as a PRACTICAL matter, is a withdrawal from iraq a good thing?

[unblock]

or does it merely make an invasion of IRAN that much more likely.

i'll take it for granted that we can all agree that putting an end to the neo-con oil war adventurism is a good thing. but if we stop the war with iraq and leave the neo-cons in charge, perhaps all we'll wind up accomplishing is freeing up military resources for an attack on iran?

think of it this way: if there's a withdrawal from iraq within, say, six months, then what on earth will shrub do with the rest of his term??? much as we'd like him to wallow in ineffectual, low-approval nothingness, the neo-cons do NOT have a track record of doing nothing.

i am very much opposed to the adventurism in the mid-oil east, but i am worried that once we see the neo-cons' next move, we might regret not forcing their hand to remain in iraq until the clock runs out on their power.

[Kagemusha]

1. OK, in the sense that you asked the question...

there is just no practical way of invading Iran except from Iraq. The only other ways would be through Afganistan, Pakistan, or Turkey, all of which mean mountains, lots and lots of mountains, both on friendly and enemy sides, and the US Army will not cope. Not that it's easy to invade Iran from Iraq. If you recall, the Iraqis themselves tried that and didn't have a fun time, and ended up fighting for much of the war to regain territory of their own that was relatively flat. So unless it's through Iraq, invading Iran is just not going to happen. Not any invasion worth using the word.

[unblock]

3. well, i would seriously doubt that any withdrawal from iraq would be 100%

i can't imagine the military not wanting to cling on to at least ONE military base on iraqi soil, if only to avoid the image of complete defeat. and then, of course, also providing a base for invasion of iran.

[shraby]

9. Having just one base would endanger the

relatively few soldiers who would be at that base. Better to just totally leave.

[mcctatas]

2. I'm sure that this will be an unpopular opinon...

but I sincerely fear that our withdrawal now would only lead to Iraq as a failed state, which would finally make it the danger that the bushies purported it to be pre-invasion. Iran aside, we need to at the very least stay until Iraq has some sort of infrastructure restored and a functioning government. Democracy in Iraq is a pipe dream, we have probably only removed Saddam to have him replaced by another of the same ilk (dictators are like the Hydra), but we cannot leave Iraq in chaos.

[punpirate]

13. How will staying...

... make it better? If you can't provide specifics for that question, then there's no merit in your belief that staying accomplishes anything. Is a "functioning" government which is a puppet of the US and can survive only with the presence of US troops a genuine improvement in the situation? I think not.

A simple fact--we propped up puppet governments in South Vietnam for not quite twenty years and the moment we left, their collapse began. We took losses in blood and/or treasure for most of those twenty years.

In what ways will it be different, this time, in Iraq?

Now, I acknowledge that the US created the chaos that is currently the norm in Iraq. Does our staying minimize, or increase, that chaos?

The proper course of action is to know leave that nation-building to the UN, appeal to them to form a peacekeeping group which does not include US troops (which are the primary reason for the current violence), and then pay the UN to oversee the reconstruction and make reparations for civilian infrastructure damage.

This war was designed and carried out to be a profit-making venture for US multinationals. Denying them that opportunity to profit from a war waged for their benefit is almost as important as getting US troops out of harm's way.

Cheers.

[Bucky]

15. Every day we stay and bleed there represents a little more profit by oil

And yet the cost of withdrawing is not to be dismissed. There will be sane presidents in our future and the US does have a security role to play in the world--the same one we played under Poppy Bush and Clinton as an international stablizer. Just pulling out of Iraq willy nilly would probably end that role and world would become a more dangerous place.

[punpirate]

21. If that is so, then you must be able...

... to delineate the reasons why it will become a more dangerous place, and the ways in which the world would become more dangerous, especially under the terms I suggested (UN involvement, payment of reparations, etc.).

So many people assume that the US is providing marginal stability now. Why? Much of the insurgency is directed at the US presence in the country, directly and indirectly. We created the instability. It's logically inconsistent to say, then, that we are creating stability.

