Should We Pull Out Of Iraq?

[Gail Simone]

Should we stay, or should we go, or would you think a gradual pull-out is the answer?

Please don't be insulting, i just want to hear your opinions.

Gail

[TomStillwell]

We have to gradually pull out.

I really don't think there's anything we can do to make Iraq stable. We've made too many mistakes. That has to come internally. The most we can hope for at this point is withdrawing in the near future and causing as little damage as possible to ourselves and the population.

Our boys need to get home but pulling out now only puts an exclamation point on how irresponsible with been with this entire war.

[Lester C.]

Let me just preface this by saying that I'm half Assyrians and out of the three million Assyrians worldwide 1.5 million live in Iraq. My mother immigrated from there when she was nineteen so I am biased which means that I'm coming from a different place than the rest of you as I have family down there.

All that said I think it would be unconscionable to pull out. Our leaders invaded the country, destroyed their infrastructure, toppled the government, placed a puppet one in its place, created a power vacuum that for the first time allowed Alqueda to come into power in that country, and destroyed the one middle eastern government that was keeping Iran in check. Everything going on in Iraq is our fault and we have a duty to fix it as well as hold those responsible that got us there in the first place. The bottom line is the blood of roughly seven hundred thousand Iraqis is on our hands and we have make this right because unlike places like the Sudan we made it wrong.

[Lester C.]

We have to gradually pull out.

I really don't think there's anything we can do to make Iraq stable. We've made too many mistakes. That has to come internally. The most we can hope for at this point is withdrawing in the near future and causing as little damage as possible to ourselves and the population.

Our boys need to get home but pulling out now only puts an exclamation point on how irresponsible with been with this entire war.
Tom I love you but that would be immoral. That's like someone driving a car into a persons house, killing a few members inside it, wrecking the place and then refuse to be held responsible. That's just not right.

[Erik Burnham]

There is no way to win for everyone.

But we need to stay a little bit longer.

Things are improving. Not fast. Not dramatically. And that's how America wants it, I'm sure.

You pull out too soon, and every death was basically meaningless because nothing stood pat... not to mention it sends a message as to about how many soldiers can die before the US lets [extremists/terrorists in this case] dictate terms. You stay too long, and that causes its own wealth of problems.

So yes -- gradually pull out -- but the trick is defining 'gradual.' In a realistic frame, I'm not sure how long that is. Was it right to go is a moot point. That can't be erased. We're there. Now, the question is how long until the progress that was made will remain (and continue) after we're gone?

So... it'd take someone better versed in a whole variety of factors to answer this question. Emotionally, sooner the better. Intellectually -- not any time soon.

[DungeonmasterJim]

I'm not sure either option is going to make much of a difference in the long run. That said, I favor a gradual withdrawl slightly over a quick pull out.

DM Jim

[Lester C.]

Here is some qualitative quantitative data regarding how bad we fucked up Iraq as of August 2006.

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

[Cam63]

A gradual pull out is for the best.

Occupation forces in the Middle East has never worked and never will.

[ChthonicSpirit]

Put me in the gradual pull-out camp.

What we've done in Iraq so far hasn't worked. We cannot rebuild and stabilize their country, for the simple reason that we are outsiders. We aren't liked, and we lack understanding. Although I think we can and should give them our support, the only way their new system will work is if they build it for themselves.

[Josh S]

We should get out now.

[Lester C.]

With respect I don't think you people realize just how many millions of people will die if we pull out. We're talking about the genocide of several races which will be laid on our doorstep as WE were the ones that brought everything into fruition. The presence of the United States is the only factor that is keeping Iraq from becoming another Rwanda.

[MrSuslov]

Would I like our forces to be out of that worthless-but-for-oil-and-geopolitics dump? Absolutely.

Should we leave? The answer is no.

For better or for worse, for truth or for lies, we are committed to Iraq. The prestige of the United States of America is on the line, and even if one thinks that President Bush has deeply tarnished said prestige, I would like to believe that all respectable points of view can agree that once our national word has been given, we can't easily go back on it.

Why is this, you ask? The consequences, of course.

The most viable prior example in recent memory (Afghanistan aside) is the American involvement with the Republic of Vietnam. American security guarantees were extended to the Saigon government, whoever happened to be running the show that week. The war in Southeast Asia was perceived as unwinnable, and a considerable groundswell of elite and public opinion supported our withdrawal. This was done, and by the late 1970s, American-friendly regimes in South Vietnam and Cambodia were gone. Soviet expansionism also looked to Africa, the lower Americas, and Afghanistan. Governments around the world learned that there was no value in an American security guarantee. This was a bad thing, because our ability to align the nations of the world against Communism was reduced.

We are faced with a difficult task, moreso than the effort of containing Communism. On the one hand, we do not face dedicated regiments of the Strategic Rocket Forces whose task it was to turn places like Lawrence, Kansas, into Smoking Crater, Kansas. On the other hand, we do not face dedicated regiments of the Strategic Rocket Forces whose task it was to turn places like Lawrence, Kansas, into Smoking Crater, Kansas.

The Cold War's grim majesty gave us a certain stability of the geopolitical scene. If nothing else, the Soviet bear could be controlled by thinly-veiled threats to vaporize Moscow and every other population center in the USSR. Such an option is not available to us now. Osama bin Laden commands no atomic rockets, possesses no Guards tank armies aimed at the heart of Western Europe. His minions cannot wipe us out in the manner of a full Soviet nuclear strike, but they can hurt us very badly. Unfortunately for us, he gives us only fleeting targets, ones that are difficult to strike with atomic weapons from the heavens.

Retaliation and victorious warfighting are difficult tasks, ones not suited to easy solutions. If they were, then perhaps the capital of Osamastan would have seen the sun rise ahead of schedule in the early morning hours of 12th September 2001, local time. For better or for worse, there is no such target, and no such opportunity. We must therefore do things differently. The Iraq operation, such as it is, is our biggest public attempt to do things differently. We can't destroy the enemy nation, for there is none. We must therefore find other ways of bringing radical Islamists to battle where the odds favor us. Perhaps, if we inflict sufficient casualties, sufficient mullahs will suddenly discover that the Koran does not in fact call for violent jihad against the Americans and that suicide attacks against American targets are a sure path to eternal damnation. One hopes for such an outcome; drying up the pool of Islamist-motivated combatants would be welcome.

We have given our national word to help the Iraqi people from Hussein to whatever else they wind up choosing, and the realities of the current struggle require different approaches than we took with the German National Socialists & the Japanese imperialists or the Soviet Union. For these reasons, I believe that we can not simply humor the wishes of men and women such as Representatives Pelosi & Murtha and leave the Iraqis to their fate.

It was not a good thing when we did it to the South Vietnamese in 1975; it would not be a good thing to do it to the Iraqis in 2007.

[Charles RB]

I'd be in favour of British troops pulling out of Iraq in order to focus our efforts solely on Afghanistan - being involved in both nations stretches us too thin (which arses up our effectiveness if something else comes up) and means we have to divide our attention & resources.

Hell, I'd have been in favour of us _never_ going into Iraq and instead saying "tell you what, America, we'll replace your troops in Afghanistan instead". We went into that nation first, we should concentrate on it first.

[Lester C.]

I told myself I wasn't going to make this political but Democrats think about the future of your political party. If we do withdrawal from Iraq the media is going to stay and make constant reports of that country's implosion. The world is going to comdem America and the Republican Party is going to spin it to blame the Democratic controlled Congress which people will buy because they they always do. Then in 2008 will see a repeat of the 1994 Republican Revolution.

[Josh S]

I told myself I wasn't going to make this political but Democrats think about the future of your political party. If we do withdrawal from Iraq the media is going to stay and make constant reports of that country's implosion. The world is going to comdem America and the Republican Party is going to spin it to blame the Democratic controlled Congress which people will buy because they they always do. Then in 2008 will see a repeat of the 1994 Republican Revolution.

Now that you've made it about my political party and not Iraqis I say we stay.

[shrike]

Should we stay, or should we go, or would you think a gradual pull-out is the answer?


Gail

Well either way you can still get pregnant.

[sk716]

Actually, Tom is right.

It would have been better if the Iraqi people toppled Saddam and his regime themselves. The US/UN should have supported the Iraqi people in a civil war instead of the US invading. Especially since we had no reason to invade in the first place.

But, what is done is done. So now our boys are stuck there until stability is attained.

[Cam63]

Actually, Tom is right.

It would have been better if the Iraqi people toppled Saddam and his regime themselves. The US/UN should have supported the Iraqi people in a civil war instead of the US invading. Especially since we had no reason to invade in the first place.

But, what is done is done. So now our boys are stuck there until stability is attained.

Unfortunately so.

I can't see them leaving any sooner than five years from now.

[MrSuslov]

It would have been better if the Iraqi people toppled Saddam and his regime themselves.
That got tried that back in 1991. We er, kinda welshed on our end of the bargain.

[Lester C.]

Actually, Tom is right.

It would have been better if the Iraqi people toppled Saddam and his regime themselves. The US/UN should have supported the Iraqi people in a civil war instead of the US invading. Especially since we had no reason to invade in the first place.

But, what is done is done. So now our boys are stuck there until stability is attained.
Every time we fund a civil war the party that ends up being in charge ends up being worse than the previous regime. What our dumbass of a president should have done was gather better intelligence on Iraq or tried economic sanctions. But know he had to put the cowboy hat on and now we all must pay for his hubris.

[titanfan]

I pretty much agree with Lester.

The worst thing I think we could do was a quick pull-out. But I think that ship has forunately sailed.

If anything, I would actually support a short term increase in more troops, we didn't send enough the first time. We screwed up, now we have to fix it.

That said, we might want to reprioritize our goals and figure out exactly what we can or cannot do. We don't have to set a timetable for a pull out like so many people are asking--but we don't even seem to happen minimal requirements/goals that we want to accomplish there anymore.

[blackcanary_416]

I don't think "we" I think it is "them" yes, I think they should pull out and come home. I can just imagine all the pain the families are going through and it's not right that people aren't seeing the pieces of their family.

