Can america leave iraq?

B

buffys

Registered Loser
Registered Senior Member
I was staunchly against the war for two reasons. First, in my opinion, there was no legitimate reason to go (or at least no reason that makes iraq a more justifiable target than north korea or any other dictatorship). Second, I felt if a country as influential as the US is going to engage in preemptive warfare (practically unheard of among western democracies) it is VITAL to have strong international support.

That being said, I think they have to stay for the long haul now. The invasion cannot be undone and leaving before iraq is stable will leave a far worse situation than when sadam was in power.

I'm curious what you guys think. No matter who is running the country next year, can the US leave iraq at all?
 
this war was not about the iraqi people and their wellbeing. it is entirely about the geopolitical interests of the united states, the primary one being to ensure access to oil. with the departure of the us military from saudi arabia, upgrades to bases as well as construction of new ones are underway in oman, quatar and kuwait.

the real kicker is the construction of 14 permanent military bases in iraq. the us has no intention of leaving. iraq will be an american protectorate and that is something all you dreamers might have to come to terms with.

there is a wildcard tho. if the insurgents do not let up and us soldiers are still dying in the year 2005, there might be enough of a outcry to bring them home. i also doubt a change in administration will see any real difference in iraqi policy, ie: the jewish lobby will still dictate america's m.e policy.

so the question is not quite accurate. the us can leave anytime it wishes. however for that to happen, we have to abandon our imperialistic goals and stop kowtowing to israel

let me reiterate, this crap was never about the iraqi people. i mean if you want to help someone, you do not rip them off ($20 billion), you do not bomb them (10000 dead), you do not yank the general populace off the streets, throw them into prisons to be raped, tortured and murdered.

i mean, who needs enemies when america wants to be your friend in order to save you and bring you frikkin freedom.

jesus weeps!
 
As a person on the non-war side I was suprised to find I didn't support full withdawl because the resulting vacuum would make sadam's reign seem fluffy and fun by comparison. I guess I was wondering if others that opposed the war - like myself - think pulling out now would be disasterous, no matter how against it you might have been initially. Or do you think withdrawl should occur regardless of the consequences?

My question isn't about the motivations or justifications of the war, that is moot now. I only added my views as background. I don't want to debate the merits for or against the war, there are millions of threads about that and it doesn't really matter anymore because the invasion is over.
 
actually us rule is also making saddams reign paradisical. despite the remarkable similarity in tactics b/w his regime and ours, (bombings and torture to suppress dissent) he did a remarkable job (relatively) in adminstering the economy of the country.

i say we withdraw immediately. this does not mean abandonment. the us can throw its weight behind the un for a change and return wearing blue helmets. we could adminster relief programs. we could compensate for damage done. make available lines of credit for the iraqis (not us) to jumpstart their economy.

politics should be left up to them. if they persist in fighting, screw em. lets pack bags and leave for good.

*i would however like the brits to remain and die slow and gruesome deaths. those punks need to understand that the days of empire are over! tagging along for the ride hardly brings any glory anyway
 
That kind of overstating of the case doesn't really accomplish anything. There's plenty here to pin on the administration without having to manufacture things like "we're as bad as Saddam". Stuff like that is counterproductive and does not represent the mainstream opinion of the country, even that which is left of center.

Buffys brings up an excellent point with this thread. I was in favor of the war, but now I believe it was a colossal mistake, and possibly one of the great blunders in modern times.

But now is where the rubber meets the road. One of the odder aspects of this whole situation is that the left side of the aisle is now in the awkward position of having to support a continued presence in Iraq. The socio-political aspects of the leftist agenda pretty much requires it.

And they're not happy about it. Which I imagine is part of the formula here for the utter disgust amongst the far-left crowd. Not that they really needed any help.

Good posts, Buffys.
 
That kind of overstating of the case doesn't really accomplish anything.

i presume you are referring to this..

actually us rule is also making saddams reign paradisical.