What is likely with a troop withdrawal? Civil war. What's going on now, at this moment? Civil war. What's likely with our staying? A Shia government with ties to Iran and a diminishment of civil rights under Shari'a law. Would be no different with us leaving.

Moreover, the Iraq we would leave would be without weapons of any consideration and without the funds to wage war against anyone, so the notion that the world would be in more danger is specious.

The only advantage in staying is the opportunity for the US to create a puppet government dependent upon the US for its security and willing to let US multinationals operate freely in the country, and the important (in the view of the neo-cons) institutionalizing of US bases in that region. That was Bush's intention. Staying perpetuates and reinforces that likelihood, rather than minimizes it.

And, I don't hesitate to add, the longer we stay, the more soldiers die. If you genuinely believe that there is anything either practical or altruistic in remaining in the country, that means those deaths, to you, are an acceptable cost. I happen not to believe that, for all the reasons stated. The initial invasion was wrong. The occupation--and the intentions for the occupation--were wrong. And, as my mother was fond of saying, two wrongs don't make a right.

Bush got it hopelessly fucked up. Bush is one saying that we can't leave now. Was he wrong in the first instance, and very, very right in the second instance? Doubtful. If Bush is demanding to "stay the course," do you really think he's right and behaving altruistically? I don't.

Cheers.

[mcctatas]

23. This troubles me....

"Bush is one saying that we can't leave now. Was he wrong in the first instance, and very, very right in the second instance? Doubtful. If Bush is demanding to "stay the course," do you really think he's right and behaving altruistically? I don't."


I don't give a flying fuck what bush says on the matter, the history of global politics however deserves some attention, as do many realist thinkers of our times (starting with Thucydides, St. Augastine, Hobbes, Kant, Morgenthau etc.). Failed states are dangerous to their neighboring states, region, and in this day and age, the world at large...until there are other options (please let it be the UN), we are stuck for better or for worse.

[punpirate]

29. The UN won't come in unless...

... the US asks it to (remember that the US has veto power in the Security Council). Bush won't ask it. What does that say to you?

And all of the realist thinkers in our modern world (particularly those in the US government) have caused immeasurable trouble in the world over the last sixty years. Thucydides ain't running the country.

As I've suggested, Iraq is incapable of causing trouble with any country in the region. It no longer has the resources.

In a way, there's not much point in this discussion. Bush isn't going to leave Iraq. We have 3-1/2 more years of American and Iraqi civilian and military deaths to confront, and depending upon who wins the government in 2008, maybe longer than that.

If recent history is any example, a generation from now, after many thousands of people dying unnecessarily, we'll leave the country and it will form its own government--as was the case in Vietnam. It may not be a government we like, but they will.

I didn't trust Bush's motives for starting this war, and I don't trust his motives for maintaining an occupation. That might be troubling to you, but it's a rational consideration. And, as I say, I don't condone any process that leads to more deaths. If the US remains in Iraq, that will be the case, based on the facts of the recent past. You can argue about failed states, but as long as we remain there, we are in considerable part responsible for the deaths that occur.

I don't know how much more simply I can state this. We are an occupying force. We seized control of the country illegally. In law, all acts springing from an illegal act are illegal. Our continued presence is creating instability and insecurity for Iraqis, rather than preventing it. We opened Pandora's Box. It's impossible for us to get all that shit back in the box. It follows that it's enormously egotistical to assume that the US can make things better by defending its actions through further occupation.

As difficult as it may be to do, walk a bit in Iraqi shoes. If we were invaded and occupied by another country whose leader showed no inclination of leaving, what would you do? What would you think of that occupier deciding how our government should be reformed in order to accommodate the occupier? You'd fight that, too. You'd probably continue to fight that occupation. We have had, now, thirty-eight years of watching the Palestinians do just that. Expect the Iraqis to do the same as long as we're there.

The surest way to end the violence is to end the occupation. Quickly, and sensibly, if possible. The longer we stay, the longer the violence will be perpetuated. We are not liberators. We're occupiers. Never mistake us for anything else, because the failure to do so is the fatal flaw in the logic for staying.

