I'm starting to think we should just bring the troops home now from Iraq

[Nightjock]

My heart breaks into pieces everytime I hear of Americans dying over there. I also find it unbearable that according to some figures 20,000 civilians are dead.
And because of so called "Iraqi War Syndrome" for Americans at home, the stories slip back further and further back into the newspapers.

I read a Marines quote last month that said, "They attack us because we're here and we stay here because they attack us."

Is that too simple? Would Iraq REALLY become a terrorist state if we left? I feel guilty even asking.

I can't take it anymore! And as much as I love John Kerry, I know he will never support just getting the hell out of there now.
I just needed to vent. Thanks for listening...er..reading.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. If we left, it would destabilize the Middle East

a region famous for its instability but never mind that!

I remember when we had to stay in Vietnam because leaving would destabilize Southeast Asia and all those countries would fall, like dominoes, to communism if we left.

[Karenina]

11. Errraaa...

Now THAT didn't happen when the Amis finally bugged out, did it? :eyes:

[sendero]

2. I've been thinking that...

.... for months now. They don't want us there. Nothing is ever going to get better as long as we are. How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

[CaTeacher]

3. Yes---we need to bring our troops home.

How can the Iraqi people heal when they are being occupied by our military?

We will only have peace in the middle east when we stop stirring around in the governments of the middle east.

And the sooner that we turn from our current policy of imperialism--the better.

PEACE NOW!!! Bring our soldiers home--we do not want to shed any more blood for oil!

[Karenina]

13. The hardest FACT

for Americans to swallow is that YOUR MILITARY PRESENCE in the region CREATED the PROBLEM and continues to be THE PROBLEM. NO MORE "WHITE HATS" FOR YOU. You ARE the BAD GUYS and karma is a BITCH.

Sorry, but only your best friend will tell you straight out that your lipstick is smudged, you got spinach in your teeth and dirty toilet paper trailing off your shoe.

[Kanary]

15. You are sooo right, and it's time the US was told in no uncertain terms!

I've been hoping for the leaders of other countries to say it like it is.

Kanary

[walldude]

16. what makes you think thats so hard for us to swallow?

Maybe some Americans, like Freepers, but here on DU most people know the truth and don't need to be um.. YELLED AT.. but thanks anyway

[Karenina]

25. SURE ya do!!!

:evilgrin:

[ProfLefty]

4. This is either the result of poor planning...

By the current administration or, a more byzantine and nefarious plot occurs to mind. Perhaps the reason that the Bush gang failed to have a viable exit strategy in place is simply that there is no exit strategy. The U.S. now has a huge military presence right in the heart of this very strategic region not to mention control over a vast amount of oil. Now really, why would Bush and his corporate bosses want to give all of that up any time in the near or immediate future? After all whats a few hundred or a few thousand young promising American lives compared to a healthy balance sheet and millions of happy and satisfied shareholders?

[Kanary]

12. Maybe the DEMs want those Iraqi bases just as much as the RW?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[matcom]

6. been openly saying that for MONTHS

now.

the time was yesterday.

[Gildor Inglorion]

7. We should!

Definitely...I'm serious. Declare a "glorious victory." Stage an immense parade down whatever street in New York City it is where they stage immense parades (5th Avenue? Broadway?). All the bells and whistles: Soldiers, sailors, politicians in convertibles, ticker tape, Air Force flyovers, fireworks, the 1812 Overture, marching bands, Wayne Newton singing "Danke Schoen" (sp?). And then forget the whole sorry episode and get on with life. Not that it will ever happen. There's that ocean of oil under Iraq to consider, not to mention all the Repuke fatcats who want a piece of the action.

[mopaul]

8. they should never have been sent

they were sent on a base of lies, they were sacrificed for the profits of billionaires and monsters. it's just hard for america to say it aloud

[WilliamPitt]

9. How?

The population of Iraq is divided into three groups: The Shi'ites (60% of the population), the Sunnis (23% of the population), and the Kurds (17% of the population). Saddam Hussein was a Sunni, and his Ba'ath Party was dominated by Sunnis. During his rule, this minority group dominated the country and oppressed the Shi'ites. The Kurds in the north waged their own separate battle for an independent nation, clashing with Turkey as often as they did with Hussein.

When Bush came in promising democracy to Iraq, the Shi'ites rejoiced because they are the majority, and the basic one-person-one-vote principle of democracy pretty much guaranteed that they would get to run the country. Unfortunately for them, the Bush people never actually intended for democracy to take root in Iraq, because they knew the Shi'ites would use democracy to elect a fundamentalist regime with ideological ties to Iran and then throw democracy out the back door. For a time, the Shi'ites were willing to cooperate with the American occupiers because they thought democracy was coming. Shi'ite Ayatollah Sistani counseled patience to his people, but that patience has ended. The Shi'ite people are now listening to Muqtada al-Sadr and killing as many Americans as they can find.