The American Soldiers have made progress and stopped Sadam and more "masters of terror" I just can't see fighting a battle where there are more and more people dying.

The media however will have a field day with this.

[Haunt]

i think Bush and his family should have to stay and police the region. everyone else can come home.

[Lester C.]

I don't think "we" I think it is "them" yes, I think they should pull out and come home. I can just imagine all the pain the families are going through and it's not right that people aren't seeing the pieces of their family.

The American Soldiers have made progress and stopped Sadam and more "masters of terror" I just can't see fighting a battle where there are more and more people dying.

The media however will have a field day with this.
The number of Iraqis that died as a result of an invasion my five year old nephew could have executed better is far greater than the number of Iraqis Saddam killed.

[Red Berens]

I'm just curious why everyone talks about an exit strategy, and why they think we will pull out. We've never pulled out of anywhere we've fought. Think about it, we have bases in Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy. We even have a base in Cuba, and how many years ago was that fight?

I'm just having a hard time understanding why exiting is suddenly important, when it's never been a factor in our past 200+ years as country.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, just pointing out that we've always stayed where we've fought, and I don't see this as being any different. The US has wanted/needed a permanent presence in the middle east, and now we have it. I honestly don't see us ever leaving, and eventually I see us shaping policies of the surrounding countries.

Does that make us imperialistic?

[blackcanary_416]

The number of Iraqis that died as a result of an invasion my five year old nephew could have executed better is far greater than the number of Iraqis Saddam killed.

I agree, it makes me sick

[Charles RB]

Does that make us imperialistic?

Pretty much, yes.

[TomStillwell]

Tom I love you but that would be immoral. That's like someone driving a car into a persons house, killing a few members inside it, wrecking the place and then refuse to be held responsible. That's just not right.

Lester, you're missing the big picture and I'll explain it using your example.

Someone drives into your house, kills members of your family and then decides to help fix the family by living in the house. He pays for your dead to be buried the way he decides. He hires all the builders to make the house the way he'd want to have it look. He counsels your grief himself and only tells you what he wants you to know. He's owning up to everything but on his terms.

Don't you think resentment would grow until you'd want to kill that man, not only for what he has done but what he is forcing upon you?

The situation will never be right or good with us there. No matter what we do us just being there, just being us, makes it worse.

We have soldiers over there, probably just kids, faced with the horrors of war, doing things they'd never do in peacetime. That is the face the Iraq people will always see. The longer we are there the more the resentment of America grows and the more our soldiers are pushed to their limits.

The only way to fix Iraq and maintain soldiers there is something that will never, ever happen.

Our president needs to make a gut check, man up, swallow his pride and tell the world before the UN that we were wrong. We underestimated the situation and overestimated our own abilities. And with we need to truly seek help. Not to fight a war no one can possibly win but in rebuilding Iraq and making it stable. We humbly ask for help from the nations of the world in fixing our mess.

We don't just need to repair Iraq and it's people. We need to repair the resentment we caused in all this. You don't end terrorism by fighting a war. You end it by making hatred and intollerance go away.

[NickThompson]

The number of Iraqis that died as a result of an invasion my five year old nephew could have executed better is far greater than the number of Iraqis Saddam killed.
Not if you count the Iran/Iraq war. Not that I'm going to argue there, it'd be silly to argue over which very bad thing is worse.



I think a gradual pullout is best.

[sk716]

I'm just curious why everyone talks about an exit strategy, and why they think we will pull out. We've never pulled out of anywhere we've fought. Think about it, we have bases in Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy. We even have a base in Cuba, and how many years ago was that fight?

I'm just having a hard time understanding why exiting is suddenly important, when it's never been a factor in our past 200+ years as country.

I'm not trying to start a fight here, just pointing out that we've always stayed where we've fought, and I don't see this as being any different. The US has wanted/needed a permanent presence in the middle east, and now we have it. I honestly don't see us ever leaving, and eventually I see us shaping policies of the surrounding countries.

Does that make us imperialistic?

We also have bases in England, Iceland, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Spain, and Greece. The US has bases in strategic locations around the globe. A permanent installation in Iraq will probably happen for the same reason there is a permanent installation in Korea.

The difference is, we have bases in each of those countries, we don't have entire invasion forces there. Well, okay, the sum total of US Military installations in Germany would equal an invasion force, but most of them are too busy drinking and enjoying the country to even consider mobilizing.

[Red Jack]

Should we stay, or should we go, or would you think a gradual pull-out is the answer?

Please don't be insulting, i just want to hear your opinions.

Gail


All of our troops should stop fighting as of right now. They should move quickly to the their base camps and from there they should exit th country. If anyone fires on them they are not to retaliate. Simply gather their woounded and dead and go.

The US should offer Iraq an abject and unconditional apology and an offer of whatever assistance the Iraqis require to rebuild. We only get to advise and to make restitution for the hideous way we have treated that nation and its people.

Right now.

[Crowley]

I will defer to The Clash:

Should I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
An if I stay it will be double

[Deeranged]

I think we should have never been there but because the president had his ego bruised we had to go over there to prove we are the top power and now look half the world is digusted with us. He made a mistake and now we are left to keep clean up his mistake. I am telling you 2008 cannot get here soon enough to get him out of the white house and quit running the country.

[Paul McEnery]

But, what is done is done. So now our boys are stuck there until stability is attained.
As long as the occupation continues, stability will not be attained. The occupation is the instability.

So basically, you're going along with Mr. Suslov, and saying that national pride is worth more than the lives off all the US/UK troops in Iraq. Because they will all inevitably be killed if they stay forever.

I know if I were in the military, I'd be happy as hell to die for my country's vanity.

[Lester C.]

Not if you count the Iran/Iraq war. Not that I'm going to argue there, it'd be silly to argue over which very bad thing is worse.



I think a gradual pullout is best.
I lost an uncle I never got to meet in the Iraq and Iran war. The deaths that occurred there were not deaths that count toward the mass murder body count that Saddam is on trial for as many killed were solders rather than civilians.

[sk716]

As long as the occupation continues, stability will not be attained. The occupation is the instability.

So basically, you're going along with Mr. Suslov, and saying that national pride is worth more than the lives off all the US/UK troops in Iraq. Because they will all inevitably be killed if they stay forever.

I know if I were in the military, I'd be happy as hell to die for my country's vanity.

Actually, I was in the Army. And I still have friends in the Military that have done time in Iraq. And they say the same thing. We made the mess, we have to clean it up.

They're not happy that the US is occupying Iraq. They know this whole mess started because of Dubya's bruised ego. And they hate it, too.

If the US packed up and left Iraq tomorrow, another dictator would take charge and then this whole mess would end up happening again in another ten years.

It's not about National Pride. If I thought the US could pull out of Iraq without making things even worse, I'd be all for it, I'd much rather think that my friends are safe at home instead of in a war zone or waiting to be re called to the war zone.

Personally, I think the Executive and Legislative Branches of the US should officially apologize to Iraq and the rest of the world for being a bunch of assholes.

[Lester C.]

Actually, I was in the Army. And I still have friends in the Military that have done time in Iraq. And they say the same thing. We made the mess, we have to clean it up.

They're not happy that the US is occupying Iraq. They know this whole mess started because of Dubya's bruised ego. And they hate it, too.

If the US packed up and left Iraq tomorrow, another dictator would take charge and then this whole mess would end up happening again in another ten years.

It's not about National Pride. If I thought the US could pull out of Iraq without making things even worse, I'd be all for it, I'd much rather think that my friends are safe at home instead of in a war zone or waiting to be re called to the war zone.

Personally, I think the Executive and Legislative Branches of the US should officially apologize to Iraq and the rest of the world for being a bunch of assholes.
I did not know you were in the army. The amount of people that can kick my ass on this board is staggering.

[CanaryNoir]

I'm just curious why everyone talks about an exit strategy, and why they think we will pull out. We've never pulled out of anywhere we've fought. Think about it, we have bases in Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy. We even have a base in Cuba, and how many years ago was that fight?

I am no great historian, so I'm not going to be able to have a big argument/discussion about this, but I find it interesting (and by interesting I mean I laughed out loud) that you omitted the one place we absolutely DID pull out of, and it wasn't all that long ago: Vietnam.

Hell of a mess when we left, but from most reports, not a bad place these days.

[Lester C.]

I am no great historian, so I'm not going to be able to have a big argument/discussion about this, but I find it interesting (and by interesting I mean I laughed out loud) that you omitted the one place we absolutely DID pull out of, and it wasn't all that long ago: Vietnam.

Hell of a mess when we left, but from most reports, not a bad place these days.
None of the wars in Eastern Asia went well. Take North Korea for instance. We were pushed back far enough that North Korea was able to form its own country.

[MrSuslov]

None of the wars in Eastern Asia went well. Take North Korea for instance. We were pushed back far enough that North Korea was able to form its own country.
Lester, that's not accurate. Until the direct military intervention of the People's Liberation Army of the PRC against American and other United Nations forces, I think it's safe to say that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was living on borrowed time.

The DPRK had been established since 9 September 1948, two years before it began hostilities against the Republic of Korea. The proclamation of that state preceded the Korean War, and had nothing to do with any reversal of military fortune on the part of American and UN forces on the Korean peninsula. Absent the intervention of the PRC, there wouldn't be a North Korea today.

[Lester C.]

Lester, that's not accurate. Until the direct military intervention of the People's Liberation Army of the PRC against American and other United Nations forces, I think it's safe to say that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was living on borrowed time.

The DPRK had been established since 9 September 1948, two years before it began hostilities against the Republic of Korea. The proclamation of that state preceded the Korean War, and had nothing to do with any reversal of military fortune on the part of American and UN forces on the Korean peninsula. Absent the intervention of the PRC, there wouldn't be a North Korea today.
If by PRC you mean the People's Republic of China then you are right. The Chinese strategy was more or less to keep throwing solders, which they had plenty of, to America and it worked. The amount of Chinese that died was staggering and they still had millions to spare. That's why I consider it a loss because we could did not beat them and met none of our objectives. I never said we didn't do well in Asia for the same reason just that we didn't do well.

