Complete withdraw from Iraq: naive thinking.

[malatesta1137]

Yesterday a poster here answered with a 'sigh' when I defended Kerry's position on Iraq. The poster suggested replacing soldiers with social-workers. That's why Kucinich or Nader can barely get 2% of votes each. Will social workers be able to fight al-Qaida?

Thanks to Bush's war crimes, al-Qaida has now settled in the country. Unfortunately the US opened a can of worms and soldiers are an evil necessary there. They weren't before the invasion, but they are now.

The US must spend billions rebuilding the country and billions recompensating families. Soldiers must remain there, not to kill and torture, but to ensure that Bush's mess gets cleaned-up.

[Walt Starr]

1. I disagree 100%

Bring the troops home, not a year from now, not a month from now, not a week from now, not a day from now, not an hour from now.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!!! Staying any additional time only compounds the illegal action. The war was illegal, ergo the occupation is illegal.

[sangh0]

31. More wisdom from Walt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1486785#1487792

in the real world Kerry is failing miserably

Kerry is now leading Bush*. Some failure

[kiahzero]

51. I've got a great idea!

Let's pull out! Power vacuums always turn out great for civilians without personal armies!

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

64. Bring the troops home NOW

Screw it. The Iraqis don't want us there. We don't belong there, and removing our forces will force the U.N. to take the reigns.

Bringthemhomenow!

[kiahzero]

66. There's that liberal compassion

That's right... screw the Iraqis. Who cares how many more innocents will die in a power struggle, and how their human rights will be abused by the inevitably dictatorial winner? Certainly not you, from what you've said.

and removing our forces will force the U.N. to take the reigns.

Not likely. Someone on the Security Council would probably veto, and even if it did get through, what would a UN force look like without United States participation?

[Walt Starr]

68. We cannot win with our forces there, we will only lost more American lives

What part of THE IRAQIS DON'T WANT US THERE don't you understand?

[kiahzero]

72. "We cannot win" - win what?

You seem to be the only person who's talking about "winning."

Unless you buy the bullshit coming out of the Administration that the attacks on the troops are by Saddam loyalists, the 'war' is already won; the enemy government has been toppled.

The idea now is to make sure Iraq doesn't turn into another Afghanistan or Somalia. The consequences of that would be devestating, not only to Iraqis, but also to the world at large. Failed states easily become havens for terrorists (due to the lack of a powerful central government that can attack them); an oil-rich failed state could pose an enormous threat.

My biggest fear about Iraq is that Kerry will do what you advocate - pull out immediately. That course of action would almost guarantee that in another twenty years down the line, we'll face another terrorist threat like al Qaeda.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. If we had supported Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out, we could have prevented some of the impetus for terrorism. If we had not abandoned the Iraqi people when they took Bush I's advice and rose up against Saddam, we would almost certainly not be dealing with the level of anti-Americanism that we deal with today.

Personally, I think we should learn from those mistakes rather than repeat them.

[Walt Starr]

73. The war was LOST the instant we started shelling them

and we will never WIN the war with an occupation.

[kiahzero]

74. I'll ask again - Win what?

You clearly disagree with my usage of 'win', so in what context are you using it? What is the goal?

[lanparty]

80. We can't help them ...

They can only help themselves at this point. We spent to long deluding ourselves into believing we could help the Vietnamese and Koreans. We only made things worse.

The Iraqis have to determine their fate at this point. If they want help we should offer it. If they ask us to leave, we should.

[truthspeaker]

2. You have two assertions to back up with evidence:

1) That Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. I have seen little evidence of this.

2) Assuming #1 is true, that Iraqi leaders and militias are incapable of combatting defending Iraq from Al Qaeda on their own.

Obviously the idea to send social workers is ridiculous. But the idea that US troops can bring stability to Iraq is equally ridiculous, because the primary cause of instability in Iraq is the presence of US troops.

[jpgray]

3. True, but leave Iraq without any kind of security force,

And we'll exchange one bloody destabilizer for another. In fact, it is very possible that Iraq's neighbors, notably Turkey and Iran, would take advantage of a defenseless and chaotic Iraq. Turkey has long experience with tramping on the Kurds, and Iran wouldn't mind annexing the Shia area of Iraq one bit.

[truthspeaker]

6. but we do not have a security force to put in there

The US forces are not trained as peacekeepers. Moreover, there is no way in hell Iraqis will trust US troops now. We blew that chance a year ago.