The words 'total failure' do not capture the enormity of this American action in Iraq during the last year. Why do we stay? Why would we stay?

This, in the end, is the ultimate failure of George W. Bush and his people. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the invasion, but they are there now. There was no open warfare between the religious factions in Iraq before the invasion, but now blood runs in the streets. Bush and his people ballyhooed the 'international coalition' that participated in this invasion, but the truth is we are all alone. We slapped down the United Nations to such a degree that this body, which could help us by replacing our troops with a true international coalition, wants nothing to do with us. That hardly matters, because the Bush administration wants nothing to do with them.

If a magic wand was waved and Bush decided to pull our soldiers out of Iraq, the nation would collapse into a bloodbath that would make Rwanda look like a picnic by comparison. Muqtada al-Sadr and his radical followers would take the nation, and Iraq would become a terrorist stronghold much the way Afghanistan did after we abandoned that nation to its fate in 1989. The entire Middle East would become destabilized. The wobbly House of Saud could fall and place all that oil into the hands of Wahabbi fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden. The chaos could reach all the way to Pakistan, where radical fundamentalists would love to topple that government and come into possession of that nation's battery of nuclear weapons.

There is no simple solution. An immediate withdrawal will set the stage for an incalculable slaughter in an Iraqi civil war, more terrorism against the United States, half a dozen more wars in the Middle East, the world's petroleum falling into the hands of al Qaeda, and the potential for Pakistani nukes in the hands of bin Laden. Staying in Iraq, conversely, will bring us more dead and wounded American soldiers, more dead and wounded Iraqi civilians, more terrorism against America, and billions and billions more dollars poured onto the sand.

http://truthout.org/docs_04/040604A.shtml

The only solution involves a long-term strategy. Elect Kerry. Get Kerry to open the 'reconstruction' contracts to actual bidding. Corrporations from France, Germany, Spain, Jordan, Egypt etc. will get contracts, and will be able to get a share of the billions of dollars to be made. Get the goddam Houston no-bid contractors out.

The first rule of this globalized world: Where the money is, the armies will follow. Open the contracting to the international community, and the armies of the international community will come to protect the investment. The American soldiers who inspire such demonstrable hatred from the Iraq people can be rotated home.

Cynical as hell, but the only solution.

[Seabiscuit]

10. Well said, Mr. Pitt!

The Bush neo-cons have put us and the rest of the world in this lose-lose situation.

The Kerry plan is the only rational solution - so long as it involves kicking out Halliburton, etc., and giving the contracts to other countries (including moderate Arab countries like Jordan) - the rest of the world has been so alienated by Bush's policies, words, and actions, that only a "carrot and stick" approach as you've outlined will solve the problem - where the lucrative contracts are, the armies will follow. U.N. in, U.S. out. It will take some time, but it's doable.

Meanwhile, we should be focusing our military efforts in along the Afghan-Pakistani border regions where Bin Laden, Omar, and their followers are gathering strength. And we should be focusing our intelligence efforts at training operatives in Arabic and Moslum culture, and working with intelligence groups around the world to infiltrate, shut down the Al Queda money supply, and decode and disrupt their internet communications networks.

[Nightjock]

32. Thank you Mr Pitt, Seabiscuit and everyone else

I hate to take a position and not be aware of all facts and theories.
I have never been as involved on the internet as I am with this truly wonderful, informative and thought provoking site.
I really don't know if we can pull out now, so I will cling to the thought that John Kerry can pull off a miracle cleaning up this mess George Bush and his dispicable thugs got us into.
I pray everyday for the soldiers, thier families and the civilians of Iraq. I guess I'll just pray harder.

And thank you to the founding folks of DU. I am going to make my first ever contribution because this place is an island of sanity in a crazy, deadly world. I felt almost alone in my beliefs before I got here.

[eridani]

33. Odd that when people talk of contracts, that no one mentions IRAQIS!

You know, the people with the 60-70% unemployment rate, including lots of engineers and people with expertise in all phases of the oil industry.

Iraqis should get first crack at everything, period. No foreigners at all unless they can contribute something not available locally. Of course we owe them a bunch of money, but that's a different issue.

[Ms. Clio]

36. I was just thinking the exact same thing

And I don't think the Iraqis will be any more delighted to watch their country's resources plundered and pillaged by Europeans instead of Americans.

In the end, it's just a question of how long it will take until the U.S. is forced out of the region, and how many lives it will cost.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Out NOW! All the bloodbath, civil war scenarios, are BS.