[MrSuslov]

If by PRC you mean the People's Republic of China then you are right. The Chinese strategy was more or less to keep throwing solders, which they had plenty of, to America and it worked. The amount of Chinese that died was staggering and they still had millions to spare. That's why I consider it a loss because we could did not beat them and met none of our objectives. I never said we didn't do well in Asia for the same reason just that we didn't do well.
The war aim of the DPRK was to destroy the ROK and unify the Korean peninsula under the flag of Pyongyang. They did not achieve that, and they took a terrible pounding in the process. If one boils down all the high-falutin' language that a UN Security Council resolution possesses, I'd be willing to bet that the primary goal of the US/UN forces in the theater was to preserve the ROK.

Inasmuch as a free government still sits in Seoul, I'd say that our primary war aim was achieved. That can't be counted as a loss. Maybe a tie, but then again, it's just the fifty-third year of half-time in the Korean Peninsula Bowl anyways.

[Adam Crocker]

All that said I think it would be unconscionable to pull out. Our leaders invaded the country, destroyed their infrastructure, toppled the government, placed a puppet one in its place, created a power vacuum that for the first time allowed Alqueda to come into power in that country, and destroyed the one middle eastern government that was keeping Iran in check. Everything going on in Iraq is our fault and we have a duty to fix it as well as hold those responsible that got us there in the first place. The bottom line is the blood of roughly seven hundred thousand Iraqis is on our hands and we have make this right because unlike places like the Sudan we made it wrong.

I'm inclined to agree, but it's become such a cluster-fuck now that my attitude has almost become fatalistic towards this whole bloody enterprise. It's hard to see what the U.S. can do to improve this situation.


Things are improving. Not fast. Not dramatically. And that's how America wants it, I'm sure.

And how are things improving?


Someone drives into your house, kills members of your family and then decides to help fix the family by living in the house. He pays for your dead to be buried the way he decides. He hires all the builders to make the house the way he'd want to have it look. He counsels your grief himself and only tells you what he wants you to know. He's owning up to everything but on his terms.

You've left out that builders are incompetent cheats and are working from a half-assed plan. And while they arse about members of your family started turning on each other's throats.

[Charles RB]

You've left out that builders are incompetent cheats and are working from a half-assed plan.

Ah. They're working for a British firm then.

[siuntres]

I'm for a 12-18 month re-deployment to Quatar... or UMEC or Quaraq (if Black Adam will have us) .

It's clear from General Abizad's capitol hill testimony today, that it's unlikely that the Bushies would deploy the obviously necessary 200 thousand plus number of troops to really secure the country.

My guess is that the iraqi's have said such a large sized forced WOULD cause even more violence.

That being said, the Iraqis are going to have to secure their own country, but we should be close by, in case things get even worse.

Had Rummy only listened to the Powell camp in the first place, maybe we could have secured the country, but now this mess is way out of control, and our forces have been stretched to the limit.

[siuntres]

I'm for a 12 month re-deployment to Quatar... or UMEC or Quaraq (if Black Adam will have us) .

It's clear from General Abizad's capitol hill testimony today, that it's unlikely that the Bushies would deploy the obviously necessary 200 thousand plus number of troops to really secuure the country.

My guess is that the iraqis have said such a large sized forced WOULD cause even more violence.

That being said, the Iraqis are going to have to secure their own country, but we should be close by, in case things get even worse.

Had Rummy only listened to the Powell camp in the first place, maybe we could have secured the country, but now this mess is way out of control, and our forces have been stretched to the limit.

[Corrina]

What happened in Korea is that the northern army, backed by the People's Republic of China, had pushed those resisting almost all the way down the peninsula.

We went in, pushed them almost all the way back out to China, and then they fought back and it all ended in a stalemate, with the DMZ and the dividing line. There are various reasons this happened, one of them being we were concerned about a nuclear war with China. MacArthur wanted to flat out invade China when he made his push and Truman said 'no' and they disagreed and that's why MacArthur got canned. You don't disobey the orders of the Commander in Chief, that's not your job as a soldier, no matter how many stars on the uniform.

But on Iraq, I understand what you're saying, Lester. I don't know the answer but part of me also thinks we should put some of the blame on the people in Iraq doing the killings and the murders. A good number of these people seem to want to kill each other. That is not *our* fault, we didn't start the sectarian violence, it's been there for a long time, and we did offer them a way to not resort to violence after our admittedly screwed up invasion.

Of course, we screwed up immediately following the toppling of Hussien, by not having a god damned nation building plan ready, but knowing how we screwed up doesn't help now.

But the civil war, that one Iraqis has to own themselves, to some extent.

The problem comes in when the people who want to get along get caught in the crossfire. We're trying to protect them now but I'm not sure we're doing a good job of it. In fact, we seem to be doing a lousy ass job, up to and including the graft and overcharges for rebuilding put forth by Halliburton.

I think, personally, we should send Rudy Guiliani over there and put him in charge. Sure, he's dictatorial but he's smart and anyone who ran NYC knows a thing or two about running an insane asylum. I'm only half-kidding.

We left a lot of good people who supported America in the lurch when we pulled out of Vietnam. But, like Vietnam, unless we're willing to go in there with a much bigger army and impose order by force, Iraq is going to be a mess for a long time. But going on the same way we have the last few years is only going to be damned waste of time and American lives.

[howyadoin]

Pull out?

But we're not done fucking them yet.

[Dark Galaxy]

I'll admit I have skimmed some of the longer posts in this thread, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned....but can anyone tell me what the big objection is to the plan where Iraq is split into three separate regions based on the concentration of Kurds, Sunni, and Shia?

I know that Baghdad is a problem because the populations are mixed heavily there, and that the concentration of oil fields (thus Oil revenue) resides in mostly one region, but as a general concept, it always seemed to me, the only sane option. After years of strife and war it is how Yugoslavia ended up. Why can't we skip that part, and go straight to figuring out how to make it work?

Besides that, I am of the general opinion that we need to bust our asses to get the infrastructure back on track, and some self-policing mechanism in place, and then we can think about how is the best way to get our soldiers home.

[diana_fan]

The government has no plan, no precise notion of what "victory" is, and aren't going to be able to make people get along.

There is nothing to be gained by staying. All it will mean is more deaths, on every side. There is already a civil war raging in Iraq. Countless Iraqis have died, and the US is approaching nearly 3000 dead soldiers.

Regardless of what was done, how anyone feels about it, or any of that, nothing can be gained or accomplished by the US' further presence. The entire prosecution of this war has been marred by never having any sort of clear idea of what "victory" meant.

Imagine how many Americans and Vietnamese would be alive today if in 1968 we had left. And Cambodia would never have happened either. Sometimes, one has to just look at the situation and honestly say "There's nothing positive that can come of this."

[Red Jack]

Pull out?

But we're not done fucking them yet.

That's GOLD, baby.

[Lester C.]

That's GOLD, baby.
Howyadoing is on fire tonight.

[howyadoin]

That's GOLD, baby.Thanks. I tried to work a reference to coming on their back into it, but it just wouldn't work.

[Adam Crocker]

But on Iraq, I understand what you're saying, Lester. I don't know the answer but part of me also thinks we should put some of the blame on the people in Iraq doing the killings and the murders. A good number of these people seem to want to kill each other. That is not *our* fault, we didn't start the sectarian violence, it's been there for a long time, and we did offer them a way to not resort to violence after our admittedly screwed up invasion.


Considering that the sectarian violence has supposedly been there a long time can you furnish evidence of this? The sectarian violence only got started after the Invasion and even then took time to ramp up alongside the insurgency, becoming very noticeable only in 2005. (At least that's the impression I got from following the news reports, particularly based on the rise of Shia militias and death squads).

Part of my reason for my skepticism on this point is an entry by renowned Baghdad Blogger riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#114264288537 634165) in which she points out that she has no recollection of ethnic or religious divisions or people paying much attention to them prior to the invasion. (She also claims that the only times she's heard about long standing ethnic divides are either from foriegn commentators or Iraqis who have lived abroad for decades.) Radio Free Europe also carries a report from one scholar (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/03/84f0f5a3-2350-4adc-b846-ab127b7eb291.html) that there were no serious precedents for the current ethnic violence in Iraq and that the ethnic strife we currently see is common to many countries in times of conflict. It also cites Ammar al-Shabandar is the director of the Iraq Foundation that this ethnic division was in part a product of the divisions formalized by exile Iraqi parties. Which is interesting because his organization is a neo-con backed group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_Foundation) which has a vested interest in promoting the idea that ethnic divisions in Iraq were longstanding, thus absolving the U.S. responsibility for the mess there.

Moreover, this thesis that ethnic divisions are longstanding ignores that the U.S. deliberately turned down proposals to have several thousand troops patrolling post-invasion Iraq and did an incompetent job of reconstruction. If anything would allow political extremists to get their foot in the door it's doing a shite job of bringing stability back to the country following the war.

[kingdom2000]

Yep, pull em out. Stay, leave its a disaster with no solution no matter what. What we leave behind will basically be primed for another dictator but so be it. The only people that can fix the middle east is the people of the middle east. They currently don't have the will to do so and we can't provide it to them. If they want to destroy each other, let em.

[Adam Crocker]

This was done, and by the late 1970s, American-friendly regimes in South Vietnam and Cambodia were gone. Soviet expansionism also looked to Africa, the lower Americas, and Afghanistan. Governments around the world learned that there was no value in an American security guarantee. This was a bad thing, because our ability to align the nations of the world against Communism was reduced.

I find this logic rather questionable. Whether or not Cambodia fell due to a lack of American involvement is debatable. Granted the Communist forces were originally supported by North Vietnam, but they only gained ground after North Vietnamese forces pulled out of the country and after they fell out due to the radical nature of Communist leadership, now under the full control of Pol Pot. In fact North Vietnam cut off arms to Khmer Rouge after the 1973 signing of the Paris Peace Accords in hopes of forcing them into a cease-fire. As far as I know much of the American involvement's in the Cambodian civil war was to try and bomb them as they bombed Viet-Cong supply routes, yet this did not seem to deter the Khmer Rouge very much.

