We should immediately leave Iraq

[Zidane]

It is apparent to me that rather we stay in Iraq or leave the same outcome will result. Staying will only delay the inevitable.

I think those who want us to stay support this position due to legitimate concern for the Iraqis - a motivation that is both noble and responsible. Unfortunately it is also highly naive IMO.

First ask your self this - did you support going in to Iraq in the first place under the (bull shit) reason we would be bringing them freedom and happiness?

If not - was part of your reason for opposition to the invasion due to the fact that you KNEW we couldn't indeed bring them freedom and happiness? So what has changed now?

Some people think kerry will be able to achieve this goal. Frankly, I don't think anyone other than god its self could achieve that goal.

First of all the Iraqis will never support being occupied. Remember this fact - a US soldier looks identical to an Iraqi citizens regardless of if he is under the command of bush or kerry. Think about it from the Iraqis point of view.

Let's pretend we were invaded by a foreign nation that had it's soldiers murder, rape, torture, took people away in to the night, conducted raids on civilian homes, etc under the leadership of a nut case. Now - let's pretend a new leader came to power in that nation who promised a kindler, gentler occupation. Would you REALLY give a damn? If those soldiers had raped/killed one of your family/friends or just your fellow citizen would you REALLY say "oh, all is forgiven". Not bloody likely. So why would we expect the Iraqis to do so? Why expect the Iraqis to EVER trust us again?

Also - let's pretend that same power established a new government. When they left would you support keeping that government the occupying power established? The power that raped, killed, tortured, and terrorized countless thousands? Would you REALLY?

I seriously doubt it.

So it seems to me this is likely. We can either leave now and let the Iraqis establish their own government (quite possibly in a civil war). OR we can establish a government, leave, let the Iraqis tear that government down in 10 minutes, (which they WILL do) and THEN have a civil war.

The only difference is delaying the inevitable results in MORE death and destruction.

I think the only responsible thing we could do for the Iraqis and the world would be to amend the constitution to SERIOUSLY limit the presidents power to invade whenever and for whatever reason he desires with a final line on the amendment "No president past or former shall have a pardon for crimes committed in office respected." Of course we would never do that, and more than likely we will see more Vietnams and more Iraqs due to our own failure to keep our government in check.

Anyway - however you look at it bush has screwed the iraqis over royally. Immediately leaving Iraq is the best option IMO. I think perhaps it might be a good idea to make arrangements with surrounding nations to admit any Iraqi in to their nation who wants to leave Ieaq - all bills paid by us. We should also take in those who want to leave. In other words - evacuate as many Iraqis who do NOT want to be a part of the civil war as possible. Because ultimately there will be a civil war.

[Gothic Sponge]

1. I hate saying this, but we have to stay

We broke it, now we must fix it. Hopefully, after Kerry is elected, other countries will help.

[Zidane]

2. Unfortunately

We can't fix it.

[Blue_Roses]

4. Leaving sure wouldn't "fix it"

either. It's naive to think that if we "just leave Iraq" now that it will be okay then:eyes:

The whole damn thing is so frustrating...:mad: Thank-you Bush for screwing us up royally :eyes:

[Zidane]

6. Umm...

" naive to think that if we "just leave Iraq" now that it will be okay then"

Where did I say it would be ok then? Thanks for bothering to read my post. Either way leads to the same end result. This is the reality of the matter.

We are damned either way.

[Blue_Roses]

13. no bother

reading your thread:) I understand and I do agree I would LOVE to pack up the troops and bring them ALL home now. I have a friend defending us now over seas and I worry for them constantly, however, to say the end result would be the same is too premature.

[LoZoccolo]

5. That's a pat answer.

There's not enough security there right now as it is to protect Iraqi citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/01/iraq.main/index.html

http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1101040726-665048,00.html

[Darranar]

32. We aren't fixing it...

we're just breaking it more - and slaughtering innocent Iraqis in the process.

[Kanary]

35. Kinda like we "fixed" Vietnam?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Absolutely right. We are NOT helping the Iraqis by staying.

Nor, are we preventing a civil war. The U.S. presence in Iraq is the cause of the chaos and will only add to the possibility of a civil war (and, intervention by Iran, Syria, Kuwait).

The "inevitable" is that the Iraqis are going to throw us out..and they won't be throwing flowers and singing "God Bless America" when they do.

[Gothic Sponge]

7. You might be right

The problem is either way people die.

[Karenina]

29. They are dispatching

the puppet regime collaborators to the great beyond, persuading other nations to withdraw their personnel and interrupting the oil flow quite efficiently... The predatory American gub'mint has committed a heinous atrocity against the people of Iraq in the name of the American citizen. First, get your military and financial rapists OUT of the room. You will take them out voluntarily or they will be convinced of the wisdom of quitting the place in due time. The ONLY issue is how many MORE lives will be lost.