If a bloodbath or civil war does happen it will be because we are there. We are the ones causing the chaos.

"Destabilize the region"? As if it's stable now? It's a helluva lot less stable than it was before we decided to "help".

Kerry's "plan" is almost identical to the Flightsuit Rambo's. Both are unworkable. Both call for more troops. Both call for foreign military intervention through NATO and/or the UN. As if those nations are chomping at the bit to jump into our quagmire.

Give the country back to the people who live there and offer (non-military) help. But, get the hell out before they throw us out.

[Seabiscuit]

19. Agreed in part...

but Mr. Pitt does have some valid points.

What if we split today? What do you think would happen in Iraq? Mr. Pitt's scenario is very prescient - with 60% Shiites, 23% Sunnis, and 17% Kurds, there will most certainly be a struggle for national power in Iraq, and a very bloody one at that. And the far most likely outcome over time is that the Shiites will win and install an Iran-style fundamentalist clerical regime, friendly to Al Queda (as they will surely enlist Al Queda's help in taking over the reigns of power). And to ensure its political survival it well be as repressive if not more so than Saddam Hussein. The bloodbath will continue indefinitely. With those elements in control of an oil-rich country, Al Queda will have virtually unlimited financing to further its goals of taking over Pakistan and their nuclear missiles, and Saudi Arabia and all its oil revenues. The possibilities and probabilites present a far worse nightmare than existed prior to 9/11.

Yes, we MUST leave. But not until all American contractors are kicked out, and all contracts are bid among U.N. members, including moderate Arab states - who will then have some incentive to secure their interests with troops under U.N. sponsorship. Once they arrive in sufficient numbers we must withdraw every last soldier.

The Iraqis hate us as a result of Bush's actions. They don't hate the United Nations, or other countries that could participate there (without our presence - the American face of occupation must be eliminated) and provide security during a transition to true Iraqi sovereignty.

The U.N. should also govern civilian affairs until a parliamentary style government can be set up giving all ethnic groups and all political factions seats of power in a new Iraqi government. It cannot be a one-man-one-vote American style democracy because that would guarantee a Shiite dominated government which would undoubtedly be in control of the most radical fundamentalist Shiite clerics, a la Ayatollah Khomeini. I don't think you really want to see that scenario played out.

I don't know Kerry's full plan. He's very vague about it, and speaks in very broad-brush strokes. But hopefully he can be pressured, after he's elected, in the right direction. With Bush, all you get is more of the same year after year, with Arabs everywhere ripe for recruitment in Al Queda as anti-American sentiment continues to spread due to Bush's dirty war and corrupt policies. And we all know that dissent and pressure have absolutely no real effect on the current administration. With Kerry at least there's a glimmer of hope, which is better than none whatsoever.

[Kanary]

21. I haven't heard those of you who want the US to stay

actually have an idea of how to keep this civil war from happening anyway. It's just said over and over that the historical divisions in the country will fight each other.

Well, that's building up now. How to stop that from happening, just because the US is there?

I"m no longer getting any of my energy involved in this question, because I know it's something I have no say in at all. None.

Kanary

[Seabiscuit]

23. Your post is in response to mine, so I take it

you believe I am included in your phrase "those of you who want the US to stay".

That's a complete misreading of my posts. I want the US ***OUT***, the sooner the better. But let's be realistic. We've created a nightmarish mess in Iraq. Of the kind that the U.N. was created to handle. The U.N. MUST be involved, and any plan that gets them in and gets us out soonest is the only reasonable solution to the problem.

Otherwise, all the nightmarish scenarious outlined in Mr. Pitt's post and in my posts are highly probable, if not certain to come to pass.

[Kanary]

24. Yes, Dennis Kucinich said that MONTHS ago....... his plan was 90 days

But I'm not hearing from any of you who want us to stay to "prevent chaos" what the plan would be?

HOW is the presence of the US going to have any calming effect?

Many of us don't see that, so if you could delineate that, maybe we could understand why we're going to commit countless others to death over this.

Kanary

[Seabiscuit]

26. 90 days is a good target

and I've agreed with Kucinich on this all along.

But you *are* hearing from several of us "what the plan would be". Mr. Pitt spelled it out in his words, and I spelled it out several times in mine.

And I don't think it's fair of you to characterize either Mr. Pitt or myself as "any of you who want us to stay". If you continue to make that claim, you're not just misreading his and my posts, you're misrepresenting our statements.

My goal is simple: I want to save as many lives as possible. Not just American lives. Not just NATO lives. Not just the lives of U.N. troops. I want to save as many Iraq lives as possible.