Your point is even more tenuous in the case of Latin America. While the FSLN received Cuban and Soviet support, they had also earned a fair bit of popular support as the only credible opposition to the Somozsa regime was venal even by Central American standards and had embezzled half of the international relief funds for the 1972 Managua earthquake. Even after then the FSLN acted with relative moderation was willing to work on good terms with Washington until Reagan launched the Contra war. In the case of Guatemala and El Salvador the guerillas didn't even have Russian or Cuban support. Both were products of the radicalization of the political opposition due to their respective countries' dominance by oligarchial elites who reacted to any political dissent with gross violence. In the case of Guatemala the guerilla movement was a product of a 1954 conservative overthrow Jacobo Arbenz Guzman (who wasn't even a social democrat let alone a communist), a move that was aided by the CIA. Washington then provided support to the sucession of mafia regimes that followed (as well as torture training for their thugs) and the guerilla movement only grew.

I cannot comment Afghanistan or Africa for now as I have less familiarity with the history of those areas and the communist movements in them, but the case of Latin America alone really calls your assumptions into question.

Osama bin Laden commands no atomic rockets, possesses no Guards tank armies aimed at the heart of Western Europe. His minions cannot wipe us out in the manner of a full Soviet nuclear strike, but they can hurt us very badly.

But they haven't despite the failures of the American government to significantly improve security measures as opposed to flailing about half-assed gestures. Terrorism is a concern, but I think you are exaggerating the capabilities of Bin Laden's followers.

Though I am inclined to agree with you about not abandoning Iraq due to the violence that may follow. Of course that still begs the question as to what can be done to stabilize it. I hear a lot of talk of staying the course, but none about what would make that course tenable.

[Corrina]

Considering that the sectarian violence has supposedly been there a long time can you furnish evidence of this? The sectarian violence only got started after the Invasion and even then took time to ramp up alongside the insurgency, becoming very noticeable only in 2005. (At least that's the impression I got from following the news reports, particularly based on the rise of Shia militias and death squads).

Moreover, this thesis that ethnic divisions are longstanding ignores that the U.S. deliberately turned down proposals to have several thousand troops patrolling post-invasion Iraq and did an incompetent job of reconstruction. If anything would allow political extremists to get their foot in the door it's doing a shite job of bringing stability back to the country following the war.

You're talking short term. I meant long term, throughout the history of Iraq and the Middle East. There have been longstanding divisions between the Shiite and Sunni communities, going back several centuries, at the very least.

What I was trying to say (and perhaps badly) is that while we did destabilize Iraq by invading and creating a nasty situation, the Iraqis who are choosing to pick up weapons and slaughter each other are not entirely blameless in the matter.

When India finally received its independence, there was violence. But there were a number of prominent Indian leaders, Gandhi at the top, who urged the violence to stop, urged his people to not slaughter each other. It wasn't perfect, and it ended in Pakistan breaking from India, but it wasn't like this.

The African Americans who began the civil rights movement in this country had absolutely every provacation to resort to violence and no doubt some did, and I don't blame them. But many of the leaders, such as Martin Luther King, spoke out against violence towards whites, and for peaceful resolution. We haven't gotten all the way there yet, but MLK's dream remains vital and within reach.

I'm not seeing any Iraqi leader of stature in this role, and I'm not seeing any Iraqi leader even wanting to do this.

So I restate, some of the blame for the violence falls on the people who choose to pick up the weapons.

On the second paragraph you quoted, I thought I made it clear I believe we royally fucked up the rebuilding of Iraq from the start. I absolutely believe there was a chance but mass incompetence on the part of the Commanders in Chief blew it.

[Lester C.]

This thread has been remarkable civil considering the issues and stakes. All of you have my respect and gratitude for that no matter what your stance on this issue is.

[thespianphryne]

When India finally received its independence, there was violence. But there were a number of prominent Indian leaders, Gandhi at the top, who urged the violence to stop, urged his people to not slaughter each other. It wasn't perfect, and it ended in Pakistan breaking from India, but it wasn't like this.

If I might clarify for a moment. Yes, there was horrendous sectarian violence in India at the time of Independence. But partition did not occur because of the violence. The violent riots occurred as a result of the plan of partition and the actual execution of it.

[Adam Crocker]

You're talking short term. I meant long term, throughout the history of Iraq and the Middle East. There have been longstanding divisions between the Shiite and Sunni communities, going back several centuries, at the very least.

I know, but without reference to actual historical examples of Shia-Sunni violence in Iraq I skeptical of merely attributing the current violence in Iraq to this longstanding division and claiming that Shia and Sunnis have been wanting to kill each other in that country for years. Especially so when there are counter-examples to this claim.

[DungeonmasterJim]

this longstanding division and claiming that Shia and Sunnis have been wanting to kill each other in that country for years. Especially so when there are counter-examples to this claim.

It was my perception that Saddam use to use gas attacks on the Kurds whenever they tried to stir up trouble which was part of the reason we had a 'no fly' zone after the first war. I also thought that the Sunni's were in good with Saddam because he was Sunni.

But that information is from memory and it might be faulty.


I do agree with Corrina that I don't feel that America is totally responsible for all the civil war type violence and kidnappings. The government we tried to set up there might not be the best but it does offer choice and a non-violent way to solve problem. It is disappointing that once again violence is used to solve problems instead of using peaceful negioations.


DM Jim

[Tobias March]

I saw Jesse Jackson speak in University College Dublin some years ago. While I sure some people here might have a problem with him (I get the impression he's not always well loved by his portrayal in the international media) I found him to be an excellent speaker, well able to work the crowd and engage them during the Q&A session.

Of course the issue of Iraq came up. Despite his being portrayed as a Republican hater and such, he was quite forthright about how he felt the situation in Iraq had to be resolved, that the US couldn't simply pull out. Plus how immature it was so sit back and gloat at America falling neck-deep in what is perceived to be their own mess, that the international community needed to lend whatever support it could to the country and not let it be torn apart.

This was two years ago. The conflict in Iraq wasn't nearly as bad then as it is now (once again, dealing with perception of it - it may well have been the case that many aspects of the war simply weren't being reported. In fact we know that's true). Yet America has actually lost more support internationally than gained. Various companies that were meant to establish the national infrastructure are pulling out. Basic systems like electricity, sewage treatment, clean water have yet to be fully developed.

There's talk of reaching out to Syria and Iran. That would have been unthinkable/unprintable just a short while ago. Britain is calling for its forces to be pulled out as well. Baker's drawing up a 'plan for victory', essentially withdrawel with as little embarssment as possible. Young Iraqi men are being killed by suicide bombers as they wait to be signed up.

I do think dialogue with Iraq's neighbours may be possible. It's in their interest to stabilise the country and no one wants the conflict to spread over their borders. As long as the US continues to portray itself as an agressor that takes no quarter, I don't see any solution in sight. This is not a conflict that can be won by force alone. It just exacerbates the tensions already ingrained among the communities within Iraqi society.

Of course this is me trying to think of the welfare of the Iraqi people. The 'long game', that is being planned does not concern itself with such matters.

[stealthwise]

Everyone knows that pulling out doesn't work, at least wear a con...


oh, ohhh...

Um, yeah, I think that Vietnam 2 has pretty much failed, and it's only going to get worse unless the States pull their troops out. No one's hearts and minds are being won.

[Adam Crocker]

It was my perception that Saddam use to use gas attacks on the Kurds whenever they tried to stir up trouble which was part of the reason we had a 'no fly' zone after the first war. I also thought that the Sunni's were in good with Saddam because he was Sunni.

But that information is from memory and it might be faulty.

No, it's very accurate, though I never included the Kurds in my original point as I was primarily focused on Sunni and Shia divisions. However, the Kurds have been carrying out violence against any arabs (Shia or Sunni) in the Kurdish region because of Saddam's treatment of them.

That said my main point was I skeptical of claiming longstanding ethnic divisions without evidence for that point. That said I'm doing some more research on the matter.

[rick]

Before I begin, I wanted to mention that I once had the pleasure of hearing the Rev. Jackson speak back in the 80’s during his Presidential run. It didn’t really matter that I wasn’t going to be voting for him, I found him to be an amazing speaker. He really is just a master orator in the old fashioned and best sense of the word.


Now on to the subject at hand.


You know, I really do understand the argument that if the US pulls out of Iraq before “winning” that it would greatly damage our position on the world stage.

Absolutely the US will lose a huge amount of credibility if we “lose” in Iraq. And the rest of the world will think that yet again the US ran off on a semi-imperialistic adventure and had it explode in our faces. Our numerous enemies in the Middle East and the rest of the world will get a huge morale boost by our withdrawal. And more likely then not an American withdrawal will destabilize the nations in the Middle East that are our allies, and certainly place Israel in more danger then it already is in.


This is a compelling argument and I certainly agree that it should be considered before any serious talk of “Cutting & Running®” should even be brought to the table.


However, there are several real problems with that position.

The most obvious argument is the reality that the United States has already lost a huge amount of credibility with the rest of the world. Most everyone on the planet is thinking that yet again the US has run off on a semi-imperialistic adventure and had it explode in our faces. Our numerous enemies in the Middle East and the rest of the world have received a huge morale boost by our botched occupation. And the Iraq invasion has destabilized the nations in the Middle East that are our allies, and certainly has placed Israel in more danger then it was already in.

Basically whatever bad thing that could happened political and internationally to the US over our invasion and occupation of Iraq, has already happened. ”Staying the Course™” is not going to suddenly make the rest of the planet forget that the most powerful nation on the planet has once again taken up nation building.


And just like the last time it just isn’t working out very well.


Speaking about the last time, it really is worthwhile to bring up Vietnam when talking about the continued occupation of Iraq.

By 1968 the US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was convinced that the US could not win in Vietnam but because of the huge hit the United States would take on the international stage agreed with President Johnson’s plan to keep escalating operations in Vietnam in the hopes of eventually turning the tide if nothing else through pure attrition.

The problem is that this meant that young Americans would continue to be wounded or die for years to come through two different administrations, two different parties for no real reason other then to cover up a failed US policy.

And folks that is the real issue to be decided.

Hell, let’s not even talk about the half million dead Iraqis, although it sort of damm’s us that we don’t, we do need to ask if our policy in Iraq is worth the continued drumbeat of dead or destroyed Americans young people day after day.