There's plenty here to pin on the administration without having to manufacture things like "we're as bad as Saddam".

really? like what? domestic policies? i am being quite specific here. i am talking about the us administration of iraq. would you like me to drag out evidence of ...(bombings and torture to suppress dissent)? the comparison is quite valid. i see no need to exempt us conduct from scrutiny. buffy brings up saddam's rule. he goes on to speculate about conditions where there is a power vacuum. why then can one not bring the conditions under us occupation?

Stuff like that is counterproductive and does not represent the mainstream opinion of the country, even that which is left of center.

what? counterproductive to what? i do not give a shit about mainstream opinion. this is my frikkin opinion i am airing. withdraw now! i do not accept the status quo in iraq. the puppet regime is illegitimate and they are enslaving the iraqi people with martial law (and whatnot)

Buffys brings up an excellent point with this thread. I was in favor of the war, but now I believe it was a colossal mistake, and possibly one of the great blunders in modern times.

words fail me. despite the erroneous assumption on my part that saddam probably had some offensive capability, (scuds and stuff) it would have been a leap into imbecility to think he could pose a threat to us. i did not play that. understand this, your ignorance and blind obedience to your leaders caused the death of thousands, a country in ruins and a region in upheaval. now you wanna make nice? what fluffy dreams are you having. power will be retained by the presence of the us military in iraq until they are forced to pay an unacceptable price. that is all they understand.

what are the plans? increase troop levels, back the puppet regime. dole out more contracts. rebuild
what are their plans? to murder you warpigs while you sleep. destroy everything you build.

long live the frikkin revolution! keep the blood flowing, boys. rise against the oppressor, my arab brothers

But now is where the rubber meets the road. One of the odder aspects of this whole situation is that the left side of the aisle is now in the awkward position of having to support a continued presence in Iraq. The socio-political aspects of the leftist agenda pretty much requires it.

crap. foreign policy has mostly been platform independant. i believe clinton dropped more bombs on iraq than bush ever did. that freak was every much a warpig as bush and he was my man.

kerry's plan is to increase troop levels. another warpig in the making.

And they're not happy about it. Which I imagine is part of the formula here for the utter disgust amongst the far-left crowd. Not that they really needed any help.

hey you could not resist the snide jabs eh? thats ok tho. neither can i
 
I hear your pain, it infuriates me that we (the international and american community) were thrust into this to begin with and adding insult to injury the justification was based on dubious information.

I am of the belief that the initial invasion was a recipe for increased terrorism (opposite of the alleged reason to fight in the first place) but it seems obvious to me that simply picking up and leaving now would make iraq an ideal terrorist incubator. That is the practical reason for remaining but more importantly, necessary infrastructure and services have been destroyed or fatally disrupted. Do you honestly believe pulling out would benefit iraq?

I agree that poor decisions led to the lose/lose situation we find ourselves in but abandoning iraq now after doing so much damage is certainly the greater of two evils.
 
Do you honestly believe pulling out would benefit iraq?

all i have are underdeveloped scenarios. it is complicated and i do not have the answers. it would be nice to think we could stay and be constructive in our engagement but the matter is really not in our hands anymore. the iraqi's hold all the cards.

obvious to me that simply picking up and leaving now would make iraq an ideal terrorist incubator.

no buffy, it is the american occupation that is breeding terrorism. it is why we are all targets now.

withdraw now. let em go back to killing the zionists (heh)
 
Last edited:
anu said:
no buffy, it is the american occupation that is breeding terrorism. it is why we are all targets now.
Click to expand...

that's why I said this is a lose/lose situation.

I agree americas actions are fostering terrorism but if they left the few people that the US has managed to keep on it's side in the region would see withdrawal as a betrayal. Politics would fall along tribal lines leaving an environment much more conducive to terrorism than is the case presently. If the US doesn't fulfill it's promises after causing all this havoc I am positive terrorism will increase 100 fold in that region.

So, like I said, it's either a bad situation (as is the case now) or a much worse situation (what would surely be the result of early withdrawal).
 