Without the U.N. involvement (coupled with a total elimination of all U.S. presence in Iraq) such as Dennis Kucinich has consistently advocated, and as you, by mentioning his name, appear to also support, how many Iraqi lives will be saved by simply withdrawing U.S. troops with no additional plan to undo the damage Bush has done by internationalizing the situation????

Without a plan to internationalize the situation in Iraq and get American troops and contractors out of there ASAP (how about 30 days?)there will surely be a bloodbath in Iraq as various ethnic and political groups engage in a massive civil war in a struggle for supremacy there. We created that potential and it would be irresponsible of us to just unilaterally abandon Iraq to the fate we've created for them if left alone by the world community. It will take American leadership to influence the U.N. and induce them to take over ASAP so the U.S., Britain, and the phony "coalition of the willing" can get the hell out.

[Kanary]

27. Accusations are a dead end, friend.

As I told you, I don't have energy invested in this, as I have NO voice in the decison. So, you don't need to get all in a huff, and start accusing me. No wonder we DEMs can't get anywhere.

This whole thread is about pulling out NOW. I'm sure you noticed that. Pitt's argument, and yours, is that pulling out NOW isn't what you want to see, and you want to STAY to ensure some sort of safety against "chaos".

So, calling me names is just plain bullshit.

Argue with yourself..... this is nonsense.

bye now...

Kanary

[Seabiscuit]

29. I never called you any names and haven't "accused" you of anything.

But by now I will say that you've proven only one thing: it's unmistakeably clear that you're totally incapable of rational discussion.

This whole thread is *not* only about "pulling out NOW". It's also about consequences, and how to go about it all to minimize harm to the Iraqi people.

End of story.

[rucky]

34. Three-State Solution.

sorry, Turkey, but the Kurds are better off on their own.

[OneBlueSky]

17. every morning, on page 3 of my local paper . . .

there's a "Roll of Honor" with brief bios and, in most cases, photos of military personnel recently killed in Iraq . . . each day there are three, four, six, eight or more . . . they range in age from 18 to over 50 . . . I'm not sure what makes me sadder -- the loss of young men in the prime of their lives, or the children they leave behind to grow up without a father (or mother) . . . I read each entry every day to remind me how much I hate this war, this administration, and this president . . .

[PsN2Wind]

18. Between Iraq and a hard place

There is no simple, clean solution to the mess that we, as a nation, have allowed Dubyas handlers to create in the middle-east.
I almost wish we could just let Hussein out of jail, return him to power and get the hell out. Granted he was a ruthless dictator but in a part of the world where most countries are ruled by dictators, some ruthless, some benevolent. Obviously he knew full well what was necessary to hold his country together. The proof of that being that we are using many of those same tactics in an attempt to "pacify" that country. All the "democratic" leaders installed by a foreign entity be it the US or UN are going to be suspected of and probably will be simply a stooge for the infidels. We will always be seen as an occupying force there and rightly so. The Iraqis only need to look at Sudan and before that the Congo and before that Liberia to know we are not there for humanitarian reasons but because they have oil.
I'll vote for Kerry but I really don't expect a drastic change in our policy there so our country will continue to sacrifice blood and treasure. The main difference will be that then Kerry will be "cleaning up Dubyas mess" instead of "freeing the Iraqis from a sadistic dictator", a difference with little significance.

[Disturbed]

22. "incalculable slaughter in an Iraqi civil war"

I am far from convinced of that prediction. If Iraqis decided to have a multi-party system similar to that of many Euro. countries a civil war could be averted. This Us Puppet Govt. is a sham and Iraqis know it. The Iraqis refuse to be colonized. The Occupation must end!

[PsN2Wind]

31. Not certain how your post is a response to mine

but I don't think a "multi-party system" in Iraq is much more likely to work than it would in the former Yugoslavia. The only thing seemingly to unite the Sunnis and Shiites is their hatred of us.

[TrustingDog]

20. the sweet reconstruction deals would have to leave too...

and we know THAT ain't gonna happen.

[Seabiscuit]

28. Certainly not under Bush

But Kerry at least appears open to sending Haliburton, et. al. packing and let the U.N. handle bidding among its member states to aid in reconstruction (i.e. undoing some of the damage Bush did to Iraq).

Kerry is no Dennis Kucinich and no Howard Dean on these issues, but he's the only hope we've got left.

[number6]

30. I'm starting to think the same thing ...

it was all for oil and greed

WMD, terrorism, democracy, ... BULLSHIT

send the PNAC and Neo-Cons to hell

[TransitJohn]

35. Remember everybody alluding to the "China Store" rule?

As in, "USA, if you go into Iraq, you break it, you buy it."

:wtf: are we gonna do? No easy answers.