[jpgray]

8. It would have to be an Iraqi force--even local militia

Just some degree of territorial security so we don't have a repeat of what happened in the Congo.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Congo? Apples and oranges

You're comparing cultural and ethnic sensibilities between the most modernized Arab state in the world (at least prior to 1990) possessing a strong sense of nationalism and a relatively undeveloped, non-industrialized African state with a history of colonial exploitation bereft of any form of nationalism.

The comparison is rather far fetched when viewed in that context, is it not? To suggest that the tragedy in Congo repeat itself in Iraq is pure speculation devoid of actual historical parallels.

[jpgray]

28. Not a direct comparison

When you are a country in chaos with rich natural resources and no border security, your neighbors WILL take advantage--no pretense of 'civilization' or 'nationalism' makes much difference in this regard.

[IrateCitizen]

30. OK, now I get what you're suggesting

I was thinking in terms of internal strife. You're talking about external intervention.

In any case, I have to say I agree with aquart's post below. If that's the way things resolve themselves, that's the way they resolve themselves. It certainly is preferable in the long run to attempting to maintain an artificial construct through outsider intervention.

The big difference between the two scenarios is that the Middle East is currently going through its modernization process. Central Africa is not. The impact of this reality on the short term is minimal -- but it is highly significant when you think about long-term implications, and gives the hope for a much brighter future (even if none of us live to see it).

[jpgray]

34. Yes--either way, we have to go

And no matter what, we will eventually. But I didn't mean to indirectly discount your points about the differences of Iraq and central Africa in my earlier post. Certainly Iraq is far more modernized and socially cohesive, and you're absolutely right that those factors will help Iraq to have a brighter immediate future than the Congo.

edit: Ibn Khaldun would tell me to be more careful about my historical analogies. :D

[libcurious]

42. Wrong

Just because the war was unjust, the administration sucks and 10-20 soldiers were asses, does not mean ALL Iraqis distrust our soldiers. I have many friends over there and their reports are much different than what you see and hear from the media.

[aquart]

13. Which would be fine.

Iran IS Shia. Turkey is nervous about its own Kurds wanting to split off. Better to unite the whole bunch and then deal with them. I have every confidence in Kurdish determination.

Iraq is a completely artificial construct. There is nothing sacred about it.

Iran has been moving toward liberalizing its policies. Which might make it a better influence than Sadr as new dictator.

What concerns us is the oil and the oil contracts. We need stable units in the ME to ensure the flow of oil.

Will people die? Umm, yeah. But the end result might be a lot more natural than what they've got now.

And it's not like there's peace over there now. Or even electricity.

[jpgray]

14. Yes, Iran is host to many Iraqi religious leaders as well

And that's certainly one argument for just letting this thing resolve itself as it inevitably will, no matter what we do. But when something of this sort happens during a Kerry admin (and it will, unless he loses his mind and escalates things), he will get no end of crap for it.

But we should say that in either case, the Sunnis have the potential to get jobbed pretty good.

[rucky]

4. We could go in circles for days about this

We invade Iraq which brings in Al-Quaeda.

Al-Quaeda's presence necessitates more troops, which brings in more resistance, which necessitates more troops... soon Bush is right & the battleground for the "war on terror" IS Iraq. But this "war on terror" just keeps getting bigger.

Think about this: it's not like these "Al-Quaeda" people are born Al-Quaedese. It's an ideology that feeds off of the threat of Western militarism & hegemony. The greater the threat, the greater the growth of resistance. The empire-builders need Al-Quaeda & they need the empire-buliders. So remove the troops, remove the threat. Remove the threat, remove the resistance movement. Of course it's more complicated than that, but we're talking about getting to the root here.

[aquart]

5. Social workers? Ridiculous.

NOTHING of ours is acceptable or will be allowed. We need to go. We can't clean up the mess because anything we do will be destroyed. We are the enemy. We are the occupiers. We are the torturers and killers.

If you don't get that, you still don't know what's going on in Iraq.

[rucky]

9. The Red Crescent?! A threat?!

the control freaks occupying Iraq won't let them do their job.

don't tell me they're as big of a threat as our boys in uniform

[Webster Green]

7. Sigh...

The resistance in Iraq is due to the US occupation. Who says they are Al Qaida? I don't believe anything I hear from ChimpCo Inc.