Well, I think Anu has covered the ideologocial position of "we need to do the opposite of whatever the Bush administration wants". I applaud Buffys for stepping outside of ideology and taking a broader look at the situation, and also playing devil's advocate to a certain extent. You just don't see enough of that around here.

Now let me present a counter-point based on logic rather than ideology.

This is how Vietnam got out of hand. Initially Vietnam was a few tens of thousands of training troops. Then something changes. One of the changes was the military coup that took place. After that point, our involvement increased. Yes, the major buildup was due to the fact that Johnson disagreed with Kennedy's approach, but one of the reason why Johnson disagreed was that coup.

I believe the situation is analogous to Iraq in the following manner: In January they're going to have an election. Well, what if an Islamic extremist, a promoter of religious governance, won the election in January?

And at that point, aren't we fighting a very different kind of war? Aren't we then taking sides in a civil conflict? Didn't we go over there to liberate them from Saddam and give them a chance to fight for their country, and if we take sides after an election, aren't we... well... taking SIDES in an INTERNAL struggle?

In the decades after Vietnam many NVA leadership types have come forward to say that there really was never any danger of Vietnam falling to communism. That's clearly a little disengenuous, given the history, but there might be something to the notion that they would never have fallen truly under the control of the Chinese, who had been their mortal enemies for hundreds if not thousands of years (and the two countries still often do not get along).

So maybe we should get, while the getting is good. Not because it's the opposite of what the Bush administration wants, or because "it's like Vietnam", but simply because we need to let these people stand up for themselves, or not, and either way decide what they want their country to be.

(And yeah, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here a bit, for the sake of discussion. Because I think Buffy's points are stellar and need to be considered carefully. But this is the most logical counterpoint I can think of at the moment.)
 
and i suppose the fact that i said.....

anu said:
crap. foreign policy has mostly been platform independant
Click to expand...

..whistled thru the empty space b/w your ears, did it not?

how is it that when i hold the democrats to be every bit as bloodthirsty as you warpigs imply that i am ideologically opposed to the bush administration? why single them out? can you not figure out my ideology is anti war? especially the bogus kind? i do not give a shit who sells it or wages it. it will be condemned either way.

by the way, you are the only one here that even mentioned bush by name

do you even bother to comprehend what it is you are reading? i do have an ideology but it is a bit more sophisticated than that knee jerk "hate bush" crap you vomited.

you obvious disingenuity and misrepresentation is noted and will be well compensated for. ;)
 
anu: "crap. foreign policy has mostly been platform independant.

Spouting nonsense? What is this, Bedlam?
 
hype

it can be whatever you want it to be. the only caveat is you must want it badly enough.

so what is your position? you think al gore would not have gone to war? i see only a difference of style not substance b/w the two parties as far as foreign policy goes. besides, what was that old saying, yes... vote republican and get a depression, vote democrat and get a war

history is not on your side if you plan on being contrary, hype. however, go right ahead. make your case. i will bury you in bedlam
 
Yes: I do think that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, for example. Gore would have been a much more intelligent President, and would have had a cabinet lacking the neoimperialists, even fascists, that Bush serves. There would have been more fighting in Afghanistan, and there would have been a prickly standoff with Pakistan. But we'll never know what might have been. A change of leadership in Washington is extremely critical now, in order for the USA to more responsively and gracefully begin to turn back from a collosal national blunder that can never be undone.

The Bush Administration electively and profoundly shifted America's course, with very serious consequences ahead. Americans should have been lead through the 9-11 shock with clarity, and the US should have harnessed and maintained the worldwide goodwill that immediately followed those attacks. The Bush Admin has done just the opposite, almost hopelessly confusing the public while putting us at odds with the outside world that our economy is critically dependent upon.

Anybody-But-Bush will be aware of the damage to US credibility and to our worldwide confidence factor, which means a very great deal economically, strategically, and politically.