These are not abstract numbers, these are young men and women who are putting their lives on the line and we owe it to them not to squander their commitment so recklessly.

The Iraqis, except for maybe the Kurds up north, want us gone.

Most of us want to leave.

So, let’s leave.

Give the Iraq administration that we installed as many weapons and as much cash as they need to get control of their nation. Give our allies, the Kurds as much support and independence as they need.

And get out.

And by get out, I mean March or April.

[Paul McEnery]

And by get out, I mean March or April.
What you said.

And the fucking awful thing is that realpolitick means March or April is the soonest we can do it.

If it was up to me, I'd magic our people back here this bloody second.

[geordiesteve]

In my opinion, not yet. The country is completely unstable, and even if all the foreign troops pulled out now, it wouldn't make it all better. Things would still be really crappy for the normal people on the street who just want to get on with their lives and read comics.

The infrastructure needs to be put in place so that it can run by itself. I know that makes it sound MASSIVELY simple and the whole process is hugely more complicated than that, but it is the bottom line. If all troops left, another sadistic group would take power and the whole place would quickly go to hell in a handbasket again and ordinary people would be tortured, turfed out their homes, arrested for absolutely nothing and other things. The best idea I've heard so far is making alliances with surrounding nations in the Middle East to bring peace, or at least a level of stability as theocratic governments will be a long term feature of countries in the Middle East. Once a stable government is created, once police, and their own troops and authorities are set up and able to cope with the various pressures placed upon them, that is when the job is done.

[DungeonmasterJim]

Originally Posted by DungeonmasterJim
It was my perception that Saddam use to use gas attacks on the Kurds whenever they tried to stir up trouble which was part of the reason we had a 'no fly' zone after the first war. I also thought that the Sunni's were in good with Saddam because he was Sunni.

But that information is from memory and it might be faulty.


No, it's very accurate

Phew! Sometimes my memory is faulty but I'm glad I got it right.

I don't see us pulling out of Iraq any time soon. There's too much of a profit for private companies run or linked by Bush friends at this time. Security alone in Iraq is a 5 billion dollar business and again if I remember correctly the guys on the ground in SUVs can make as much as $500.00 a day. If a trucker is paid up to $100,000 a year to drive a truck then someone is making a boat load of cash to even offer that kind of salary. I can't even fathom what kind of cash it takes to run bases like Anaconda. I have no problems with our troops having safe bases with stuff like Subways and pizza stands since half of my family has been in the armed forces and some with combat experience but some private companies like Haliburton are really war profiteering off the U.S. tax payer in my opinion.

I remember hearing some years ago that the Kurds have the most oil in Iraq. I don't see the U.S. ever abandoning those guys as long as America is oil dependant.

DM Jim

[MatthewC]

At this point, the only thing that can improve things in Iraq is the threat of America pulling out.

Let me unpack. It's pretty well known what the path to a peaceful Iraq is.
1. Separation of the country into three semi-autonomous zones under a loose federal system.
2. Split the oil money.
3. Disband militias or merge them into the army.

The trouble is, the United States no longer has the juice to make these things happen. For all the talk of a 'puppet government' the truth is that the US's influence wanes every day. The current Iraqi government is unwilling to make the hard and unpleasant compromises necessary to implement the above solution, and things continue to deteriorate.

The only weapon the United States has left is the threat of pulling out of Iraq and removing US troops as a stabilizing force. We have to be willing to tell the Iraqi government, "make progress or we're out of here". And for such a threat to be taken seriously, we have to mean it.

So the United States needs to be prepared to leave Iraq in order to stay in Iraq. Paradoxical, ain't it?

[Lester C.]

I'll admit I have skimmed some of the longer posts in this thread, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned....but can anyone tell me what the big objection is to the plan where Iraq is split into three separate regions based on the concentration of Kurds, Sunni, and Shia?

I know that Baghdad is a problem because the populations are mixed heavily there, and that the concentration of oil fields (thus Oil revenue) resides in mostly one region, but as a general concept, it always seemed to me, the only sane option. After years of strife and war it is how Yugoslavia ended up. Why can't we skip that part, and go straight to figuring out how to make it work?

Besides that, I am of the general opinion that we need to bust our asses to get the infrastructure back on track, and some self-policing mechanism in place, and then we can think about how is the best way to get our soldiers home.
The problem with that is Iran and Syria waiting in the wings to sweep in and take what they perceive to be theirs. We really don't want Iran getting Southern Iraq.

[Charles RB]

3. Disband militias or merge them into the army.

I keep hearing that there's a huge problem of the army & police in areas being full of militia types and militia-friendlies.

[Adam Crocker]

I keep hearing that there's a huge problem of the army & police in areas being full of militia types and militia-friendlies.

And you would be correct which is why it is not so simple as the U.S. being too weak to get the militias to disband or join the army. I'll also note that many of the Death Squads operating in Iraq are operating from within the police, a fact that the American and British forces ignored for many months.

The current Iraqi government is unwilling to make the hard and unpleasant compromises necessary to implement the above solution, and things continue to deteriorate.

Well it's unwilling and unable. The government in Iraq is very weak because they have inherited an unstable situation which stems from the failure of the Coalition to properly stabilize things from the outset by having sufficient troops or following through on reconstruction plans. And when their own police and armed forces house many of the people waging the sectarian violence it becomes considerable harder for the government to have any power to do these things.


The infrastructure needs to be put in place so that it can run by itself. I know that makes it sound MASSIVELY simple and the whole process is hugely more complicated than that, but it is the bottom line.

Well putting the infrastructure in place to get the country to run by itself was what Coalition was supposed to do after they invaded. But the neocons arsed around with trying to implement their free market fantasies, oblivious to the fact that they couldn't even sell off Iraq's assets because international law forbade occupying powers from doing so. (As well as insufficient troops to ensure the security for such things, see post-war looting.) When they finally handed over soveriegnty to the Iraqi provisional government things had already progressed far enough to make such a prospect very, very difficult.

The best idea I've heard so far is making alliances with surrounding nations in the Middle East to bring peace, or at least a level of stability as theocratic governments will be a long term feature of countries in the Middle East.

That's the best idea I've heard myself, though to nit-pick only Iran and Saudi Arabia are actually theocracies.

[MatthewC]

Well it's unwilling and unable. The government in Iraq is very weak because they have inherited an unstable situation which stems from the failure of the Coalition to properly stabilize things from the outset by having sufficient troops or following through on reconstruction plans. And when their own police and armed forces house many of the people waging the sectarian violence it becomes considerable harder for the government to have any power to do these things.


If they don't have the power to do it, then no one does and there's simply nothing to be done. Yes the government in Iraq is weak, but they're the only government we've got to work with. You're right about the causes, but it's too late now for the Coalition to go back and stabilize things from the outset. Too late for reconstruction plans to make a difference.

The Iraqi government has to be pushed to a place where they have no choice but to make progress on resolving these issues or fall. The United States continuing to linger on and sustain them, hoping that somehow thing will get better, won't help.

Well putting the infrastructure in place to get the country to run by itself was what Coalition was supposed to do after they invaded. But the neocons arsed around with trying to implement their free market fantasies, oblivious to the fact that they couldn't even sell off Iraq's assets because international law forbade occupying powers from doing so. (As well as insufficient troops to ensure the security for such things, see post-war looting.) When they finally handed over soveriegnty to the Iraqi provisional government things had already progressed far enough to make such a prospect very, very difficult.

Right, but what now? What now?

What power can the United States weild as of right this moment in making things better, not things that could (should) have been done differently three years ago?

That's the best idea I've heard myself, though to nit-pick only Iran and Saudi Arabia are actually theocracies.

When we say "making alliances with surrounding nations", who is being refered to as making the alliances? The United States or the Iraqi government? And what is being offered to these governments to entice them to sign up?

[MatthewC]

Edit: Double Post

[Adam Crocker]

Right, but what now? What now?

What power can the United States weild as of right this moment in making things better, not things that could (should) have been done differently three years ago?

That's what I've been asking. However, the point of my post was to point out to someone who said that the U.S. needs to get the infrastructure in place is that this was something that should have been done at the outset. I was pointing out that talking about it now after the country's gone to hell is kind of pointless.

When we say "making alliances with surrounding nations", who is being refered to as making the alliances? The United States or the Iraqi government? And what is being offered to these governments to entice them to sign up?

It would have to be both since the US is still a power of some sort in Iraq and they have a vested interest in seeking allies to help stabilize the country.

[ChadtheH]

The point of my post was to point out to someone who said that the U.S. needs to get the infrastructure in place is that this was something that should have been done at the outset. I was pointing out that talking about it now after the country's gone to hell is kind of pointless.

It's probably the first lesson in politics humans ever learned. And it still holds.

A tribe roams the hills hunting mammoths or gazelles, and each morning the hunters go out needing a certain amount of meat from the day's hunt in order to feed everyone. Over time a few men (assuming the hunters are men – gender roles may not have developed yet) realize it doesn't take all of them to get the requisite amount, so they sneak away or find excuses to stay home, enjoying meat with everyone but without the work. Then other men see what a sweet gig these men have going, and they follow suit. Soon, only a few hunters remain in the hills each day, and they grow increasingly resentful of the others living on their labors. There can be only two results of this rift – a major crackdown on slackers, or one part of the tribe leaves the other behind.

What does this have to do with getting out of Iraq? Plenty.

If any political edict shows ignorance of this lesson, it was "when they stand up, we will stand down." Why then would they ever stand up? We propose building Iraq an infrastructure and offer the basic security of a police force and military presence, presumably at the expense of US taxpayers rather than the Iraqi people. In this way the coalition is the diminishing ranks of active hunters. Perhaps the Iraqis' fear or reluctance to truly manage their own affairs goes back to Saddam. Perhaps this is our fault, since we had no exit strategy and the Iraqis don't really believe we will ever leave. But if the tribe will not take part in the business of its own survival, then one group must leave the other behind. Sen. Levin is right…we cannot expect to save the Iraqis from themselves.