Just because hardly anybody hears what Kucinich and Nader are saying, it doesn't mean they are wrong. Perhaps the majority are in denial, or brainwashed, or both, or just plain stupid.

More occupation will only bring more killing and misery.

[bloom]

10. I also disagree 100%

"The US must spend billions rebuilding the country and billions recompensating families." is not a reason for us to be there. I'm sure they would rather have the jobs instead of Halibuton and Co. They could rebuild their country - with our money - more efficiently than we can.


People are less safe being "protected" by our military than without them (according to someone who has been there).

[Solidarity]

11. You Have No Say In Iraq's Future

Bush's corporate friends had hoped to make billions in profits in "reconstructing" Iraq. Their dreams of corporate conquest will now come crashing down.

The idea that either the Bush government or a Kerry Administration will spend billions to compensate Iraqi victims of the war is a pipedream. It won't happen.

You may want to control the destiny of Iraq but that is up to the people of Iraq to decide, not you. They have a right to self-determination and independence from colonial rule. Now you may not like it, but that's just too bad and that's the way it's going to be.

I agree. Bring our troops home now and let the Iraqi people decide what form of government and type of economy they want. It's not up to you or other Americans to decide their fate.

[lanparty]

81. Well Halliburton ...

Has probably ALREADY made millions. Collecting BILLIONS for shoddy work and fake trucking, overpriced oil and sub-standard housing is their motto.

[info being]

12. Yes, so that's what the television tells us. Sigh.

[troublemaker]

15. Don't get too discouraged

Your sensible view isn't going to make many friends around here, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. (It also doesn't mean you are right, of course.)

Readers of these posts outnumber active posters by a stupendous ratio. Just keep in mind that posters are not necessarily reflective of the average views of readers. Active posters (on average) have a tendency toward strong and contrarian views, a desire to get their adrenaline up and a passion for constant reaffirmation of their self-estimation through repetition of simplistic dogma and sometimes through a hostile pack-mentality show of aggression toward the enemy of the moment. This is not a comment on any replys in this particular thread... just a general observation about posters vs. lurkers. Of course we are not able to read the minds of lurkers, but it's common sense... people that write letters to newspapers are presumed to have stronger views and a more combative nature than those who don't, etc..

[IrateCitizen]

26. The problem with your analysis in this case...

... is that it is the original poster who is presenting an argument without any factual backup or historical trend to support his/her claim. Then, the initial poster went on to berate those who suggest otherwise as being unrealistic or naive.

Do you honestly think that the statement equivocating the withdraw of troops to their replacement with "social workers" to be the hallmark of productive or illuminating discourse? Please.

If I wanted the viewpoint presented by the initial poster, I'd turn on my TV to the cable news talking heads. It's not original, and its based in an underlying hubris that is quite unattractive to a detached perspective.

[malatesta1137]

16. Americans created this bloody mess

they HAVE to stay and clean this shit up. Leaving is the coward's way. Very convenient to just kill, destroy, rape, burn and torture and just leave like nothing happened. So typical and so American.

on edit: if anyone needs proof tha al-Qaida is not in Iraq now because of the American invasion, they also need proof that men walked on the moon.

[IrateCitizen]

23. You're being completely disingenuous here

Leaving is the coward's way. Very convenient to just kill, destroy, rape, burn and torture and just leave like nothing happened. So typical and so American.

Withdrawing militarily is not the same as abandonment. It's the height of disingenuity for you to portray it as such, when countless others (myself included) have set the record straight on this issue.

US troops are an occupying power. After the way that the past year has been handled, and the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib, what leads you in your right mind to believe that the Iraqis will EVER think that US troops are there for their benefit? What is important here is not how Americans view the troops presence, but how Iraqis view it. All I can say is that the US's reputation has been damaged beyond repair in Iraq.

However, taking troops out of the country is not the same as abandoning it. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq was perhaps the most modernized country in the Middle East (outside of Israel) prior to the Gulf War, and our subsequent bombing of it for 12 years until it was placed firmly back in the stone age. But it's not like all those engineers, technicians, scientists and skilled laborers were swept out of the country. They're still there. And it's by providing funds and allowing them to do the work that the country will be rebuilt.

US troops are not preventing chaos in Iraq -- they have become the primary CAUSE of the chaos. It will not subside until they are gone.

on edit: if anyone needs proof tha al-Qaida is not in Iraq now because of the American invasion, they also need proof that men walked on the moon.