The next few years are going to bring a defining challenge to Americans. A low-level, containable bubbling of regional conflicts (Saudi overthrow, intensifying Israel conflict for example) was unnecessarily meddled with in such a bungling manner as to precipitate not only rapid destabilization, but also a simultaneous political isolation for the US, and for good measure (soon) with a resultant/simultaneous mideast petroleum supply interruption. I acknowledge projecting a bit (but not very) unpredictably into the near future here, but this will be the result: Bush policy, inconceivable under a Gore administration, fanned the flames unecessarily after 9-11, and have played precisely into the hands of Mideast revolutionaries.

Now these revolutionaries, yes and terrorists, have the initiative, and everything is almost perfectly in motion for their objectives to be accomplished: Mideast regime changes, and the ignominous departure of the USA as Mideast Hegemon. This process will not end before Israel is provocatively challenged, and similarly capitulates, by responding with the very same rash belligerence that modern assymetrical-warfare revolutionaries know that they must provoke. Israel will be induced to tip the entire mideast applecart, not for the sake of Palestinians, but at the instigation of Islamists who want the Arab street across the region enraged to the point of open civil wars, class warfare, and fundamentalist revolution.

History is not on America's side, nor on the side of our client states, if we continue to be too stupid to acknowledge this dark trend that is emerging- we are bringing on Bedlam, and it very easily could bury us, in our own incredulous, misdirected rage.
 
so the case consist of small para that alludes to, and assumes, gore's intelligence. how on earth is that relevant?

in order to maintain bedlam, let me i throw out another saying..."The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
 
I don't believe Al Gore would have done Afghanistan. And he certainly would have had his share of special-interest influence. But you gotta love a guy who's willing to give a speech on global warming on the coldest day in 50 years. (grin) He's also a pretty darn good writer; his last book was quite intriguing.

I certainly agree that we're holding the apparent role of "hegemon" in the region. It's been this way since... what.... the 1973 war? I think you're right there about Israel being the key.
 
buffys said:
that's why I said this is a lose/lose situation.

I agree americas actions are fostering terrorism but if they left the few people that the US has managed to keep on it's side in the region would see withdrawal as a betrayal. Politics would fall along tribal lines leaving an environment much more conducive to terrorism than is the case presently. If the US doesn't fulfill it's promises after causing all this havoc I am positive terrorism will increase 100 fold in that region.

So, like I said, it's either a bad situation (as is the case now) or a much worse situation (what would surely be the result of early withdrawal).
Click to expand...

lets try and figure the implications here

the lose/lose situation

if we stay, we remain targets. resentment grows and the opposition solidifies its position as anti american. the daily death toll creeps upward, perhaps stabilises

if we leave, the victory jigs break out. shots are fired in to the backs of retreating soldiers. the last american leaves. what are we losing? regardless of ideology, they will keep selling oil and we will keep buying it

now, they won! think about it. why would any iraqi risk a repeat invasion by following the yankees home to explode something there? why is that the myth of the "iraqi terrorist" remains when those allegations have clearly been debunked?

is it because they are all ragheads and cant be told apart? was chaos neccessary for the hatching of the 9/11 plot? would it not be sweet, ironic and probably accurate to imagine the plot to have been staged in a nice and leafy, upscale, saudi arabian neighborhood?

or is it more aesthetically pleasing to imagine dishevelled and smelly plotters holed up in a cave in some godforsaken place hooking up wires muttering ..."death to the americans"?

i know, the "hate our freedoms" is why they will hatch more terrorist plots out of the ruins of baghdad.

so, lets figure out who the friendlies are. you know, the ones that are claimed to be siding with the americans. who? chalabi and his gang? the cia stooges? the traitors and turncoats of the iraqi people?

the insurgency is gonna keep getting bigger one way or another. all one has to ask is am i gonna get in the way? am i gonna keep lying, stealing and killing the ragheads or will i leave?

lets look at the promises. no real sovereignity, rigged elections, looting of revenues..... hey saddam's gone. alas the people missed him so much that we had to fill the vacuum left by his ouster. ja, filled the jails, bombed rebellious border tribes, torture, blah.

do you understand that this administration specifically said that they will not allow a theocracy in iraq even if it was the will of the people?

so buffy, what are we doing there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top