[donsu]

8. agree - get everybody out, including the embassy

empty the green zone.

When this is completed, ask Iraq what they want in reparations.

[paulk]

9. "ask Iraq what they want in reparations."

Which Iraqi's do you ask?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. How about the 80% that want the US out?

[paulk]

23. is that a cohesive group?

They may be united in their dislike of the coalition, but will they be united when it comes to forming a new government?

This saying that 80% want the coalition out is somewhat misleading. The actual poll says that 80% want the coalition out either immediately or after the January elections. So a percentage of that 80% wants the coalition there until a legitimate Iraqi government is voted in. Now that's a huge difference, I would think.

The coalition would like to be out after the elections also.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Somewhat?

80% want the troops out of their country. My reading is different than yours. 80% want the coalition out..some will settle for after the elections - if they're ever held.

You bet the coalition would like to get out..the question is how to do it without losing face? Neither Birdbrain or Kerry offer a realistic plan to get out. The Chickenhawk offers more of the same. Kerry offers not so much more of the same.

I'm hoping that Kerry will get elected and will change his tune soon after. I think his chances are diminished because he doesn't offer a real alternative to Bush's "plan".

[paulk]

10. it's not "naive"

You're saying Iraq will end up a failed state either way?

Once Bush is voted out, the rest of the world will help in preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state. Why? Because it's in their best interests - and it is, on the bottom line, about oil.

Iraq has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves, and with peak oil approaching or already here, with competition for oil from developing nations like China already driving prices up, the world will do it's best to prevent civil war in Iraq.

[Zidane]

11. Oh how good of you

so we should stay for the oil and bring in anyone else who wants a piece of the pie? I'm sure the Iraqis will just love that.

You should FAX your resume to the bush admin. They could use your exploitation skills.

[paulk]

14. I tried to make a serious reply to your thread

and this is the best you can do in return?

I said nothing about "taking" Iraq's oil, so your "exploitation" comment is not relevant.

It's not just the Bush administration that is interested in oil, BTW. The entire developed world has a stake in oil, it's price, and it's availability.

[Zidane]

18. Hmm

"I said nothing about "taking" Iraq's oil, so your "exploitation" comment is not relevant."

"Because it's in their best interests - and it is, on the bottom line, about oil."

So other nations leaders will comitt their troops to die (likely with considerable opposition - perhaps enough to cost them their jobs - from their own people) and won't want anything special in return? Riiiigghttt....

I call BS on the international coalition. No sane nation would get involved unless they had a VERY tempting offer given to them. The rest of the world had a chance to sign-on to the invasion some time ago. If they didn't do it then what will make them do it later? Did they not have the same interested in oil then as now?

Actually most nations with the ability to actually make a difference in Iraq have LESS interest in oil now than they did before the invasion. If you kept up with the times you would know that many nations - just about all of western europe for instance - is moving AWAY from oil. They are not controlled by repubs and actually have a sane energy policy. Considering the goal of the EU and other parts of the world is to move to alternate forms of energy in the future, why would they care so much about Iraqs oil? And if we don't start moving away from oil as well we are going to be in for a world of hurt when the resource runs dry. I suggest you read up on this. Instead of worrying about oil like bush & the repub party we need to worry about alternative energy.

Anyway - I don't buy that a simple change in president will bring any one on board. Do you honestly believe the rest of the worlds nations objection to invading Iraq was based on bush? I hate to tell you this - but they opposed it because it was a fu**ing stupid idea no matter if bush was at the helm or not. And it still is.

[paulk]

21. The reward would be a stable Iraq,

rather than a failed state like Afghanistan, from which AlQueda was able to export their brand of terrorism to the rest of the world. A stable Iraq, with a stable oil industry, would be in the best interests of the Iraqi people also.

I don't think a before and after argument about the invasion in regards to the actions of nations is pertinent. The situation, post invasion, is vastly different, and will require new solutions.


Western Europe is doing a better job than the US when it comes to energy policy, but it is still a very long way from any kind of oil independence. And the EU isn't really the problem - China, with a billion people, and India, with another billion people, are. Those people want a modern industrialized lifestyle and that takes oil. Those parts of the world will be the ones putting pressure on the world's oil reserves in twenty years.

I'm not worrying about oil like Bush and his cohorts. They're only looking at the money. It's obvious to any thinking person that alternative energy sources must be developed - but even optimists in that field know we will be tied to an oil economy for a long time. And, as I pointed out above, the West is not the only player in this game.

The rest of the world's objections to invading Iraq were mostly because it wasn't necessary, and if it occurred it was likely to provide the sort of situation it has - a complete clusterfuck. No
one is saying it wasn't a bad idea - but the invasion happened and nothing can be done to change what has already happened.

I do believe a change in administrations will bring allies on board. NATO has already said they wouldn't even consider sending troops without a change in administrations.

Kerry will be faced with several options - none of them good. Pulling out completely would be the worst option, IMHO.

[Blue_Roses]

15. that's not what he's saying

Bush IS an oilman as is all of his cabal. It's a KNOWN fact and to think that he doesn't piss the Arab nations off knowing that he's there to pilage through this is naive.

With new leadership at least we have a shot at others countries coming to the table to see things in a different way. Bush can't convince any other countries that he's in it other than for reaping the benefits of oil profits.

[BillZBubb]

16. I agree with a lot of your points.

We are definitely just putting off the inevitable civil war by staying. But, I would try one thing before pulling out: Hold a real nationwide election there ASAP. No US puppets, no CIA retainers, no imposed "leaders". Tell the Iraqis that it's there choice and we wish them the best.

We'll stay to organize the election, we'll do everything we can to make it fair, and ANYONE can run for office--including former Baathists. The election would be twofold with a civil government to replace the current Quislings, and a constitutional body to write a new constitution.

I would then suggest to the newly elected government that their first vote should be to DEMAND THE US LEAVE NOW. That would give them credibility and we could go.

[TexasSissy]

17. We need to stay and try to keep Iraq out of Al Qaeda's hands.

Sad but true. It would be a nightmare down the road for us, as well as the rest of the world, if Al Qaeda owned Iraq instead of just Afghanistan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. The longer we stay, the more recruits for al-Queda.

The reason that AQ is filling it's ranks and attracting more money is because we are in Iraq not because we're leaving. They want us there, just like they want Bush as president, and Sharon in power.

[TexasSissy]

31. That's true. But now Iraq has no security forces, so AQ would take over.

We need to get out, but only after we've helped train Iraqi security forces (army and police), so they can secure their own country. Which might take years.

We broke it, so now we own it.

Even after it's secure, the U.S. is going to maintain the largest embassy we have in the World (I think it's costing billions to build the building). Which will make AQ REALLY happy, I'm sure.

Looks like we're looking at terrorism ad infinitum into the future. I hope Kerry gets elected to put some saneness into this madness. He will still have to try to secure Iraq, but maybe he'll also try to get us out of there, and get us some help!

[Zidane]

20. I don't think they would have the numbers

Most Iraqis are not religiously insane. In fact, Saddam kept it secular. Thus it is unlikely a religious fundamentalist theocracy would rise up.

[pbg]

24. We need to keep Iraq out of IRAN's hands

...which is what will happen anyway.

Iraq's history pre-Saddam was not one long civil war, so I don't think they'll all just start killing each other if we left.

But if we just pulled out and damn the consequences, Iran would be in de facto control of the country, and that would shift an awful lot of things around in a bad way.

The better humanitarian argument, though, is that the bandits would be completely free to do as they wished.

Not Yugoslavia, but Somalia.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. We need to get Iraq out of America's hands.

All that our troops are doing is causing the chaos and radicalizing the people. I rather doubt that Iran has much interest in "controlling" an uncontrollable Iraq. They may be authoritarian thugs but they aren't stupid.

Somalia has been a bandit country for decades, and just see how well our "help" straightened that out.

The Iraqis, after a period of turmoil, will form a government without our "help". Despite portrayals to the contrary they aren't uncivilized barbarians and crave a stable government..of their own.

[donsu]

36. Iran has enough problems of their own - why borrow Iraqs?

nt

[Zhade]

22. Of course we should.

But, to borrow a fellow DUer's phrase, the "Vichy Democrats" and those who failed to learn from Vietnam will keep us there.

Sadly, many people who advocate we don't leave immediately have good intentions, but fail to realize that all they fear will happen should we "cut and run" will happen no matter when we leave.

The hand-picked puppet Iraqi government will NEVER be seen as legitimate by the Iraqi people. Frankly, it's an insult to their collective intelligence to assume they'll fall in line with it. They don't respect it now, they won't respect it when we leave.

We stay, it just adds to the potential body count - both American and Iraqi.

[Tight_rope]

27. Never should have been there....SADDAM never attacked us!

[Dangerman]

28. Of course we should leave for Christ's sake!

This are going to get worse and worse if we stay!

[Bush was AWOL]

30. We can't leave now

If we leave instant Civil war or Iranian invasion.

[Darranar]

34. And, of course...

there's no war right now?

[Darranar]

33. The longer the US stays, the more death and destruction it will inflict...

The US is not helping Iraq, it is just wrecking it further.