Do you commonly invoke extreme hyperbole to support your arguments? If so, I'd advise you to adopt a new strategy, because this one isn't very persuasive.

Al Qaeda is immaterial in this equation. Its very existence is the result of two phenomena: first, the natural modernization process of the Islamic world, something that is happening outside of any kind of significant Western influence; and second, the direct invervention in the Islamic world by the West (mostly the United States) for the purpose of maintaining control over petroleum reserves. If the second part of that equation were removed, then the majority of al Qaeda's activity would be directed at the sources of Arab modernization as it (al Qaeda, not modernization) gradually fizzled out.

[truthspeaker]

24. so, you don't have any evidence that Al Qaeda is in Iraq then?

[malatesta1137]

29. here, brainy:

Abu Musab Zarqawi blamed for more than 700 killings in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

[truthspeaker]

32. ah yes, the objective MSNBC news

[malatesta1137]

41. very naive the one

who thinks because of Bush's illegal invasion, al-Qaida has not been operating in Iraq. What planet are you on?

[IrateCitizen]

33. And our military presence there is to force them out how, exactly?

It seems to me that al Qaeda wasn't really in Iraq much until we moved in.

[Minstrel Boy]

36. You're just reflecting the wilfull ignorance of the mainstream media.

It's lazy and misleading to call al-Zarqawi "al Qaeda". He's Ansar al-Islam, which operated in the northern no-fly zone, which was a virtual US protectorate.

The founder of Ansar al-Islam is Mullah Krekar. He lives in Norway, and the United States has not sought his extradition.

What's more, here's a headline for you:

Ansar al-Islam leader threatens to document his links to US

DUBAI, Feb 1 2003 (AFP) - The suspected leader of a Kurdish Islamic extremist group threatened in an interview published Saturday to produce evidence of his contacts with Washington prior to the September 11 suicide hijackings.

"I have in my possession irrefutable evidence against the Americans and I am prepared to supply it ... if (the United States) tries to implicate me in an affair linked to terrorism," Mullah Krekar, who is believed to front Ansar al-Islam, told Al-Hayat newspaper.

He dismissed as "fabrications" reports linking his group to Al-Qaeda, saying they were designed to justify a strike against Iraq.

"I had a meeting with a CIA representative and someone from the American army in the town of Sulaymaniya (Iraqi Kurdistan) at the end of 2000. They asked us to collaborate with them ... but we refused to do so," he said.
www.lightscion.com/krekar.htm

And here:

"The Mullah claims he had a secret meeting with the CIA and US military personnel in Iraqi Kurdistan last year. Could this explain why US intelligence agencies were reportedly so concerned about Powell raising Ansar al-Islam as one of the key connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda?"

video interview available here:
http://www.insightnewstv.com/d80 /

Spare us all another disingenuous White Man's Burden under the self-righteous guise of "cleaning up the mess we made."

[goodhue]

17. www.bringthemhomenow.org

http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/

The key to any resolution of the situation in Iraq is the removal of U.S. military control. As long as the US occupation of Iraq continues, so will Iraqi resistance and widespread suffering. Only when the US agrees in principle to a rapid withdrawal of all troops can there be any true discussion of the steps that are necessary to make a quick transition to self-rule by the Iraqis.

[greatauntoftriplets]

18. Read Rashid Khalidi's book "Resurrecting Empire".

Chapter 1 explores Westerners' lack of knowledge and recall of the history of European/American intervention in and control of nations in the Middle East. Then come back and tell me "staying the course" isn't a suicide mission.

[H2O Man]

19. #1: Halliburton out now.

If Halliburton was out today, would bush & cheney be interested in Iraq? No. But, of course, our interests as well as Iraq's and the world's are not defined by Halliburton, bush, & cheney.

Are soldiers and/or social workers the only viable options? Of course not. Can we be serious about peace & democracy in Iraq when we don't hear what the cleric Sadr is saying? No. Is it possible to find anyone in America who can communicate with Sadr? Yes. Let's start with the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Let's look elsewhere. Nelson Mandela. We have many, many options. It's important to examine the whole picture here .... although to do so, we must step out of the frame.

[Malva Zebrina]

20. Some of us were adamant in signing a petition that began:

Not in my name.

I don't care if NO ONE thinks we should pull out of Iraq, I still think we should and I think we should give everything that we took from them by murder, killing and force, back to the Iraqi people

Don't you think they should get back all of their country, including all of those oil wells that have been taken from them by Halliburton, Bronwn and Root? Or do you think they rightfully belong to Halliburton, Brown and Root because , as the conventional wisdom goes, NOW THAT WE ARE THERE WE MAY AS WELL NOW TRY TO FIX ALL THOSE THINGS WE WANTED TO TAKE AND TAKE IT ALL WHILE WE ARE THERE and we should defineately bring democracy to the country--in a few years hence--after we finish taking everything from them.

Don't you think that a people who did not pose a threat to this bullying powerful nation that lied their asses off to us and to the world, in order to get the oil away from them, should by all that is decent, admit their covetous nature, and GIVE IT ALL BACK TO THEM? With an apology? Isn't that what we teach our children? How do we teach the children now? To kill and murder on lies, and then after we have totally destroyed the country and thousands of it's people posit the notion that we really should stay the course there, build a huge embassy, and fourteen military bases because we OWE IT TO THEM


you know as well as I--no one is going to do anything that would tak a damn thing away from Halliburton and the rest of the 200 corporations that established themself there, and have even had it written in the constution that their rights to that spoils is protected and cannot be removed. That is the nature of the United STates of American. More specifically, it is the nature of fascism , empire and greed on the part of evil men.

[donsu]

21. disagree - bring the troops home now; no huge embassy

the Iraqi people are smart enought to fix their country.

if they need help, they will ask.

when we leave, the only thing we should leave behind (besides legs, arms, hands, feet, eyes, burnt skin,peace of mind, etc) is money for the damage we did.

[Bandit]

22. The exact same thing was said about Vietnam

It was proved wrong then as it will be now also. These people are not children. Why are Americans so condescending? They are quite capable of taking care of themselves and their country without the "Almighty" USA. americans have to get over their superiority complex. We are not the only ones in the world able to do things.

[Monte Carlo]

37. Power vacuums are filled by those with the guns.

It has nothing to do with condescension. There are too many gangs and rival factions over in that area right now to leave the regular people at their mercy.

[truthspeaker]

38. yeah, and the biggest gang is us

How will the presence of US troops help? Can one of you pro-occupation people answer me that?

[Monte Carlo]

45. That's goddamned right.

We are the biggest gang. Don't be ashamed about it.

They help because they keep the numerous smaller gangs at bay. It's really that simple. The troops aren't there to slaughter the Sunni loyalists to Saddam, or expel the infidel Shi'ites from Iraq, or anything like that.

[truthspeaker]

46. I shouldn't be ashamed that my country is occuping another illegally?

I shouldn't be ashamed that US soldiers were ordered to torture prisoners?

I shouldn't be ashamed that US corporations are robbing Iraq blind while Iraqis can't get jobs or even leave their homes safely?

I should, what, be proud of all this?

[Monte Carlo]

49. You should accept it, get over yourself, and move on.

This is a FUBAR situation, but it is OUR situation, so we need to deal with it and not indulge in some national sense of shame and self-pity.

[IrateCitizen]

54. No, it isn't OUR situation

What is going on in Iraq doesn't affect me personally in my day-to-day life. Nor does it probably affect you. We're all still comfortable, a world away from it.

Who it does affect is Iraqis -- therefore, it should be completely up to Iraqis as to what the course of action is.

In speaking with journalists who have been there, and also from the post of one of our expat DUers living in the Middle East, it is becoming more evident that the Iraqis just want us GONE.

If they want us gone, then that's what we should do. After all, it's the Iraqis who are most affected by all of this.

[Monte Carlo]

60. Wanna bet?

Sure, wars have gotten comfortable for you and I from this vantage point, but don't say it doesn't affect us. Those troops over there wear American flags and uniforms, its our taxes that are paying for this whole thing, and it's our troops who are being killed and maimed over there. It affects both of us.

The Iraqis want us gone and we want to leave, but it is not that simple. There are more than two players in this production.

[IrateCitizen]

50. Our "gang" only creates instability to drum up protection rackets

We don't provide stability. We inhibit it in order to advance our selfish interests.

It's points of view like yours, susceptible to nationalistic hubris, that will eventually create the downfall of our already hollowed-out nation. While it may be difficult for many of us, I guarantee you that the majority of the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh of relief.

[Bandit]

44. I find that a very condescending statement

Let the Iraqi people take care of themselves. They have police and if one strongman takes over so what? Eventually one side will win out just as happened in Somalia. Why aren't you advocating us to return to Somalia? These people are not children. They have every right to determine their own future without the USA dictating how it will be.

[Monte Carlo]

48. But we're already involved, and we can't turn back time.

I would have picked a better example for a desireable turnout than Somalia. We don't want to repeat that again. So what if some strongman takes over!? Are you that callous?

We are now responsible for Iraq's future because we are in charge. We are not going to leave them to their fate because we have some moral issue with how we got here; what's done is done.

No, they DON'T have police. All they have is American equipment and training that is keeping them from being obsolete.

The Iraqi people are not children, but they are also not used to the idea of democratic rule. Something like that needs a common popular foundation that Saddam just didn't allow.

[Bandit]

55. Tell me where in the Middle East that a Strongman doesn't rule?

Whether they go by King or Prince or just Ruler they are all dictators. Not one of them live in a democracy. So why would I be callous if I allowed the same for Iraq as all Arab countries live under? What has Somalia done lately that has shown they are unable to govern themselves? With your viewpoint we should be in every single country that is not a Democracy because they are being ruled by strongmen.

[IrateCitizen]

57. Actually, there is one that is working away from a "strongman"

That would be Iran.

Now, I'm not going to sing the praises of the ruling theocracy there -- but out of all of the nations of the Middle East, it is the one that is most moving toward an eventual form of democracy, albeit one that will likely be different from Anglo-Saxon democracy.

And imagine -- it did this in the period AFTER it kicked the US the hell out of their country, so that they could proceed with modernization in their own way.

Surely there isn't a lesson to be learned here, is there?

[Monte Carlo]

58. Some despots are less enlightened than others.

They are not all the same just because they're all dictators. Some are more liberal than others, like in Kuwait or Qatar. I'm not content to leave them to another Saddam and say it's all the same, anyway.

>>What has Somalia done lately that has shown they are unable to govern themselves?<<

The fact that they don't would be my first guess.

>>With your viewpoint we should be in every single country that is not a Democracy...<<

Do you just use the same lines against everyone who disagrees with you, whether they think slaughtering Muslims is a good idea, or they just want to get the troops out without letting Iraq descend into chaos? It sure sounds like it.

[kiahzero]

62. You've forgotten a major player in all this

I'll give you a hint - it's a next-door neighbor to Iraq.

Turkey.

Kinda puts a hole in that "they are all dictators" line, doesn't it?

[apathy]

27. When are you enlisting in the army?

or only OTHER people and their kids supposed to die for Bush?

[Monte Carlo]

35. Absolutely. Groups in Iraq have their own ideas for Iraq's future.

Whether it be al-Queda, the Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites, al-Sadr, the Ayatollah, or just some local warlord, Iraq without the U.S. military there to stabilize it would very likely fall into ethnic-religious conflicts, civil war, and despots. The occupation is bad, but an all-at-once pull out of our troops would be worse.

[truthspeaker]

40. How much did the CIA pay you to say that?

Civil war is imminent! Because I say so! US troops can stabilize things in the future, even though they're destabilizing them now!

I bet Germans were saying that in 1944. "But if we pull out, France will descend into civil war! We owe it to the French people to provide stability!"

[Monte Carlo]

53. Spare us the drama about the CIA.

Do you think that the Sunnis and the Shi'ite militants in the area are just going to sit down and work things out on their own? I mean, let's get real here.

That's just it, we ARE stablizing things now. Just because things suck in Iraq right now doesn't mean its not stable. Things can become unstable and get a whole lot worse.

[IrateCitizen]

43. Unbelievable...

Iraq without the U.S. military there to stabilize it...

Is that what you call what's going on right now? The hubris in your statement is quite amazing, suggesting that it is only through US intervention that stability can be achieved.

If anything, it would be achieved in SPITE of US intervention. And the prospects for a better long-term future are still much, much better without a US military presence -- even if there is some short-term discord and discontent.

[Monte Carlo]

56. Maybe just unpalatable.

>>Is that what you call what's going on right now?<<

Yes.

>>The hubris in your statement is quite amazing...<<

Thank you.

>>...suggesting that it is only through US intervention that stability can be achieved.<<

That's your contribution, pal, not mine. The US has already intervened and we are now committed. Even if Kerry wins and the UN is brought in, its going to be mostly US troops on the ground doing the hard work. Total withdrawl now is a daydream.