[Adam Crocker]

If any political edict shows ignorance of this lesson, it was "when they stand up, we will stand down." Why then would they ever stand up? We propose building Iraq an infrastructure and offer the basic security of a police force and military presence, presumably at the expense of US taxpayers rather than the Iraqi people. In this way the coalition is the diminishing ranks of active hunters. Perhaps the Iraqis' fear or reluctance to truly manage their own affairs goes back to Saddam. Perhaps this is our fault, since we had no exit strategy and the Iraqis don't really believe we will ever leave. But if the tribe will not take part in the business of its own survival, then one group must leave the other behind. Sen. Levin is right…we cannot expect to save the Iraqis from themselves.

Hm, that's an interesting point, but I'm not totally sure it fully describes what has happened in Iraq. Your point certainly recalls one that Naomi Klein in made in her essay for Harpers "Baghdad Year Zero" (http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html) that one of the main cock-ups of the administration was giving contracts for reconstruction to foreign companies for jobs that could have been done by Iraqi enterprises. (Klein alleges this was part of a deliberate strategy to starve out Iraq's former state-run enterprises so they could sell them off. Personaly I don't find that idea to be all that wild considering both the information she presents as well as the way in which the Bush administration has put ideology ahead of practical reality numerous times.) Mutqada al-Sadr's Madhi army apparently did a better job in providing basic services where it held sway than the occupation did.

Of course the other side to that is that many of the companies who got jobs contracted them out to Iraqi firms that were pretty corrupt. (Heck the Defence Ministry was bilked out of $1 bn by its own heads under Paul Bremer.) Moreover, the Bush administration originally claimed that it could pay for Iraq's reconstruction via the country's oil revenues. That plan fell flat on its face when due to insurgent attacks and lack of security to fend them off. And right now most Iraqis seem to the want the U.S. to leave at this point and resent the occupation.

Personally speaking, let's consider the way Halliburton was found to be overcharging the government, the unaccounted for disappearance of some $9 bn in funds under the CPA, the way people were hired for their politics over their skill, as well as the fact that plenty of planning for the occupation was done by the State Department and willfully ignored by the administration. I think it's doubtful that the reconstruction effort could have gone well no matter who had the most leverage in it. There was just too little oversight and too little planning (at least in terms of what they actually did; nevermind man power) to ensure a proper reconstruction period. Though it might be instructive to compare to the level of domestic involvement in reconstruction efforts in post-war Germany and Japan which were under foreign occupation (even if the circumstances of World War II are very different than the Iraq war and thus make such comparisons problematic).

[Charles RB]

If any political edict shows ignorance of this lesson, it was "when they stand up, we will stand down." Why then would they ever stand up?

Because nobody wants to have their country run and patrolled by foreign armies?

[Magneto_X]

Should we stay, or should we go, or would you think a gradual pull-out is the answer?

Please don't be insulting, i just want to hear your opinions.

Gail

We should leave.

Gradually.

All we're doing is making things worse.

American citizens are dying for nothing.

Not that Iraqi lives are worth any less but it's their country.

The country will get into a civil war (if it isn't in one already) no matter what we do.

[Paul McEnery]

If any political edict shows ignorance of this lesson, it was "when they stand up, we will stand down." Why then would they ever stand up?
Um...

You seem to have missed the standing up bit.

Which has been against the occupation.

[Lester C.]

Now we have members of the cabinet getting taken from their homes in broad daylight by gunmen. While I still feel we need to close the door of hell we opened in Iraq, we need to fire everybody making decisions about the conduct of war, as we've been in Iraq now longer than we were in World War II.

[Lester C.]

I'm torn between doing two right things. One the one hand America opened the door to hell that is Iraq. Had we left Sadam alone that country political and social infrastructure would still be in place. On the other hand we have spent 400 billion dollars over there and could be expected to spend close to a trillion before it is all said and done. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/ Just imagine all the good we could have accomplished if that money went elsewhere?

[Corrina]

Sadly, I've concluded the best thing we can do it get out of Iraq, put all our resources into Afghanistan and making that country stable, as we still have a chance there.

Once we accomplish that, and establish some *competence* and *credibility*, then we might be able to do something about the Middle East. We can't leave it alone long term but right now we have to regroup, have some successes, and try again, hopefully under NEW LEADERSHIP THAT KNOWS WHAT THE HELL ITS DOING.

Right now, it's a clusterfuck, no one trusts us, not even the moderate groups. And why should they? Our current government hasn't shown the ability to do anything really constructive in Iraq.

[diana_fan]

We should leave yesterday.

Iraq is in a state of total chaos, and it isn't going to get better. The only reason our military should ever be involved anywhere is if there is a military solution.

There isn't one here. There just isn't. There is little for our soldiers and marines to accomplish other than being targets.

Bring them home.

[BlairH]

placed a puppet one in its place

created a power vacuum
So which is it? Puppet government or power vacum?

Everything going on in Iraq is our fault
I wouldn't say that. I think the decades of Baathist authoritarianism, mass graves and oppression might have something to do with it.

[Lester C.]

So which is it? Puppet government or power vacum?


I wouldn't say that. I think the decades of Baathist authoritarianism, mass graves and oppression might have something to do with it.

Both to the first two questions. As for the third Iraq had a stable government that kept Iran in check and kept Al Queda out. All that is gone because we invaded on a pretext that turned out to be false. We didn't go in to take down a dictator, as they are all over the place, but went it to take down a person with weapons of mass destruction that was going to use them against America. The only thing we found were corroded ancient useless chemical weapons that we already knew he had.

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

We never should have gone in, let alone get out. We are NOT the police force of the world and nor should we be. Why are we still there? This is almost dead on vietnam. It's scary.

JP

[KevinTBrown]

I think Barack Obama has presented the best idea of a slow pull out..... 2 months ago.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/051123-obama_pull_gis_from_iraq_gradually/index.html

[rexmundi666]

We won't leave because of the oil intrests of our president's father and his backers.Yes we sholud pull out now and leave the Iraqi's to their own devices.

[Erebus]

We shouldn't leave, because if we do, it'll be an almost 100% chance that there's going to be civil war and chaos in the region.

[Corrina]

Going to be civil war and chaos....?

[Erebus]

Going to be civil war and chaos....?

Well, more so then now :o

[diana_fan]

We shouldn't leave, because if we do, it'll be an almost 100% chance that there's going to be civil war and chaos in the region.

But, as far as I'm concerned, that's already the case.

EDIT: What Corrina said. I'm just too slow on the draw.

[Lester C.]

Lester, you're missing the big picture and I'll explain it using your example.

Someone drives into your house, kills members of your family and then decides to help fix the family by living in the house. He pays for your dead to be buried the way he decides. He hires all the builders to make the house the way he'd want to have it look. He counsels your grief himself and only tells you what he wants you to know. He's owning up to everything but on his terms.

Don't you think resentment would grow until you'd want to kill that man, not only for what he has done but what he is forcing upon you?

The situation will never be right or good with us there. No matter what we do us just being there, just being us, makes it worse.

We have soldiers over there, probably just kids, faced with the horrors of war, doing things they'd never do in peacetime. That is the face the Iraq people will always see. The longer we are there the more the resentment of America grows and the more our soldiers are pushed to their limits.

The only way to fix Iraq and maintain soldiers there is something that will never, ever happen.

Our president needs to make a gut check, man up, swallow his pride and tell the world before the UN that we were wrong. We underestimated the situation and overestimated our own abilities. And with we need to truly seek help. Not to fight a war no one can possibly win but in rebuilding Iraq and making it stable. We humbly ask for help from the nations of the world in fixing our mess.

We don't just need to repair Iraq and it's people. We need to repair the resentment we caused in all this. You don't end terrorism by fighting a war. You end it by making hatred and intollerance go away.

Tom is right and I was wrong.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Both to the first two questions. As for the third Iraq had a stable government that kept Iran in check and kept Al Queda out. All that is gone because we invaded on a pretext that turned out to be false.


Oh, OK......So Iraq had a "stable" government which kept Iran in check and Al Qaeda out.

Yet the mass graves of Kurds & Shi'ites (Along with anyone else being killed off), a long-standing opressive regime, and two sons who were going to be far worse than Saddam by the time they would get into power, was a satisfying compromise.

Not to mention specifics, such as Olympic athletes getting tortured & killed because they didn't perform well in international meets, or Uday raping any girl he considers attractive and leaving the girls to be raped & killed by his thugs afterwards. Those are just brief examples, of course.

You made a claim earlier in this thread that Saddam had killed far less people than the casualties resulting from this war, yet you don't put into account how many more people Saddam and his sons would have killed if they continued on through the years.

People would have died either way.

A primary responsibility the US government has in regards to Iraq is how the Kurds were double-crossed back in the early 90's by Bush Sr. The situation could have been resolved back then, if a full offensive had been made, but instead the Kurds went in thinking they would have US support, and got massacred as a result. The situation would have been far different back then due to various circumstances, today the whole Iraqi situation is just a clusterfuck.

[Red Jack]

Any pretense that this conflict is about anything but lining the pockets of the various contractors who are raking in billions there, and the basic destabilization of the region which will either throw the powerful factions into internal conflict or frighten them so much that they freeze up (thus keeping their oil in the hands of the Usual Suspects and elevating Israel's POV as a besieged "peaceful" nation) shows that the Cheney propaganda machine has done its work.

There are literally dozens of oppressive regimes around the world, each doing as Saddam did and, so far, none receiving the same outrage and military action to "free those people" as was visited on Iraq. It was never about right and wrong. It was never about toppling a dictator. That is the pitch they sell to the rubes who'd rather not mull over a question tougher than "Arby's tonight or Wendy's?"

It was a LIE, children. From top to bottom. And now there are thousands of dead people who have given their lives for NOTHING while people back here sloganeer and willfully avoid the obvious facts in service some bizarre (and frankly ugly) version of patriotism.

Our president has turned each and every one of us into butchers. Blood is on every one of our hands whether we were pro invasion or not.

Yeah. We should get out of Iraq. Five years ago. And we should beg forgiveness for our tiny brains and leave a healthy gratuity with the doorman. It wouldn't be much but, as money is all most Americans seem to understand or care about, it would be the expected and accepted response.