Cheers.

[mcctatas]

We can just agree to disagree...

but thanks for the mental work out:)

[Bucky]

26. Good questions. Let me try and answer where I can.

you must be able to delineate the reasons why it will become a more dangerous place

The plan you put up has merit. But I don't think there's a ghost of a chance that the US will pay reparations to Iraq as long as we're pulling out. We'll pay infrastructure investments costs (mostly going to Halliburton, natch) if we're in there. But if we can get the Congress to go along with a pull out, there's no way they're going to authorize sending payments over there with a tacit acknowledgement that the whole enterprise was one collosal screw up. The UN coming in in a meaningful role is equally unlikely. It's like asking someone to hold a time bomb for you while you go wash the grease off your hands. Good plan if you can find someone stupid enough. I doubt anyone but Iran is willing to send adequate troop strengths into Iraq to pacify the factions there.

So many people assume that the US is providing marginal stability now.

I do not. We stirred up the hornet's nest, and so our troops are the targets (along with the nameless Iraqi civilians dying in far greater numbers than our own troops are). But if we were not there, the Sadrists would have more reason to fight and oppose supposed enemies, the Kurds would still push to control the oil rich north exclusively, mostly by violence under the color of legal authority. Upcountry Shiites would go to war against the Kurds to hold onto their share of the oil revenues.

Our presense keeps the violence at a low, steady boil. The moment we leave, under any plan, a civil war is going to break out there among hte competing armed factions. Our presense provides a common target. But obviously this alone is not an argument to justify the loss of American life.

What's going on now, at this moment? Civil war.
Most of the fighting is tageting gatherings of differenct civilian groups. The Shiites aern't doing much yet besides defending their gatherings. That's not a civil war. The Baathists are doing most of hte bad stuff. If we left, the initiative would go to the Shiites and the Sadrists (who are already launching reprisals in the south near )

What's likely with our staying? A Shia government with ties to Iran and a diminishment of civil rights under Shari'a law. Would be no different with us leaving.

Agreed. But I won't throw stones at the merits of militaristic fundamentalist governments until I quit living in this big glass house.

[TahitiNut]

22. The US no longer has "a security role to play in the world" ...

... even without arguing we ever had one. We've abdicated that (arguable) role when we chose to become the biggest threat to the world in our deluded, obscene quest for "Pax Americana." Having built the most expensive, extensive, and expansive military machine on the planet, we've confirmed Lord Acton's maxim that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We're not ethically qualified to be the world's police force - we've become "cops on the pad." The (so-called) 'leadership' in this country is deeply infected with fascist corruption which cannot be trusted with the reins of delegated power without adult supervision.

[mcctatas]

18. I absolutely agree that the UN would be best for peacekeeping and

enforcement, that being said, an immediate pull out would be treacherous, not to the US necessarily , but to nations in the mid-east. Yes, this was a fucked up war for all the wrong reasons, yes we have created a mess of biblical proportions, yes I would love to see our troops home tomorrow...but that does not take away from the fact that unless/until the UN peace keepers can be there to clean up our mess, we cannot leave. Functioning government means any scenario that does not create a failed state...yes, we propped up a puppet regime in S. vietnam for nigh on 20 years, but think about Afghanistan, no one propped them up or paid much attention to them after the Soviet withdrawal (and I'm not necessarily speaking of 9/11 in this regard because Saudi Arabia was never a failed state), in Afghanistan sectarian violence, drugs, money laundering, and terrorism all occured. At the very least, we will leave Iraq in no better position then they were before we invaded, at worst in chaos and civil war...but until we have an alternative plan, we are stuck.

[punpirate]

24. Saying it is so requires some proof...

... Iraq, prior to the invasion, was a threat to no country in the region. Its military had been virtually emasculated from the Gulf War and twelve years of sanctions. The country is completely impoverished.

There is no way it is a threat to anyone right now, except to itself, hence the need for some peacekeepers.

As for Afghanistan, I would remind you that the US encouraged that failed state condition. We trained and armed the people who facilitated the civil wars. I will also remind, however distasteful the notion, that before we invaded the country in 2001, it had a functioning government in place for five years, under the Taliban. The US, in fact, entertained dignitaries from that government in 1998 in the attempt to woo them toward Unocal's plan for a pipeline. That's not adulation of the Taliban; rather, it's simple acknowledgement that there was a government in place (one which also managed to bring the opium problem under control, too). From our perspective, they were crazy as loons, but they had formed a functioning government.

We broke that state again, for our own purposes.

Now, I've already said that a large UN peacekeeping force in Iraq is a necessary step. But, there's not even consideration of that necessary step. US intentions are to stay there for as long as it is able.

Suggesting that the US must stay for the good of the Iraqis simply buys into a lie, in my estimation. If the US won't accede to UN control of the country and exit gracefully, I'm not going to support it in staying. That will only perpetuate the violence and the destruction.

Cheers.

[mcctatas]

25. I agree with all of your points on Afghanistan, but that does not dismiss

the argument that it was a failed state, human rights were non-existant, and it eventually came around to bite us in the ass. I think you and I are basically supporting the same idea (the UN is the only body IGO, NGO or other that can bring any semblence of stability to Iraq), but until then I think it would be a mistake to leave altogether. Just because I disagree with the entire premise for invading a soveirgn nation, I believe that it was only for war profiteers like Haliburton and I think that Bush should be impeached, imprisoned, and (if I supported the death penalty) executed, does not take away from the fact that until we at least get running water and electricity on a reliable bases to the population centers (infrastructure stuff) or the UN steps in to do it for us...we are stuck.

On a lighter note, you are very knowledgabel/eloquent on your POV...I enjoy disagreeing with you :toast:

[punpirate]

36. One further note on Afghanistan...

... which has some special meaning in one of my other arguments about the "realists," is that there have recently been some rather strong suggestions that the US dumped all future aid to Afghanistan because Poppy Bush made a deal with Gorbachev. The US would not provide future aid to Afghanistan if Gorbachev withdrew Soviet troops.

Considering that the US sucked the Soviet Union into militarily occupying Afghanistan in the first place should suggest that most, if not all, of the decisions this country has made on the basis of realpolitik have come back to bite us in the ass.

As for staying until the infrastructure is rebuilt and reliable, I wonder how that is possible. The chain of events is fairly predictable, based on recent history: Iraqis don't want us there-->We organize a government to fix the plumbing-->Iraqis don't want a government that collaborates with the occupiers-->they blow up the plumbing. And so it goes.

I'm sure there are well-meaning military and contractors who wonder why their good work is being destroyed. The answer is very simple. Our occupation is the problem, not the solution. The myth of Sisyphus certainly must apply here.

Beyond that, the long-term prospects for those occupying forces and for the US are not good. The largest single complaint from all sectors of the Middle East is the ongoing US interference in Arab affairs (which also encompasses US support for dictatorial monarchs such as the Saudi royal family, or corrupt dictatorial leaders such as Egypt's Mubarek). As long as that interference is visible--such as the occupation of Iraq, the insurgents and the terrorists, whether they be of religious or nationalistic bent, will continue to target the US, both in Iraq in the case of the insurgents and on home territory with respect to terrorists. Consider this for a moment--if continued occupation of Iraq generates a new successful terrorist attack on US soil, what is the likely response of the Bush government? At the very least, a new assault on individual and civil rights and, at worst...? I'm not sure I want to contemplate the latter. It's too depressing.

But, as I mentioned in another post, this is all just hypothesizing. Bush isn't going to leave Iraq, at least not for as long as he makes the decisions. Nor is he going to make an appeal to the UN to step in and enable all US troops to depart. It was never part of the plan. The plan was and is to institutionalize US presence in Iraq as a means of militarily dominating the region.

Cheers.

[Bucky]

14. I go back & forth on this.Yes it'd be chaos. But US troops impede stabilty

On the one hand an immediate withdrawal, or even one carried out over the next 3-6 month period, will lead to bloodshed. The resulting chaos would mean more fighting among factions, like the violent Sadrists who murdered that conservative blogger last week, that right now are sort of waiting for the yankees to go home. Once US troops pull out, some real fighting will begin--and yes, it would be worse than what's going on there now, hard as that is to imagine.

Another think to consider is national honor. As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it." We broke it. If we just declared victory now and skeedaddled, the US would be disabled and discredited in all future international security dealings for decades to come. It would be worse than the Vietnam legacy. As much as I opposed us picking this optional fight, just up and leaving it is something that I can't condone. Flaking out now would hamper future presidents, even the sane ones.

On the other hand, the presense of US troops right now is the greatest irritant to the body politic in Iraq. Our troops being there is what is motivating the foreign nationals to come in and train themselves on how to kill troops that are better armed than themselves--a training I'd rather not see paid for with American tax dollars and American blood. The number of Iraqis fighting against Americans is, of course, far greater than the number of non-Iraqis, however. And there, too, it is fact of American occupation that moves them to kill. Still, if we left, I don't think the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq would cease. Most would simply go there for different reasons. And perhaps a few would start moving toward Lebanon or Israel to start some mischief. Among the Iraqis (mostly the Baathists, but others too) who now kill Americans and fellow Iraqis for cooperating with the US backed regime, the senseless violence would continue.

Of course I don't buy into the "flypaper theory" in any way. If you haven't heard, the flypaper theory is that as long we're fighting Islamic extremists over there, then they'll go to the closer theatre of Iraq to do their mischief rather than come over here. The problem is that most of the leaders and backers of those foreign fighters are sending them to Iraq so that they'll be better trained once they do come over here.

On the third hand, the last remaining justification for us being in Iraq is to stablize the country. All other rationales have fallen by the wayside. Unfortunately, as long as the US is in Iraq Iraq won't stablize. It's simply not going to happen. The senseless bloodshed makes too much sense in the brutal calculations of the Baathists, Wahhabists, and Sadrists doing the killing for them to stop. Once we leave, Iran will probably muscle in, pacify the place on their own terms, and become "big brother" to whoever it is we leave in charge when we leave (or whoever kills off and replaces whoever we leave in charge). In that case, it's really only a matter of asking how many American troops do we need to send to their deaths before we've had enough and concede the inevitable.

The biggest problem is that there's nothing you can do in Iraq that won't lead to further bloodshed. This is exactly why it was wrong to start this war in the first place. But that's spilt milk. Red milk. We're now, as a nation, mired in a crisis with no solutions. Each day I look at the death rates I renew my admiration for the geowisdom of President Bush (the elected one) for chosing not to go into Iraq despite the temptations to "take out Saddam."

Oh, George, why can't you be more like your father?

[Catholic Sensation]

30. I agree with you

except I'm more optimistic about Iraq becoming a democracy.

[mcctatas]

33. Thanks...

I was beginning to feel like a freeper :rofl:

[Catholic Sensation]

34. believing our troops are the best source of stability in iraq isn't

limited to one ideology or side of the political spectrum, though it seems members on both sides like to make it seem that way sometimes.

[uppityperson]

4. Are you asking ..

which place is better to keep killing people in? Either keep the soldiers in Iraq, let them all keep fighting and killing (both directly through bombs and bullets and indirectly through lack of safe water, food, medical supplies) or pull them out and use them to do the same thing to Iran? With the supposition (right term?) that Mr.bush will use the military to do the same in Iran?

Hmmm, the question seems to be how do we keep them from attacking another country, say for instance Iran? Whether or not they have the military resources.

[unblock]

6. yes, better said. how do we keep them from attacking iran?

i'm just wondering if making them STAY in iraq would, as a practical matter, prevent an attack on iran, which would be EVEN MORE devastating on many levels.

[uppityperson]

10. I truly wish I had an answer for that question.

Mr.bush is indeed a uniter. In my nuttier moments I refer to him as the anti-christ but do not do that often as it takes too long to explain and people look at me weirder than usual.

[FightingIrish]

5. We may never know what the BFEE time line was but...

an insurgency they hadn't planned for and a general degradation military readiness may have delayed a far more serious misstep going into Iran.

[Bucky]

17. It's hard to believe that they ever really thought about going into Iran

That had to be bluff. Had to be. If you think of the PNAC target nations (Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea) as the Justice League and the PNAC knuckleheads as Darkside, the US defeating Iraq was like Darkside defeating the Atom or Green Arrow. We got bogged down rolling the softest member of the team; and now Superman and Wonder Woman are gearing up for a fight that we honestly can't even show up for.

Even if we weren't strapped down in Mesopotamia, but rather up to full draft-free force, on paper alone invading Iran would be madness. We could win, but the price would be unimagineable.

[TahitiNut]

7. How many threads do we need on this at the same time?

There's this one ... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4341254#top
in which I said ...

6. The alternative is a blank check denominated in lives with absolutely NO ASSURANCE that it "buys" anything of value.

This whole 'discussion' about rationalizing the occupation on the basis of 'harm' that has ALREADY BEEN DONE but which the arguers claim somehow results from pulling out ... brings to mind an image of a mugger with his knife embedded in his victim, rifling the pockets of the victim, and claiming "if I pull it out, he'll bleed all over the carpet!"

The Bushoilinis are nothing better than muggers and bushwhackers ... and they have a habit of denying responsibility but claiming credit for their victims' recoveries! They've mugged the economy and, as it staggers to its feet alone, they claim credit for helping it. They've mugged the working class and, as workers desperately find lower-paying jobs, they claim credit for jobs growth. They're malicious, lying bastards that add insult to every injury!

... and ...

Trespassers don't get to say "let me think about when I'll leave" just because they're already there. Burglars don't get to say "not until I wipe off my fingerprints" when one in the family screams for them to leave.

We're there illegally and every day we remain costs more lives, more millions, and exacerbates the crime.

Iraq's internal affairs are for Iraqis to solve -- and NOT under the guns of an invasion/occupying foreign military force. The sole legitimate form of government is the one they are willing to put in place for themselves. All foreign force is criminal.

Forcing 'freedom' on a nation is like forcing 'love' on a woman -- it's rape!

The 'arguments' I hear posed about leaving Iraq have a familiar ring. While the comparisons to Viet Nam are familiar, perhaps it would be fruitful to review the historical arguments against abolition in the days of slavery. "It must be done gradually" many would say. "Not until they're ready for freedom" others would say. "They're not competent to be free yet" a huge number said. It was paternalistic bullshit then and it's paternalistic bullshit now.

Yes, I done quite a bit of thinking on the subject. :grr:

[unblock]

42. not sure how that's the same topic

since it doesn't even mention tying the neo-cons' hands or and invasion of iran...

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

45. Here's my frustration...

After doing a lot of reading and thinking about it, I profoundly and completely believe that each and every day that our military occupies Iraq and Afghanistan is a compounding of a war crime. I believe that any and all "let's talk about the choices" forays have some element of complicity in this war crime ... including a coupling of immediate withdrawal with some subsequent criminal act, as though it's the 'fault' of withdrawing that another crime is committed.

It's a little bit like inferring that a trespasser shouldn't get off the private property because he'll merely trespass upon the adjacent property. (Perhaps more aptly, it's like arguing about who will be the next victims of our genocidal behavior if we stop killing native Americans. There's no "if" about it.) If our political discourse has reached such a low that we can only argue about the choice of which crimes will be committed in our name, then we're headed even lower in the depths of our national corruption. Just what will it take before the people in this nation scream "enough!" and take to the streets? When we contemplate such crimes as though they're reasonable and foreseeable options, rather than putting 100% of our efforts into mobilization, then we're probably well-advised to be emigrating or digging foxholes.

In summary, absolutely nothing should be allowed to delay our withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan -- under the full realization that we're an outlaw nation. Every other criminal act must be regarded as an outgrowth of leaving the current regime in power - not as a consequence of 'doing the right thing.'

At this point, I've also come to the conclusion that we must withdraw our military from other nations as well and stop deceitfully rationalizing our global militarism as some kind of altruistic behavior. In my opinion, we've become "cops on the pad" - no longer even close to being qualified for the specious role of "world's policemen." Until recently, I've not held this viewpoint. I do now.

I wish I could express it as clearly as I see it. :shrug:

[Karenina]

46. You are quite clear

and possess a clarity of vision too many Americans lack. :loveya:

[TahitiNut]

49. Vielen Dank, m'luv.

:loveya: backatcha!

As a subscriber to deontological ethics, I see the problem with a consequentialist point of view as necessitating assumption of the roles of soothsayer, prognosticator, patron, and dictator. We're so embedded in the paternalistic rhetoric of Masters of the Universe we've forgotten the fundamentals of mutual respect among the world's peoples.

It is a deontological ethical underpinning of democracy that the outcome of self-governance is just and fair for should it be sour then everyone puckers and should it be sweet then everyone licks their lips. Under any other form of governance, only the powerful harvest the sweet and only the weaker harvest the sour. Thus it should be so for all peoples! Democracy is NEVER about the powerful (us) doing it for the weak (the Iraqis). That's colonialism. It's NEVER benevolent. It's never democratic. Just like any peoples, the Iraqis deserve to harvest the fruits of their own self-governance - sweet or sour. Without delay!

Once upon a time, some people had an idea about establishing a communist society - one where each and every citizen was an equal owner and all participated as equals in their own governance. But a guy named Lenin claimed "the people aren't yet ready." He claimed they needed a strong Leader to get them accustomed to living as equals. He claimed that the central government would merely fade away as the people grew into their roles as coequals. We know what happened. That's the exact same kind of paternalism I hear in today's rhetoric regarding whether Iraqis are "ready for democracy."

Not only should we pull out every last part of our military, we should terminate absolutely every contract forthwith, writing off any and every amount payable -- and allow an unoccupied Iraq to reestablish any that it sees fit.

[Cleita]

8. Hmmm, you didn't get the memo.

This isn't just a neo-con agenda that can be reversed. Our whole government has been taken over by globalists, whose intention is to rule the world. They have been almost successful in appropriating our military and monetary assets. We can still stop them,as long as they appear to honor our laws, but no one seems to understand that we have to do it very soon or buh-bye Constitution.

[Toucano]

11. Withdraw from Iraq? ROFLMAO!

Please don't think me cruel, but you're hilarious! :)

[volitionx]

12. They'll stay in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Both countries surround Iran, and the neocons planned it that way. Iran is SURROUNDED on ALL sides by U.S. friendly nations or occupied nations.

There are 14 permanent bases in Iraq, the largest embassy on the face of the earth, etc. The U.S. is NOT leaving Iraq for the next 10 years.

Bolton was sent to the U.N. to orchestrate a justification to invade Iran. He was given a recess appointment, and now only has a year before he actually has to be confirmed, so he'll be getting us into Iran within the next 12 months.

They want a Global Corporate Empire, and they'll have it. They'll also start up another draft when they invade Iran, and America will go batshit with protest. But they don't give a fuck. Remember the anti-war protests in NYC and all over the world? Did Bush give a fuck?

[KG]

16. good thing those poor ignorant iraqis have us liberal to help the neo-cons

decide what's best for them. :eyes:

[TahitiNut]

20. Paternalism is infectious, it seems.

:dunce:

[steve2470]

19. Simple: we get the f out of Iraq NOW.

We don't belong there, period.

[LSK]

27. as far as Iran goes, Iraq would make a good launching point

* could just send the troops out of Iraq and right into Iran. If he withdraws all his troops from Iraq 1st, it might make it a little harder.

As far as Iraq becoming a failed state when we leave, ummm, IT ALREADY IS A FAILED STATE. Nothing we can do would help now except getting out and stop wasting our soldiers lives.

They are already having a civil war and they will fight it out no matter what we do after we leave. So lets stop wasting time and just get out.