[IrateCitizen]

59. Unpalatable is too mild. I'd say it's more like insanity.

But hey, if it makes you sleep well at night placing confidence in military involvement against the resistance of a native populace, then go right ahead.

I'll still call it what it has been proven to be throughout history -- hubris. And that's hardly a compliment.

[Monte Carlo]

61. Welcome aboard.

>>But hey, if it makes you sleep well at night placing confidence in military involvement against the resistance of a native populace, then go right ahead.<<

It doesn't, but it is what it is.

>>I'll still call it what it has been proven to be throughout history -- hubris. And that's hardly a compliment.<<

You keep talking as if you are above and beyond all of this. As long as you are an American, you aren't.

[IrateCitizen]

63. That's right -- that's why it's my duty to do what I can to stop it

Apparently, you view it as your responsibility to endorse it -- not the invasion, but the subsequent occupation.

That's why I feel like I'm speaking a totally different language than you are. Any further conversation between us on this issue is useless.

[Monte Carlo]

67. What I want matters very little.

The American occupation of Iraq is what it is, and I am responsible for it because I am an American, regardless whether I want the troops out now or I want them to invade Iran too while they're in the area.

Before you write this conversation off as hopeless, let me say that I think that we have more common ground than is apparent in this thread.

[eridani]

76. When did you start thinking that the US was 'stabilizing' Iraq?

It isn't irresponsible to suggest that if you are pouring water onto an electrical fire, then you ought to stop doing that.

[lanparty]

84. Nope ..

Those groups all have their own ideas about their future. And if we deny them the right to kill each other, they'll just try to kill us. Sorry, but the blood WILL flow. The only difference is whether it's Iraqis killing Iraqis killing Americans and vice-versa.

[T_i_B]

39. This reminds me of Monday

Monday I had this exact same argument with a member of the RESPECT coalition. I tend towards the viewpoint that the US/UK presence should be replaced by the United Nations. They are not perfect, but they do represent something of a least worst option.

And even that cannot change my view that we made a mistake by invading in the first place.

[JCMach1]

47. Naive thinking the Iraqis want us there...

sad but true...

They want us GONE, period... so long and thanks for all the fish.

At least that's what every Iraqi I know tells me...

which is quite a few.

[RetroLounge]

52. Whatever

:boring:

RL

[thebigidea]

65. I can only hope that I stay naive, far from the "realism"...

... that gave us this war and occupation to begin with. Good luck with it.

[methinks2]

69. and around and around we go

Every day we stay perpetuates the problem. We don't want to be left with the next Palestine. Which is exactly what Iraq will become.

[welshTerrier2]

70. Yikes ...someone is indeed naive ...

first, a minor point ... you stated: That's why Kucinich or Nader can barely get 2% of votes each.

what does this imply ... if your point is to suggest that Kucinich and Nader are so out of touch that the very wise electorate will not support their foolish policies, how do you explain the fact that these very wise voters are the same voters that overwhelmingly supported going into Iraq in the first place ... the confidence you seem to have expressed in the electorate seems a little misplaced ...

as to your central point: Soldiers must remain there, not to kill and torture, but to ensure that Bush's mess gets cleaned-up.

the "mess" that needs to get cleaned-up is the U.S. military occupation of a sovereign nation ... we have met the enemy and they are us ... implicit in your argument is that the Iraqis will ever accept military occupation as a path to peace ... this is simply not the case ... also implicit in your argument is the idea that we can "stay the course" until the Iraqis are strong enough to govern themselves ... our mere presence there is clearly making things far less stable, not more stable ...

what appears naive to me is to believe that we can impose order on a country we don't really understand ... it seems naive to believe that civil war is not inevitable in Iraq ... it seems naive to me that after all the WMD lies, after all the damage the U.S. has done to the innocent civilian population, after the criminal treatment of Iraqi prisoners, after the poisoning of the country with depleted uranium and after years of starving innocent civilians in the hope that they would overthrow Saddam, that anyone believes the U.S. could ever have an inkling of credibility with the Iraqi people ...

The U.S. must withdraw militarily from Iraq ... if a "negotiated occupation" can be worked out with other Arab countries, that might be worth a try although I'm skeptical of the outcome ... but continued U.S. military occupation sounds pretty naive to me ... our obligations must take the form of humanitarian aid ... more of the same policies in Iraq will only lead to more of the same failed results ...

[whosinpower]

71. Catch-22

As long as US soldiers are stationed in Iraq - Al qaida WILL be there. And in that regard, the mess will NEVER be cleaned up.....which is precisely according to plan. The plan is not for stability or security. WAKE UP! There is far far far more money to be made on the INSTABILITY. It is exactly what the military/defense/industrial complex wants....peace just isn't profitable for them. This is the only industry (other than the oil industry)that is thriving and experiencing record growth today.

How many permanent US military bases are currently under construction in Iraq? The US is NEVER leaving Iraq.

US soldiers cannot clean up this, nor will their occupation ensure that a clean up will occur. Just how stupid do you think the average Iraqi is? The US groomed and tailored Saddam to be what he was. They provided him with the very tools that Saddam was later condemned for seeking. They gave Saddam weaponry to fight Iran. Do you think the Iraqi people will just roll over and thank the US for getting rid of the dictator they helped? Do you think that just because we no longer "hear" about the prisoner torture scandal, that it no longer occurs? Do you think the Iraqi people have that short an attention span that they will embrace US ideology today, even though it was only yesterday that these same Americans were shown to be committing torture and rape to their own kind?

Sorry for the rant - I strongly disagreed with the rational to war in Iraq in the first place. I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF NEVERENDING WAR - and that is what is facing the US today. This war is evolving into something far far more grave than disposing of a third rate, burned out, contained dictator. I condemn Bush for leading the nation into this abyss. And I fear that the farther we stroll this path, the less likely we will ever find our way out again.

[bemildred]

75. Complete withdrawal from VietNam: naive thinking.

The notion that you can fix a botch by botching it
some more is what's naive. Lots of colonial experiments
have been abandoned precipitously. Mr. Kerry's position
is political, not practical. He will get us out of Iraq
because he will have no choice.

[Karenina]

77. America will withdraw.

The only question is how much more death and destruction will occur before they do.

[Solidarity]

78. Troops Will Be Pulled Out Of Iraq

The United States government will be forced at some point to withdraw from Iraq be it under Bush or John Kerry. Just like what happened in Vietnam.

The question is how many more GI's shall lose their lives in vain before that happens.

[lanparty]

85. It's encouraging ...

That we are skipping 10 years of bloodshed and going straight to "why can't the Iraqis fight their own wars?" This was the ultimate Nixon solution (one he knew wouldn't work).

Give them a chance to help themselves and get the hell out. Otherwise, they will turn on you.

[bemildred]

79. My own opinion, which I posted once before,

is that we'll get out in one of two ways:

1.) The Iraqi resistance finishes kicking us out (military
collapse of the ground forces, or the threat of it). This can
happen in several ways.

2.) The anti-war resistance at home grows strong enough (politically)
to threaten the rule of the two-party duopoly and it becomes
necessary to defuse it by ending the war (as in the VietNam exit).

The interaction between events in Iraq and events at home makes
for an unpredictable situation on a day-to-day basis, but there
is no way this ever gets much better than it is now. If we show
the slightest sign of getting a handle on things there, you may
be sure that a number of other players will make it their business
to see that the resistance has plenty of manpower and the right
sort of armaments. Having pulled this on the Russians in Afghanistan,
you'd think we could see how it's going to go.

[Saeba]

82. "Staying in Iraq: American thinking."

I’ve at least find the 2K bug, the USA at whole went back to the beginning of the 20th century. It’s amazing to see some “progressives” using colonialist speech. Do Americans know that time of empire is over? It simply doesn’t work anymore. Even the powerful and merciless China has not succeeded in absorbing the minuscule Tibet (also to “protect” people from religion), and this after 40 years. Yes of course they control the country but they have not removed the aspiration to freedom from its inhabitants.

But be happy, you will stay in Iraq, at least for a time. At the end US will have to leave, and its pseudo-reforms will disappear with the end of occupation. No one can avert the right of people to self-determination, not in the long way.

Then pursue the course and try imposing US culture to Iraq. Feed al-qaida with more hate and frustration. But never forget that each time that US buries an Iraqi, it digs a little deeper its own grave by creating more enemies. Ghosts of the past haunt you for a long time, believe me...

However I guess that it can't be help. People have right to self-determination, even if it’s to follow stupid path, even the USA…

[KG]

83. why isn't the wishes of the iraqis ever taken into account?