm
The United States would of course fund the rebuilding after its military leaves, though.
Reply
post #23 of 28
5/2/07 at 10:50pm
That, and some reparations. We deserve sanctions ala Germany after WWI. Seriously.
Reply
post #24 of 28
5/2/07 at 11:04pm
I'd prefer criminal charges. It's weird that invading countries on false pretenses, buying people then holding them indefinitely and torturing them to greater or lesser degrees, etc. isn't actually illegal. If it isn't illegal, I think the US is broken.

You have laws covering where the current Administration can only act in a government capacity and not as a political party, but it didn't occur to anyone to say that offering bounties for citizens of other nations then disappearing them to be tortured should also be against the law? Why the hell not?
Reply
post #25 of 28
5/2/07 at 11:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
The United States would of course fund the rebuilding after its military leaves, though.
Based on prior history, as soon as the new Iraqi government inevitably does something less than completely democratic such funding would likely be withheld as a bargaining chip.
Reply
post #26 of 28
5/2/07 at 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by juan23
That's something they will have to deal with. If Saddam would have been toppled w/o our assistance, they would've started killing each other anyways. A unified Iraq would not support terrorists in their midst, killing of their people. But they're not. They bitch at each other, and allow death squads, suicide bombers and the like to continue. If they want to continue killing each other, fine.
You're forgetting that Iraq was a peaceful, integrated society before the war. And before the sanctions it was quite the highly-regarded country. I doubt 'they' allow anything that's going on over there right now, it's simply a case of being unable to stop it.


Agree with the reparations and criminal charges, btw.
Reply
post #27 of 28
5/3/07 at 12:27am
As long as he is in power, Bush will not allow troops to leave Iraq until the oil is secured. The rebuilding projects that costs billions were declared a success and then abandoned - that's not the priority. The president has no evident understanding of the intra-Iraqi conflicts nor the desire to be involved in any kind of genuine movement toward peace among them, or any workable strategies for restoring security - so that's not a realistic goal. Even the concept of democracy for Iraq has been communicated more as something like a banana republic than a true democracy.

And the Iraqis seem to know that essentially stealing the oil - their best resource - out from under them is Bush's only priority and everything else is expendable. That knowledge is what seems to me like the reason there will be no peace in Iraq as long as the US is there.
Reply
post #28 of 28
5/3/07 at 9:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Wood
Based on prior history, as soon as the new Iraqi government inevitably does something less than completely democratic such funding would likely be withheld as a bargaining chip.
Or for some other reason that suits American interests. Or for some crazy reason if you elect another crazy man as president. Who can say? Nevertheless, the US owes it to Iraq.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse