Your Thoughts on Withdrawing from Iraq

jlew24asu

TheVoiceInside wrote:

yeah i get it, a phasing out process. ok. but those training officers and military people that are left behind are the ones who are going to have all the power in Iraq. I know its all a matter of trust. We dont trust them to do this because we think all arabs are nuts. But when have we really trusted them? maybe if we just let them be we might be surprised at the result. We already did them a favor by taking out Sadaam now let do them another and get the F out.

they wont have all the power. they are there to help. and we do trust people in Iraq. and at some point we will let them be and be there at the same time. like we are in saudi arabia, kuwait, Qatar, UAE...

TheVoiceInside

jlew24asu wrote:

they wont have all the power. they are there to help. and we do trust people in Iraq. and at some point we will let them be and be there at the same time. like we are in saudi arabia, kuwait, Qatar, UAE...

There is an old joke here in PR. ill try and translate it maybe it wont be as funny but im not trying to get laffs.

An turist arrives in the airport and grabs a cab, he tells the cabbie "take me to the governors mansion" and the cabbie takes him to Admirals quarters in the largerst naval base.

That is the reality. We may have our own goverment and constitution but when the shit hits the fan everyone in this island knows whos the boss.

soulsinging

NCfan wrote:

What do you guys think will happen if we withdrawl from Iraq? I think a civil war would ensue that may take years to define a winner. In the meantime, Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations will have a lawless territory where they can hide and plot against the West. Meanwhile, Iran and Syria will become emboldened and will certainly support the Shia forces fighting in the civil war. Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon or nuclear material which they can give to any terrorist group they wish. Remember, Iran created and sponsors Hizbollah. Seems to me that anyone who thinks Iraq isn't connected to wider geopolitics doesn't know what their talking about. At this point, Iraq isn't about an unlawful war launched by a liar president under false pretenses. It might have been about that in the begining. But at this point, winning in Iraq has much larger implications. We cannot fail there or we will forfeit our position of dominance in the world to terrorists and theocratic states.

So what are your thoughts?

i think the sky will startt falling. the anti-christ will assume control of the middle east and the end times will begin. my children will all get smallpox and my bank will collapse and ill end up homeless. then ill become impotent from the stress of pissing myself about iran all day cos im SO scared of them. and my wife wil leave me for an arabic oil prince. life as we know it will cease to exist.

duh.

old and in the way

FredFlintstone wrote:

I really don't understand this line of thinking. Honestly I don't. How was INVADING iraq a good idea? This thinking was drummed up by a bunch of pseudo intellectuals like Wolfowitz, Feith, perle, Adelman, Kristol, Rumsfeld, etc....who have no military experience or human capital invested in the outcome. Yet the thought we would be welcomed a liberators with flowers....remember that?
When has invading an occupying a country ever worked.


These very dictators you mention above are mainly funded by US arms sales, oil money, and military tehcnology exported by the US.

And I fail to see how invading a country unprovoked and "Shock n Awe" is somehow good for the people of Iraq. They have suffered enough.

Hey Fred, your logic here is fueled by all the common anti- war shallow thinking short sightedness that so many gullible liberals have bought in to. Invading was a good idea for countless reasons but the most pressing was to start to instill some sense of modern and civilized governing in the region. To provide a nation that had run amuck in countless ways a new start and to be that example.To help prevent the ongoing intrusion of fundamental idiocy that is a cancer to society. Your so called psuedo intells are experienced leaders of this nation and I don't want to be represented in the real world by some intellectual that has never had to prove himself in the real world. Your comment about experience and capital invested is just ignorant. We were welcomed as liberators by millions and supported all American Iraqi's as well. The fact that the militaristic fundamentalist have made a stand and rushed to the country to prevent modern governing should be proof that we needed to start this campaign. When has occupation worked you ask, well how about Germany my country of birth, and Japan for starters. How about Panama and Grenada, they all worked. There aren't really very many examples though because we are not INVADERS. We are fixers. The rest of your comments are just socialist pablum. Good day

soulsinging

NCfan wrote:

Yes, the plan to invade and ocupy and ME country was intelectual genious. The problem is, the war planners and the administration completely fucked up the implementation. There is no reason our military couldn't control the country and then allow a political solution to develop.

Just like you said, terrorism can only be defeated by the people. Well, ALL of the people over there are controled by opressive governments who control them and their attitudes through lies and propaganda. The BEST way to influence them is by showing them their are alternatives to theocracy or dictators. Iraq was going to be that example, but we fucked it up.

you know, there was another regime not long ago tht felt they should be the dominant force on the international scene and felt it was perfectly acceptbale to invade whatever country was necessary to effect that. they started with the rhineland and then went on to poland, france, etc. you sound like enough of a testosterone fueled, arrogant, ethnocentric military buff to know how that one turned out.

1) what the fuck do i care if america has a "position of dominance"?

2) when in the history of the world has it been considered acceptable for one country to invade another solely to overthrow its leadership and turn it into a puppet for its own purposes?

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

i think the sky will startt falling. the anti-christ will assume control of the middle east and the end times will begin. my children will all get smallpox and my bank will collapse and ill end up homeless. then ill become impotent from the stress of pissing myself about iran all day cos im SO scared of them. and my wife wil leave me for an arabic oil prince. life as we know it will cease to exist.

duh.

come on soul tell us how you really feel.

hippiemom

jlew24asu wrote:

there's more to it then letting Iraqis fix it themselves. what if they dont and el queda or Iran take over?

better idea is to stay until its fixed correctly. with a united sovereign government. is this possible? I hope so, I dont know yet.

I don't think it's possible to have a unified country. There never was a real Iraq to begin with, it was an artificial construct held together by a strongman. The people there have no sense of themselves as "Iraqis," in the way that we think of ourselves as "Americans" or "Germans" or whatever. Their loyalty is to their own clan, and in a larger sense to their religious group, not to the nation of Iraq. The Shiites will NEVER accept a Sunni government, the Sunnis will NEVER accept a Shiite government, they will never agree to work together, and the Kurds don't want anything to do with either of them. How do you propose uniting these people?

I'm a big believer in cleaning up your own messes, and if I thought there were some way to set this right I'd be in favor of it regardless of how long it might take or how much it might cost. This was one of the great fuck-ups of all time, and I do think we have a responsibility to the people whose country we destroyed. It's just that I've yet to hear one realistic idea of what we can do that might make a real, positive difference without further inflaming the entire region. It may very well be that Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again, and we'll just have to live with the consequences of that.

jlew24asu

hippiemom wrote:

I don't think it's possible to have a unified country. There never was a real Iraq to begin with, it was an artificial construct held together by a strongman. The people there have no sense of themselves as "Iraqis," in the way that we think of ourselves as "Americans" or "Germans" or whatever. Their loyalty is to their own clan, and in a larger sense to their religious group, not to the nation of Iraq. The Shiites will NEVER accept a Sunni government, the Sunnis will NEVER accept a Shiite government, they will never agree to work together, and the Kurds don't want anything to do with either of them. How do you propose uniting these people?

fuck if I know but I will never say never. concessions, restraint, understanding will need to be made on both sides for it to work. can it? I am a little more optimistic than you. but I dont know. they can still hold loyalties while trying to be part of a united government with one common goal of a peaceful strong Iraq. am I dreaming? maybe. but I have never been there, I dont know the people. I do know that shiite and sunnis live in peace in certain parts of the country. thats a good sign.

hippiemom wrote:

I'm a big believer in cleaning up your own messes, and if I thought there were some way to set this right I'd be in favor of it regardless of how long it might take or how much it might cost. This was one of the great fuck-ups of all time, and I do think we have a responsibility to the people whose country we destroyed. It's just that I've yet to hear one realistic idea of what we can do that might make a real, positive difference without further inflaming the entire region. It may very well be that Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again, and we'll just have to live with the consequences of that.

I completely agree. I dont want to cut and run on the mess we made for a few reasons. one being we owe it to the Iraq people to help and 2 its in america's best interest to have a stable Iraq.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

come on soul tell us how you really feel.

that is how i feel. i feel you're all a bunch of cowardly, paranoid war-mongers and that if we pull out of iraq it wont affect me one godamn bit. they will escalate their civil war for a while, then someone will take over. whoop-dee-freaking-do. americans will stop dying over there, iraq will be in the same position they were before we got there, america will have a black eye and look like the dumbasses we were, and life will go on. iran will not change. nor will syria. nor will anything else. my life will not change, and i will not be any less safe than i am now. in fact, it might give us an opportunity to be even safer by deploying our military in a manner that might actually be helpful.

Abuskedti

jlew24asu wrote:

fuck if I know but I will never say never. concessions, restraint, understanding will need to be made on both sides for it to work. can it? I am a little more optimistic than you. but I dont know. they can still hold loyalties while trying to be part of a united government with one common goal of a peaceful strong Iraq. am I dreaming? maybe. but I have never been there, I dont know the people. I do know that shiite and sunnis live in peace in certain parts of the country. thats a good sign.




I completely agree. I dont want to cut and run on the mess we made for a few reasons. one being we owe it to the Iraq people to help and 2 its in america's best interest to have a stable Iraq.

We are currently not doing anything for them.. By patroling some of their main streets, all we provide is more tension.

If we really want to help, we need to send a half million troops or more - and give them a secrure place to work on their future.

If we are not willing to do that, the best we can do for them is leave it to them.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

that is how i feel. i feel you're all a bunch of cowardly, paranoid war-mongers and that if we pull out of iraq it wont affect me one godamn bit. they will escalate their civil war for a while, then someone will take over. whoop-dee-freaking-do. americans will stop dying over there, iraq will be in the same position they were before we got there, america will have a black eye and look like the dumbasses we were, and life will go on. iran will not change. nor will syria. nor will anything else. my life will not change, and i will not be any less safe than i am now. in fact, it might give us an opportunity to be even safer by deploying our military in a manner that might actually be helpful.

cowardly war paranoid war mongers? those are all nice insulting words that prove no point you are trying to make. but i'm happy you dont think you will be affected.

americans might stop dying over there if we leave but they might die somewhere else, like at home.

things will change. Iran and syria will take more control and spread terrorism, build a nuke and give it to whoever will carry it in a suitcase to Israel or america.

soulsinging

jlew24asu wrote:

cowardly war paranoid war mongers? those are all nice insulting words that prove no point you are trying to make. but i'm happy you dont think you will be affected.

americans might stop dying over there if we leave but they might die somewhere else, like at home.

things will change. Iran and syria will take more control and spread terrorism, build a nuke and give it to whoever will carry it in a suitcase to Israel or america.

iran and syria can build a nuke even if we're in iraq. and we can't stop them becos all our troops are tied down in baghdad. iraqis dont like iran any more than we do. shit, any weapons iraq has were given to them by us to fight iran. if iran stepped in and started meddling, iraq would fight back big time. let them. if you're so worried about iran, let iraq fight them for us. oh, right... we dismantled the military and paved the way for iran's takeover. brilliant. the one check on iran has been removed by us. very good decision. in either case, saudi arabis wouldn't let it happen. nor would syria. dont you realize none of them trust each other any more than you or i do? this isn't some concerted muslim war. it's a bunch of fucked up clans who will stab each other in the back at every turn. if we step back, they'll destroy each other.

americans can die anywhere. if the terrorists really wanted to, they could just start blowing up greyhound busses. but they dont care to do that. they like to go for big symbolic gestures. if our intelligence was focused more on protecting our borders than the nonsese in iraq, they'd never get through. they caught us asleep at the wheel and we paid the price. it wont happen again unless we let it. if our military wasn't there, they could be patrolling our borders, airports, and seaways. REAL bomb detecting experts checking luggage. REAL security experts screening passengers. etc etc.

the biggest tragedy of 9/11 was it turned a brave nation into a bunch of cowering pussies afraid of their own shadows. these things you demand are necessary for our security? VERY unpopular in the areas that are actually in danger from the very acts you're so afraid of. if they're not worried about iraq, why should you be?

sapperskunk

I think they'd be ok if it wasn't for Sadr. We should've killed that guy when we had the chance.

jlew24asu

sapperskunk wrote:

I think they'd be ok if it wasn't for Sadr. We should've killed that guy when we had the chance.

was he ever in the cross hairs?

do you think his militia would have gone on an even bigger rampage?

Cosmo

NCfan wrote:

What do you guys think will happen if we withdrawl from Iraq? I think a civil war would ensue that may take years to define a winner. In the meantime, Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations will have a lawless territory where they can hide and plot against the West. Meanwhile, Iran and Syria will become emboldened and will certainly support the Shia forces fighting in the civil war. Iran will obtain a nuclear weapon or nuclear material which they can give to any terrorist group they wish. Remember, Iran created and sponsors Hizbollah. Seems to me that anyone who thinks Iraq isn't connected to wider geopolitics doesn't know what their talking about. At this point, Iraq isn't about an unlawful war launched by a liar president under false pretenses. It might have been about that in the begining. But at this point, winning in Iraq has much larger implications. We cannot fail there or we will forfeit our position of dominance in the world to terrorists and theocratic states.

So what are your thoughts?

...
And us staying there... along this same course is changing anything... how?
...
There is already a Civil War between two differing religious sects.
Al Qeada is already in Iraq... someplace they weren't prior to our invasion.
Syria and Iran are being invited in by the government WE installed.
Iran is on the fast track to nuclear capabilities and our bargaining position has been greatly compromised by our involvement in Iraq.
...
And yes... WE broke it... WE bought it. This mess is ours alone. We were dicks and acted like John Wayne movies and thought the gun was the great problem solver. We found out that complicated problems require complex solutions... just blowing up shit and killing people don't solve a goddamn thing.
...
Guess what? Our Great President has ushered in the period where we have to negotiate with terrorists. We have little options, if any, to get this thing back on track. We are FORCED into a position where we have to sit down with Syria and Iran and speak to them as equals.
...
Now, to fix this thing? SECURITY. The fucking place has to be SECURED before anything else can happen. This means... MORE BOOTS ON THE GROUND. Not bullshit, Iraqi Death Squad boots... not bullshit Iraqi this is a job, I quit boots... not bullshit Iraqi former Republican Guard and Fedayen Fighter troops that are waiting for that assignment to stand guard over the ammo depot boots... QUALITY BOOTS.
We need cooperation from the neighboring Arab Nations. They don't want a Civil War flushing refugees into their borders. Except in the case of Syria, where over a million Iraqis (the smart ones and the ones with money) went. The ones left in Iraq are the ones who want to fight or are are too poor to move out or are too dumb to do anything else.
Finally... this thing is going to cost YOU money... LOTS AND LOTS of money. We see what 500 Billion has bought us so far... think in the Trillions... possibly upwards to 2.5 trillion to get out of this mess. There goes your precious tax cuts.
...
This is going to be President George W. Bush's legacy.

sapperskunk

jlew24asu wrote:

was he ever in the cross hairs?

do you think his militia would have gone on an even bigger rampage?

Absolutely he was, in 2003 I witnessed a conversation between a couple of Colonels on the matter. This is right after the name was changed from Saddam city, there was a brief period before Sadr got as big as he is. And all of this was long before anybody stateside had ever heard this guys name. And he had followers then but in no way the militia he has now, so repurcussions would have been minimal.

jlew24asu

sapperskunk wrote:

Absolutely he was, in 2003 I witnessed a conversation between a couple of Colonels on the matter. This is right after the name was changed from Saddam city, there was a brief period before Sadr got as big as he is. And all of this was long before anybody stateside had ever heard this guys name. And he had followers then but in no way the militia he has now, so repurcussions would have been minimal.

damn that sucks. i agree with you. he should have been taken out, then. now might cause some serious problems. but in the long rn might be for the best. I'm just guessing.