[showmethebombs]

Is it time?

[bwhip]

I know us pulling out is just what Sadr and the other insurgents would like, and that probably the majority of Iraqis would like us to stay to prevent an all-out civil war (that the majority Shiites would probably win), but I'm tired of us losing our boys (and girls) trying to help a group of people that don't seem to want us there anyway. I believed in this effort originally, but seeing how the Iraqis who initially cheered us are now cheering those who kill and mutilate our people makes me say screw it, let's get out. It'd make us look bad to the world, but what's an acceptable alternative at this point? There will be many in the world that hate us no matter what we do.

[Proto]

If the coalition forces pull out what are the chances of another Iran/Iraq war fought on purley Shia/Suni lines, with the Kurds having a go just for the hell of it.
What a mess.

[ViciousRR]

This is a loaded question... A lot to consider.

Oh sh*t! Alias is on!

[Bacchus]

Proto?!?! The real Proto? Someone's been lurking for a longgggg time.

[nomad]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

Proto?!?! The real Proto? Someone's been lurking for a longgggg time.

I saw him post just last week.

Welcome back.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by bwhip

I know us pulling out is just what Sadr and the other insurgents would like, and that probably the majority of Iraqis would like us to stay to prevent an all-out civil war (that the majority Shiites would probably win), but I'm tired of us losing our boys (and girls) trying to help a group of people that don't seem to want us there anyway. I believed in this effort originally, but seeing how the Iraqis who initially cheered us are now cheering those who kill and mutilate our people makes me say screw it, let's get out. It'd make us look bad to the world, but what's an acceptable alternative at this point? There will be many in the world that hate us no matter what we do.

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with what you've said Brian, and you speak with a certain amount of authority in that you've got a son who went there and fought for our nation. Thank god he made it back to your family.

The flip side of this is, do we somehow diminish the lives of the young men who didn't make it back by pulling up the tent stakes and leaving now?

I'm torn...

All that said, I think it's a moot point anyway - while I'm a 'W' supporter, there's no way in hell he's going to pull the operational plug on this little party before the elections. To do so would be political suicide.

EDIT: Btw, I voted to bring the boys back home.

[roadrunner954]

I wish it were that easy, just to up and pull out. But it's far more complicated then just leaving I'm sure.

I do hope our men and women get to come home soon!

Freedom is not Free




Edit: I too voted to bring them home...

[bwhip]

Originally Posted by Chain

I'm having a hard time disagreeing with what you've said Brian, and you speak with a certain amount of authority in that you've got a son who went there and fought for our nation. Thank god he made it back to your family.

The flip side of this is, do we somehow diminish the lives of the young men who didn't make it back by pulling up the tent stakes and leaving now?

I'm torn...

All that said, I think it's a moot point anyway - while I'm a 'W' supporter, there's no way in hell he's going to pull the operational plug on this little party before the elections. To do so would be political suicide.

EDIT: Btw, I voted to bring the boys back home.

Well said, Chain.

I should have added that there is no way that I can respond to this poll without the natural bias that comes from not wanting my son to go back there.

While I totally agree with your point about the US leaving diminishing the lives of those who have been lost in the effort so far, it's hard not to feel that there seems little compelling reason to lose any more. If I had a sense that the majority of Iraqis wanted us there to avoid an all-out civil war that would make Iraq-Iran seem tame by comparison, I might be more supportive. Instead it seems that each day more and more of them turn against us, at their own peril I'm afraid.

[ViciousRR]

Originally Posted by roadrunner954

I wish it were that easy, just to up and pull out. But it's far more complicated then just leaving I'm sure.

I do hope our men and women get to come home soon!

Freedom is not Free

When this all started we were after Osama, am I right? 9/11 anyone? Then the next thing we know is that Bush wants to go have a look see in Iraq... Why? Because he couldn't find Osama... Oh and Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. I didn't see any?? Several months later we are at war etc etc.... Am I the only one that saw this coming way before it happen?

My point is, are we still trying to ensure freedom to the USA and World by being over in Iraq? No, IMO. Nobody wants us in Iraq (especially the Iraq peaople).

[SuperDave]

This has been hashed over and over. Do a search on a thread I posted along time ago on a Frontline documentary. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had this agenda even before George W Bush ran for President. Wolfowitz wanted Saddam out, no more passive foreign policy, Democracy pilot program for the Middle East - starting with Iraq. They used 9/11 as the perfect opportunity. I don't think they antisipated the backlash from rebels and the muslim community. We are on our heels now with a decision that needs to be made with full force, either way. If not, we will continue this long, slow, battle that may continue for decades (for which these folks are accustomed to).

[1STCBR]

What was the goal for war? Has this been achieved? Can it be achieved? IMO, Pull out, before any more lives are lost.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

This has been hashed over and over. Do a search on a thread I posted along time ago on a Frontline documentary. Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had this agenda even before George W Bush ran for President. Wolfowitz wanted Saddam out, no more passive foreign policy, Democracy pilot program for the Middle East - starting with Iraq. They used 9/11 as the perfect opportunity. I don't think they antisipated the backlash from rebels and the muslim community. We are on our heels now with a decision that needs to be made with full force, either way. If not, we will continue this long, slow, battle that may continue for decades (for which these folks are accustomed to).

So Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld had a Defense agenda before Bush was President, eh?
What you're saying is that while Wolfowitz was Dean and Professor of International Relations at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) of The Johns Hopkins University he had secret talks to create this agenda with Rumsfeld – who was chair of the U.S. Commission to Assess National Security Space Management and Organization?
Wow, two non-government and non-defense citizens were conspiring with each other before getting nominated and sworn in to their positions. Gee, better start another partisan commission. You should chair it, as you have the facts.

As for Iraq, why not bring our troops home from everywhere? We aren't wanted in South Korea, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. Bring them all home. Personally, I would love to have every single American serviceman back on American soil. Screw all the pansy-assed countries that don’t like us. Get our guys home, and let them all deal with the crap their own countries would create. And yes, I mean every soldier in every country, “friend” or not. However, that isn’t politically possible.
The resulting chaos is meaningless. The fact that a recent Oxford Research International - a very liberal group out of the U.K. - poll shows that 78%, yes that's SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT of Iraqis say that the attacks on coalition forces are not acceptable means nothing, right? The same poll shows that the three most-admired Iraqi officials are all members of the Iraqi Governing Council. Yeah, the council the coalition is implementing. Not Al-Sadr and the others.
How many schools and hospitals were open before Saddam was taken out? How many are open now? How much of Iraq is living and operating peacefully and in full cooperation with coalition forces?
Yeah, the lives lost suck. Yeah, the mutilating sucks. But what is being shown in the leftist media is a huge minority of the whole of the country.
The vast majority of Iraqis wants us there and need us there. No, they don’t want us there long term, neither do any of us, but they needs us there until their government is running. When that happens, by all means let’s leave.
The vast majority of those fighting and causing problems with our people over there are not Iraqis, but is that reported by CNN? Absolutely not.
It would be equivalent to putting a couple black people in a car, and have them drive into the headquarters of the Aryan Nations in Idaho, then portray that on the news as what is happening in the whole of America.
The goal of handing over control of the Iraqi government to the Iraqi people can be achieved and is being progressed on a daily basis. Pulling out would be the stupidest thing anyone could do, and would destroy not only Iraq but the whole Middle East.

How long has the worthless conflict in Kosovo been going on? They don't want us there at all. Why are we still there? There was no goal to be achieved there and was doomed from the start. Why not get out of that hellhole? Why are we still in South Korea? The cease-fire was called how many years ago? They want us gone, why not accommodate them?
How long were we in Japan after WWII? How long were we in Germany after WWII?

[deez]

Originally Posted by bwhip

I know us pulling out is just what Sadr and the other insurgents would like, and that probably the majority of Iraqis would like us to stay to prevent an all-out civil war (that the majority Shiites would probably win), but I'm tired of us losing our boys (and girls) trying to help a group of people that don't seem to want us there anyway. I believed in this effort originally, but seeing how the Iraqis who initially cheered us are now cheering those who kill and mutilate our people makes me say screw it, let's get out. It'd make us look bad to the world, but what's an acceptable alternative at this point? There will be many in the world that hate us no matter what we do.

I guessed that it would go down like this before the war started. I made references to Vietnam and got ragged on for it
We already look bad to the world for going in there, might as well get out.
I'm tired of reading about our soldiers dying as well, enough is enough. And they still haven't found ****.

[SilverBullet]

I'm not in Iraq, so I can't say I want out.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by BDA116

The goal of handing over control of the Iraqi government to the Iraqi people can be achieved and is being progressed on a daily basis. Pulling out would be the stupidest thing anyone could do, and would destroy not only Iraq but the whole Middle East.

I want to agree with you on this BDA (actually, deep down, I do), but my gut tells me even if we hand over control and they have general elections for a democratic gubmint in the fall/winter (Nov, Dec, Jan?- cannot recall just now ) that they're all a bunch of kooky religious zealots anyway ... and the country will be a phucked up hotbed of dictorial violence within a few months of us leaving.

Now don't go off on me, we're friends, remember?

[Chain]

Originally Posted by bwhip

While I totally agree with your point about the US leaving diminishing the lives of those who have been lost in the effort so far, it's hard not to feel that there seems little compelling reason to lose any more.

I have no choice but to agree. I'd feel differently if the insurgency wasn't so damned vigorous at this stage in the game, if we had a clear exit strategy, and if I really believed handing the reins over to a bunch of wack-jobs would have any lasting effect.

[ND4SPD]

Us leaving is not gonna do a thing. Those that are attacking our military there are doing it because they're being pressured/stopped before they even leave the country. The minute we pack up, they'll follow us all back here and start bombing in the States, and every other country.

It sucks that 600+ soldiers had to die so far, but that's war. It's normal. Those are actually low numbers considering what they've gone through the last year or so. Take a look at casualty numbers for WWI/WWII, or Korea, or Vietnam. Anybody keeping count of how many Iraqi's have died so far? It's probably 10,000+, no wonder they're pissed off.

I say finish cleaning house, and be done with it. Leave a base there, just like we've done with every other country that we ever visited

[SuperDave]

Here you go BDA, just a small piece. There's tons of "info" and opinions.

With the election of George W. Bush in 2000, however, the hawks saw a new opportunity to implement a stronger, forward-leaning American stance in the world. Yet during the new president's first year in office, skirmishing between Colin Powell's State Department and Rumsfeld's Pentagon -- where Wolfowitz is now the second-ranking civilian -- left the adminstration's foreign policy stalled in a kind of internal gridlock. Along came 9/11



Frontline: The War Behind Closed Doors

Reporter, The Washington Post


I see a very strong overlap between the National Security [Strategy] as expressed today and the first and very muscular draft of the 1992 policy [drafted by Paul Wolfowitz]. You have many of the same players who are in primary positions of influence, and you simply have to lay the documents side by side and you will see huge areas in which they're the same, and frankly very few in which there are striking differences.

What were its ramifications?

You have to take yourself back to 1992. This is the first time that the Defense Department gathers itself to say, "What is our new strategic mission in the world now that there is no more Soviet Union?"...

[And] they said, "Our number one mission in the world, now that we are the sole superpower is to make sure we stay that way." They wanted to pocket that gain. And what was so politically insensitive in this internal document, which wasn't meant for distribution, is it talked about not only Russia, but Germany, Japan, India, all as potential regional hegemons that could rise up to challenge the United States as at least a regional and, potentially, a global superpower. They said their number one mission is to quash that.


What was the reaction?

Well, most of the countries I just named were on some kind of friendly terms, or central allies of the United States. They were none too pleased to be named as potential rivals. The public reaction was, "Good God, we're supposed to have a peace dividend now. The Cold War is over. Let's get on with our lives. Of course, stay strong enough to protect ourselves. But what in the world are you doing, going out there and looking for trouble?"

It was very controversial in Congress. There was an enormous amount of commentary by the opinion leaders saying, "This is way over the top." And, it was an election year. And they caved.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by Chain

I want to agree with you on this BDA (actually, deep down, I do), but my gut tells me even if we hand over control and they have general elections for a democratic gubmint in the fall/winter (Nov, Dec, Jan?- cannot recall just now ) that they're all a bunch of kooky religious zealots anyway ... and the country will be a phucked up hotbed of dictorial violence within a few months of us leaving.

Now don't go off on me, we're friends, remember?

That is still very possible, yes. However, right now all the antis in Iraq are what? Anti-American. That is how they are getting their support. Al-Sadr, the Shi'ite kook that has less than 1% of the Iraqi peoples' support is concetrating his efforts on hating America, as are all the Palestinian groups, Al-Qaeda and other terror groups.
That is how all Islamic kooks get their people, support and monies.
Once we hand the control over to Iraqi citiznes, and are there only in a "peace-keeping" role, they can no longer cocentrate their hate on the "Americans that control their country". They will then have to switch their hatred to their own people.
Is it possible the small support they have will continue? Yes, but it is less likely. Once the Iraqi court that is almost fully established convicts Hussein - even with his frenchy lawyer - and kills him (much to the dismay of the UN) the support will again most likely dwindle further.
I don't think the elections are on the table until this time next year, but again, once that happens it is very likely our presence there will be able to become next to nothing.
Is this set in stone? No, but let's put it into action and let it play out. It can't be a whole lot worse. Hell, their Constitution is already written and signed, lets hand control over June 30th and let them run their country.
What we are seeing right now are desperate efforts by a few desperate men. They don't want the handover to happen. They don't want the official governing body to be Iraqi. That is why there is an upswing in violence in the few cities they have been able to gain some support. The time is running out for them, and if they can get us to leave now they win. If we fight back, kicking ass and taking names a few more months Saddam will have been executed by his own people, so he won't be a martyr murdered by the United States. When that happens, and there is no way he can ever come back, I truly believe we will see many more changes over there.
They are counting on us tucking tail and running. They think we still have a worthless pile of gutless trash in the White House, but klinton is gone. They think we will react much like Spain's socialists, but our socialist party hasn't controlled the White House since 2001.
This is also the same reason you can pretty much gurantee a major terrorist attack is being planned for us somewhere around October. Will we stop it? I sure hope so.

[Proto]

I think BDA is spot on. Excellent posts. Not much else to do at the moment except grin and bare it, tragic as it is for everyone suffering out there.

BTW just as a small aside, is it possible that Wofowitz has a different agenda from the White House. Could it be that his main objective is (and always has been) the security of Israel?

[ND4SPD]

Is it just me or did Proto just agree with something BDA said?