We should offer ANY aid the WORLD deems necessary without comment or complaint until people with actual BRAINS can solve the mess we kicked up. The scut work. penance. Then, at the very least, our soldiers would be dying for something decent: an apology.

Then, after a healthy period of not electing warmongering profiteering thieving idiots, say another century or so, we might have our rep polished enough to hold up our heads.

I hate that bastard for what he's done to our country but I hate him more for all the kids, and moms and dads, who've been killed because he thinks the world stage is a game of Risk.

I wish he'd "decide" to resign. But he'd need a brain and a soul for that.

[Lester C.]

Oh, OK......So Iraq had a "stable" government which kept Iran in check and Al Qaeda out.

Yet the mass graves of Kurds & Shi'ites (Along with anyone else being killed off), a long-standing opressive regime, and two sons who were going to be far worse than Saddam by the time they would get into power, was a satisfying compromise.

Not to mention specifics, such as Olympic athletes getting tortured & killed because they didn't perform well in international meets, or Uday raping any girl he considers attractive and leaving the girls to be raped & killed by his thugs afterwards. Those are just brief examples, of course.

You made a claim earlier in this thread that Saddam had killed far less people than the casualties resulting from this war, yet you don't put into account how many more people Saddam and his sons would have killed if they continued on through the years.

People would have died either way.

A primary responsibility the US government has in regards to Iraq is how the Kurds were double-crossed back in the early 90's by Bush Sr. The situation could have been resolved back then, if a full offensive had been made, but instead the Kurds went in thinking they would have US support, and got massacred as a result. The situation would have been far different back then due to various circumstances, today the whole Iraqi situation is just a clusterfuck.

That's my point. It's a clusterfuck. I don't think a military victory is no longer possible unless all of our "allies" help out or they activate the solders in selective services. Since a military victory is no longer possible we should bring back the troops as I think they are dying for a lost cause, which sucks because if Iran, Alqueda and Syria take control of Iraq that's going to have massive repercussions for the US on a economic level.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Any pretense that this conflict is about anything but lining the pockets of the various contractors who are raking in billions there, and the basic destabilization of the region which will either throw the powerful factions into internal conflict or frighten them so much that they freeze up (thus keeping their oil in the hands of the Usual Suspects and elevating Israel's POV as a besieged "peaceful" nation) shows that the Cheney propaganda machine has done its work.

There are literally dozens of oppressive regimes around the world, each doing as Saddam did and, so far, none receiving the same outrage and military action to "free those people" as was visited on Iraq. It was never about right and wrong. It was never about toppling a dictator. That is the pitch they sell to the rubes who'd rather not mull over a question tougher than "Arby's tonight or Wendy's?"


Well, of course. The US government isn't going to do anything, like with the Iraq situation, unless there are major financial & political incentives. Otherwise, as you said, there are many other oppressive regimes which would have been tackled long ago.

In the past, one of the major reasons for US involvement was the Cold War (The race against the USSR to re-shape other countries to their gain), which resulted in many countries getting fucked over in the long run.......Today, the primary reasons are financial incentives and strategic positioning in regards to Israel. It's a sad fact, but something we have to accept as I highly doubt any of this will change soon. Hell, there are too many blindly patriotic people in this country who are brainwashed by the government/media, in part because they want everything simplified due to mental laziness, for me to see any possible change in the near future.

It always astounds me when I hear someone say it's a "religious war" between the "Islamics" and the west. That's one laughable bit I often hear, although there are other examples of what people are spoonfed by the media.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

That's my point. It's a clusterfuck. I don't think a military victory is no longer possible unless all of our "allies" help out or they activate the solders in selective services. Since a military victory is no longer possible we should bring back the troops as I think they are dying for a lost cause, which sucks because if Iran, Alqueda and Syria take control of Iraq that's going to have massive repercussions for the US on a economic level.

I don't see a military victory being possible, either, even if more troops/allies were sent in. There's too much subterfuge going on in there, along with too much of an influx of outside sources coming in from Iran & Al-Qaeda.

Really, the only military victory possible is a full-scale bombing assault, which would defeat the purpose.....It's not going to happen, but sadly enough, there are some people out there who mind-numbingly support such a tactic. Then there are radio personalities like Jay Severin & Michael Savage who try to drum up such thoughts in the public mind.

One person on this thread had a good thought, in that giving major support to the Kurds would be a great tactic, but then the resulting problem would be having Turkey become an opponent. Not that Turkey is a powerful military nation, but the US would lose a little bit of tactical advantage in the Middle East, plus it's not like the US needs any more enemies.

[Joshua Pantalleresco]

Does anyone remember why we were in Iraq in the first place? It had something to do with weapons of mass destruction if I recall. Now we all know that never was the case now. However, considering that isn't the case, a hard question:

Regardless of justification, has the US actually invaded a country with no substantial reason or threat to it?

Yes. It has.

And for what? We are spending something like 2 grand a second (do some math!) for troops to be there. And look at the damage that is doing to the infrastructure of this country.

And more importantly than that, how many soldiers aren't coming home? From every angle I can see, this war is nothing but a waste of resources, time and good people just so certain corporations can make some huge bucks. Call me a cynic, but I don't see how you can call this any other way.

We were never going to win. I don't care how good an army you have. This is a people that has been beat on for thousands of years in their history. You are not going to change that tide with any army. Going in there was a lost cause from the beginning. We never should have started. We need to finish.

If we want to do this gradually, that'd be great. Starting now until the end of next year I'd love to see a withdrawal. To those that think there'd be civil war as a result, you're right. But I don't see any way out of this but more bloodshed. The path we chose guaranteed it.

It's just one big waste and I wish it had never happened.

JP

[Reverend Smooth]

One thing: 'America' didn't do anything. I don't believe that it's the people's responsibility to support a war effort about which they were either misled or opposed.

Some people lied to get us in there, some people fell for it, and now that most people know the truth, they're not happy that we're there. The country's own government is acting against the will of the people, which they knew would be unfavorable anyway unless it was spun.

Kick the current government out and let someone else figure it out at the very leat IMO, no viable progress will be made until the people who wanted the war in the first place are gone.

And that's not just the Bush Administration, either.

[Lester C.]

One thing: 'America' didn't do anything. I don't believe that it's the people's responsibility to support a war effort about which they were either misled or opposed.

Some people lied to get us in there, some people fell for it, and now that most people know the truth, they're not happy that we're there. The country's own government is acting against the will of the people, which they knew would be unfavorable anyway unless it was spun.

Kick the current government out and let someone else figure it out at the very leat IMO, no viable progress will be made until the people who wanted the war in the first place are gone.

And that's not just the Bush Administration, either.

Doesn't change the fact that this country led an invasion against Iraq, and unintentionally opened up the gates of hell in that region. Blame whomever you want, but at the end of the day we, trough decisions made by our elected leaders, are responsible for creating the situation there.

It kind of sucks that we can't fix what we started, but we can't and we need to stop throwing lives and resources away on a problem we can't fix.

[stealthwise]

Doesn't change the fact that this country led an invasion against Iraq, and intentionally opened up the gates of hell in that region. Blame whomever you want, but at the end of the day we, trough decisions made by our elected leaders, are responsible for creating the situation there.

It kind of sucks that we can't fix what we started, but we can't and we need to stop throwing lives and resources away on a problem we can't fix.

There, fixed that for you. :)

[Citizen V]

Im so tired of hearing this,but i have to say what i think.The US Government should pull its forces out now,doing it slow..fast..it makes no difference.Iraq cant support itself,the force should go..and help in America.Where they are needed,especially with the country slowly falling appart.

[stamen]

Here is some qualitative quantitative data regarding how bad we fucked up Iraq as of August 2006.

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

That study has been debunked, or at least questioned in a variety of places.

Also, I pretty much tire with all the US accusations. Iraq lost the first war and they signed a surrender document that they never upheld. The document they agreed to basically prevented the further invasion of their country by the many, many nations fighting.

The United Nations proceeded to pass 17 resolutions, 11 of which detailed human rights abuses. For ten years the world chose impotence over action. In year 11, a handful of nations acted much to the shigrin of the world's larger limp and self-enriching penis. That shingrin further destablized the region and gave the insurgency the world sympathy they needed to keep on fighting.

The world powers (US included) were too busy making money off of Iraq to care. But at least the US acted. Action began under Bill Clinton in enforcing no-fly zones. I'll be the first to admit that there was "spin" out there swaying people's choices to go to war. But it seems a damn shame that we need spin to combat this:

http://kurdistan.org/Multimedia/iraq.html

Even now, the world would rather rest on its laurels in the face of beheadings, child murder, and suicide bombers. It's easier to point the finger than to lift it in support. Had the world chosent to respond the way it did in 1991, I believe Iraq would look very different. As it stands, there was too much money to be made on both sides (the go-to-war group and the stay-rich-with-oil-for-food-money).

But at the end of the day, we all get to see what we've always known to be true. There is no such thing as human rights.

As to what we do now? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Reverend Smooth]

Doesn't change the fact that this country led an invasion against Iraq, and unintentionally opened up the gates of hell in that region. Blame whomever you want, but at the end of the day we, trough decisions made by our elected leaders, are responsible for creating the situation there. Incorrect. We did not. The people who elected the leaders who led the country into the war are responsible. Those who didn't are certainly not at fault for it.

I don't see why my family should be lumped in with people who willfully supported an invasion and willfully supported politicians who supported an invasion.

I do not see any point in accepting responsibility for something that others did wrong, not even to make gullible people -- who, for the most part, had no problem labeling dissenters as evil, unpatriotic, and unamerican -- feel better about themselves. Now that the shit hit the fan, do not expect people who are blameless to shoulder your burden. That's not our karma or our cross to bear.

The only exceptions regarding blame I'll make are voters who voted for politicians who made promises but then voted against their constituents' interests. If your candidate said they were against the war but later voted for it, that's not your fault, either-- but it is if you voted for them again after that.

If someone steals your credit card and buys stuff in your name, against your will-- that's not your fault. If someone signs you up for something without your permission-- not your fault. If your country goes to war without your vote, your approval, or your participation-- guess what, not your fault.