[Catholic Sensation]

28. no because if we leave from Iraq too soon

the country will cave in on itself and civil war between the Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis, and foreign terrorists will undoubtedly break out. Each group wants control of the oil, and each group is willing to kill for it. Until a unified Iraqi army and government is put into place, our soldiers are the best thing to keep the general Iraqi populace safe from civil war and foreign terrorists. Call me a neocon, but I'd rather see the country in our hands and moderately safe, than Iraq fighting itself.

[Karenina]

44. Your post reveals

a COMPLETE DISCONNECT from the reality on the ground in Iraq. I don't suppose you hold the same views about say, Sudan or DRC??? :eyes:

The obscene activities in which your soldiers are engaged will return to your shores.

[Karenina]

47. Here, try THIS fer starters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1701414

[Catholic Sensation]

48. I actually hold the same views about the Democratic Republic of Congo

and Sudan, but am living in reality with knowing our troops are spread out so thin we can't actively help those people. Though if I had my druthers we'd have troops fighting the muslim militias carrying out genocide in Darfur.

[SeanQuinn]

31. I would say that's an interesting perspective.

I never really thought Iraq withdrawal could benefit the neocons, but now, a slow, gradual "migration" into Iran seems imminent.

Yay.

[Catholic Sensation]

32. WHY AREN'T YOU IN BED!?

YOUR MOM TOLD YOU TO GO TO BED TWO HOURS AGO MISTER!

[SeanQuinn]

35. Shh. She said we can stay up, just not "too late". nt

[wli]

37. Bushler bankrupted us; we won't be far from where Niger is now

It doesn't really matter what Bushler wants to do. The multinationals are pulling out (as evinced by all the offshoring). We're having IMF-style reforms preemptively foisted upon us, and are doubtless scheduled to become its victims soon.

[ConsAreLiars]

38. The only thing the PNACers are doing in Iraq is destabilizing the region

and providing motivation, mobilization and training for those who see the USA as the great satan. Every day that US troops are used to enforce corporate hegemony over Islamic nations makes the world more lethal to all of us who live here. You see how frightened Chimpy is, hiding behind massive military and secret service protections and going nowhere unless loyalty testing is done first. That is their doing, and they can afford the shielding needed. The rest of us would be better off with fewer people seeking revenge on us for what they are doing. Continuing the occupation makes Ir ag more chaotic and the rest of the world more dangerous. Really not a good thing despite the profits to be made.

[Porcupine]

40. We're grinding the chaff hoping to make bread.

Well it just isn't going to happen. In Vietnam, we sent soldiers to Khe Sahn where they were shelled daily. They could count the days they had to survive until they could go home for good. In Iraq our soldiers have no goals, no date and no sign of victory on the horizen.

They can each kill ten Iraqis this week and ten next week and ten the week after that and still ten more "insurgents" will pop up for each of them the day after that. In Iraq half the population is under 25 and none of those boys are getting married or laid until the U.S. troops go home.

That's why we've already lost.

[warrens]

39. Probably, an eight-noose gallows is the best solution

We could make them draw straws.

[rman]

41. Iran can be attacked from bases in Iraq

Isn't Iraq in effect a US state now? It's conveniently close to Iran.
We'll have Iraqi security forces take care of the mess in Iraq (meaning the mess will just continue), so we'll have our hands free for Iran. Sure coalition forces will still be affected by the mess in Iraq, but they won't be tied up in it as much as they are now.

[zippy890]

43. I don't think we're going into Iran

This post makes a lot of sense to me

>snip<
Will Iran be next? Some of my friends are asking this. I don’t think so, and here’s why.

Essentially it appears that there’s a rebellion underway in the military.

>snip<

http://badattitudes.com/MT/

as to Iraq -- the US MUST take all military forces out of Iraq or there can be no improvement there. As long as Iraq is occupied militarily by the US violence will continue.

Check out this article --- I think we've won.

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over

by Frank Rich

>snip<

LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?

A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him......

>snip<

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14rich.html