Edit: To reference the Olney thread, if Olney offers you work, and a bunch of us tell you it's a bad idea, and there is evidence as to why it's a bad idea, and you go in there anyway, and you get burned by Olney-- don't tell me it was OUR fault for you getting screwed by Olney.

[Michael P]

Just my general thoughts, without reading the thread.

The recent history of Iraq is like a geopolitical snuff film. We have, over the last four years, royally fucked this country over. We should definitely stop doing that.

However, I also believe very much that, if you make a mess, you should clean it up. So, while we ought to stop fucking around with their politics and let the Iraqis slouch towards democracy in their own way, we also ought to rebuild the infrastructure we blew to shit. At the very least, we owe them some reparations.

[Reverend Smooth]

At the very least, we owe them some reparations.Start taking taxes out of the paychecks of war supporters first, please. I don't mind helping out those with unfair burdens, but the brunt of the cost should be on those who wanted to invade in the first place.

Larime just remarked that Halliburton and other such contractors should foot a major part of the bill, and I agree. Republican politicos and what Democratic ones followed along should pony up, as well.

Ration their food and supplies and power, too, while you're at it.

[Red Jack]

That study has been debunked, or at least questioned in a variety of places.

Also, I pretty much tire with all the US accusations. Iraq lost the first war and they signed a surrender document that they never upheld. The document they agreed to basically prevented the further invasion of their country by the many, many nations fighting.

The United Nations proceeded to pass 17 resolutions, 11 of which detailed human rights abuses. For ten years the world chose impotence over action. In year 11, a handful of nations acted much to the shigrin of the world's larger limp and self-enriching penis. That shingrin further destablized the region and gave the insurgency the world sympathy they needed to keep on fighting.

The world powers (US included) were too busy making money off of Iraq to care. But at least the US acted. Action began under Bill Clinton in enforcing no-fly zones. I'll be the first to admit that there was "spin" out there swaying people's choices to go to war. But it seems a damn shame that we need spin to combat this:

http://kurdistan.org/Multimedia/iraq.html

Even now, the world would rather rest on its laurels in the face of beheadings, child murder, and suicide bombers. It's easier to point the finger than to lift it in support. Had the world chosent to respond the way it did in 1991, I believe Iraq would look very different. As it stands, there was too much money to be made on both sides (the go-to-war group and the stay-rich-with-oil-for-food-money).

But at the end of the day, we all get to see what we've always known to be true. There is no such thing as human rights.

As to what we do now? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

No. We were damned the second we put troops on the ground. You can't IMPOSE democracy. Not unless you plan to leave troops on the ground for a good half century. Any idiot knows such changes have to come from INSIDE.

This isn't, wasn't and has never been about human rights and to even attempt to inject that is, at best, disingenuous. America has never given a damn about human rights outside its borders. Not one time ever. There are other nations who've been sanctioned by the U.N., defied those sanctions and not been invaded. ALL of them, in fact. Why didn't we invade Chile? or Korea? or China for that matter. Or South Africa? Human rights. Give me a break.

Most of the people in this country couldn't point to Iraq on a map NOW, much less before the war started. Americans care about who Paris Hilton is screwing and where they can steal some web movies. Human rights is so far down the list you need a pressure suit to get there. We don't even care about our CIVIL rights.

This is just an Elite bunch of a-holes using poor and misguided regular folks (kids mostly) as cannon fodder to line their and their freinds' pockets and to further a few extremely dubious political goals.

That's it. They're not even bothering to disguise it anymore.

And no, those of us who were against war don't get to wash our hands and say "Not me." Bush is OUR President too. Just as Clinton was. America does something and we ALL have to eat the consequences. That's how it works.

We should back out and beg for forgiveness.

[Lester C.]

Incorrect. We did not. The people who elected the leaders who led the country into the war are responsible. Those who didn't are certainly not at fault for it.

I don't see why my family should be lumped in with people who willfully supported an invasion and willfully supported politicians who supported an invasion.

I do not see any point in accepting responsibility for something that others did wrong, not even to make gullible people -- who, for the most part, had no problem labeling dissenters as evil, unpatriotic, and unamerican -- feel better about themselves. Now that the shit hit the fan, do not expect people who are blameless to shoulder your burden. That's not our karma or our cross to bear.

The only exceptions regarding blame I'll make are voters who voted for politicians who made promises but then voted against their constituents' interests. If your candidate said they were against the war but later voted for it, that's not your fault, either-- but it is if you voted for them again after that.

If someone steals your credit card and buys stuff in your name, against your will-- that's not your fault. If someone signs you up for something without your permission-- not your fault. If your country goes to war without your vote, your approval, or your participation-- guess what, not your fault.

Edit: To reference the Olney thread, if Olney offers you work, and a bunch of us tell you it's a bad idea, and there is evidence as to why it's a bad idea, and you go in there anyway, and you get burned by Olney-- don't tell me it was OUR fault for you getting screwed by Olney.

Using your example, if you purchase something with your credit card then you are responsible for the bill. Your country invaded Iraq and created the situation there. The fact that you didn't have a say in the matter is common given the fact that we are a Republic and not a direct participatory democracy.

[Reverend Smooth]

the fact that we are a RepublicA representative republic, and my family did not vote for a representative who got us into Iraq.

[Reverend Smooth]

America does something and we ALL have to eat the consequences. That's how it works.Oh, we do have to accept the consquences: we pay taxes. Though I do believe that the iraq war should only be funded by the people who support it.

But the guilt? Nope. That's not on the shoulders of the people who were against the war. That's solely on those who were for it.

And Bush has made it clear that he's not interested in representing liberals. I don't see the point in embracing someone who doesn't want you.

[BlairH]

Start taking taxes out of the paychecks of war supporters first
Yeah, that's a practical solution to the problems faced in Iraq. People should be punished for their unpopular opinions. We need, like, a thought tax, a tax on the vice of unpopular/undesirable thought or political action. The Bill of Rights? Fuck it!

How the heck is this any different from punitive poll taxes that prevent poor people from voting? I know you're probably not being serious, but come on!

Ration their food and supplies and power, too, while you're at it.
You're sounding more like a reactionary militant everyday.

[BlairH]

Oh, we do have to accept the consquences: we pay taxes. Though I do believe that the iraq war should only be funded by the people who support it.
I'm all for national healthcare, provided that it only be funded by people who support it!

[Reverend Smooth]

I'm all for national healthcare, provided that it only be funded by people who support it!
That generally is the conservatives' argument, isn't it? Well, apply it to the war, too. Halliburton, the RNC, and democratic and republican and indie voters who want the war can fund it.

Be consistent. :)

[BlairH]

Be consistent. :)
I think you might have missed my point.

[Reverend Smooth]

Yeah, that's a practical solution to the problems faced in Iraq. People should be punished for their unpopular opinions. We need, like, a thought tax, a tax on the vice of unpopular/undesirable thought or political action. The Bill of Rights? Fuck it!

How the heck is this any different from punitive poll taxes that prevent poor people from voting? I know you're probably not being serious, but come on!


You're sounding more like a reactionary militant everyday.False.

I believe that people who think that the US should go to war should be prepared to make sacrifices for it, just like they did in world wars 1 and 2. If you want to bring the war to iraq, then you should make sacrifices, just like the men and women who are on the front lines have to.

Saying, 'I support the war' and then staying home and doing fuck-all is easy. Getting hit hard in your wallet and lifestyle will make you hold your politicians accountable and make you consider what you're supporting much more thoughtfully.

If that view's reactionary, then your insistence on warfare without personal accountability is just pathetic.

[Reverend Smooth]

I think you might have missed my point.It's irrelevant.

If conservatives want to start arguing like liberals, I have no problem throwing their own policies back in their face. It's really easy to see things from somebody else's point.

When conservatives start backing national healthcare, I might start backing national financial support for their wars. It's called compromise, fancy that.

(Edit: replace 'conservative' with 'neocon' and 'liberal apologists'. I owe Mac that much.)

[BlairH]

If conservatives want to start arguing like liberals, I have no problem throwing their own policies back in their face. It's really easy to see things from somebody else's point.
BS. The argument of "using their argumentative tactics against them" is as insane as the Ann Coulter apologists who claim that she's only "turning the tables on the liberals!"

If you want to apply the same principle to the Iraq war then I think it might be yourself that's being a tad inconsistent. After all, I know from the NHS thread that you're not in favour of my hypothetical "healthcare proposal", so why would you be in favour of making those citizens who supported the Iraq war fund the war? That's a rhetorical question, because I can make a good guess as to what your answer is.

If you want us to fund the Iraq war, then it's only fair to expect that those who support national health fund that particular "enterprise".

As for libertarians such as myself who wish to see minimal government programs and pork. We get the best deal, because we don't want to fund anything! Some "compromise" there...

[Reverend Smooth]

If you want us to fund the Iraq war, then it's only fair to expect that those who support national health fund that particular "enterprise".I'm fine with that, actually-- because we DID fund the war.

Now, since y'all got your war-- time to give us our healthcare. Pay up.

[BlairH]

False.

I believe that people who think that the US should go to war should be prepared to make sacrifices for it, just like they did in world wars 1 and 2. If you want to bring the war to iraq, then you should make sacrifices, just like the men and women who are on the front lines have to.

Saying, 'I support the war' and then staying home and doing fuck-all is easy. Getting hit hard in your wallet and lifestyle will make you hold your politicians accountable and make you consider what you're supporting much more thoughtfully.

If that view's reactionary, then your insistence on warfare without personal accountability is just pathetic.

Again, reactionary.

The military (rightly) answers to the civillian government, which is why we have seperate civillian/military legal systems, etc. To suggest that supporters of the war must have some sort of personal stake in the military (ie: Actually serving) is to invite the same sort of logic that leads to a "Starship Troopers" type of society (where you MUST serve in the military in order to become a true CIVILLIAN)

As such, the responsibility rests not on the wallets of the electorate (what a crude way of ensuring "personal accountability"!) but rather on the Commander in Chief.

A hypothetical question: When you impliment this thought tax, how are you going to identify the war supporters?