Why we Need to Stay in Iraq Redux

[troublemaker]

I posted this sentiment earlier and got a ton of really irresponsible, thoughtless or irrelevant condemnations, and I mean condemnations! To read through the posts I thought I was looking at Free Republic—the same sort of thoughtless nasty uninformed bile. There was the “if you love the Iraq War so much why don’t you enlist?” arguments, which I guess are the DU version of “go back to Russia!” There were comments that I have no right to even have ideas about Iraq policy unless I have a loved one stationed in Iraq. So much for democracy USA. Posters lectured me about colonialism, and informed me that I am in thrall of Republican propaganda, which is hilarious, given that I advocate impeaching Bush for Iraq along with any war crimes any body can hang on him. I was denounced both as racist for not thinking the Iraqis could govern themselves and as naïve for thinking there’s anything the US could do to stop those same ostensibly self-governable Iraqis from slaughtering each other. Worst of all, I was repeatedly informed that only people who have served in the military are entitled to opinions on national policy; a burgeoning fascist viewpoint around here… maybe a lot of folks took STARSHIP TROOPERS too seriously.

So what did I say that was so friggin’ awful? Essentially a paraphrase of noted right-wing nut Carol Mosley Braun’s Iraq position, “We broke it, so we have to fix it.” So now I'm curious if people are this crazed or if I merely stated my position poorly the first time. Here goes nothin'...

I doubt anyone was much more opposed to the Iraq war than I was unless they had a relative in the invasion force. It was the most degenerate US action since… since just about EVER. But the fact that the war was criminal does not inform the question of what we do now. I think that since we started this in the first place we cannot (morally) precipitate thousands of Iraqi deaths in an effort to save hundreds of American lives. By extension that means we cannot precipitate tens of thousands or Iraqi deaths to save thousands of Americans. I said in my original post that we had to act morally for the Iraqis no matter the cost to ourselves, and that 20,000 American dead wouldn’t remove our obligation to prevent a 500,000 dead civil war. (Some respondents treated that as if I’d said I wanted 20,000 Americans to be killed. There was a lot of questioning of what right I have to sacrifice 20,000 Americans. Gee, I dunno. Maybe the same right everyone that votes in America has. We all take political positions that have big life and death consequences on the line. When people post saying US Out Of Iraq nobody seems to question what right they have to sacrifice a far greater number of Iraqis)

I believe that if we pull out now we will leave Iraq to a fate of civil war. I cannot imagine it would cost less than 50,000 lives. I can easily imagine it swallowing up 500,000 lives. (Many replies to my original post argued that civil war was inevitable not matter what. That’s so morally bankrupt I’m taken aback. If we hadn’t gone into Iraq in 2003 there most likely wouldn’t have been a civil war in 2005. If we can prevent that war in 2005 we have to do just that, even if it will just break out later. We caused the current situation! Why do we see that argument well represented on these boards but nobody says we need to stop AIDs funding in Africa because they’ll just die anyway.)

I’m not saying we cannot leave six months from now—I doubt there will be a suitable Iraqi security apparatus in place that soon, but if things change I’m all for getting out as soon as morally permissible. I have no problem if someone accepts the existence of a national moral obligation TODAY to achieve the best possible outcome for Iraq, but argues that that goal is best served by immediate withdrawal. I disagree on the facts or analysis, but at least the position is morally sound. (A few posters directed me to a Robert Fisk article offering his opinion that Iraq might not blow up if we left as if it was gospel. Perhaps he’s right but few Iraqis want us to leave TODAY. ASAP, yes, but no until there’s a sound native security apparatus. Most Iraqis dislike us and would feel good if we dropped dead, but they fear their neighbors even more.)

We have no right to put bases in Iraq, manage the Iraqi oil industry, dictate the eventual form of government, or anything else. We have no real rights in Iraq. But we do have responsibilities. Whatever the cost of mitigating the damage we have already done it’s a cost we are, as a nation, obligated to pay. Some seem to think Iraq was Bush’s war, so “we” don’t have as high a level of moral obligation. I disagree. WE did this. Every single one of us. When the Supreme Court appointed Bush there was no million-person protest in DC. There aren’t thousands and thousands of Iraq war protesters in prison like there were during WWI. I opposed the HELL out of this war, but it’s still my county’s doing and since I haven’t marched down to the pentagon to immolate myself Vietnam style I’ve taken on some responsibility too.

So let’s see if I’ve said this better this time, or if I’m just a bust-out Nazi for advocating the presumptive Democratic nominee’s position on Democratic Underground.

[dpbrown]

1. The presumptive nominee's position is divisive

So yours is, too.

And seeing as how "unity" is the buzzword of the day, taking this postion itself works against establishing unity.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[never cry wolf]

2. And, just what do you presume the nominee's position is?

This is what he has to say:

John Kerry believes that we must obtain a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding of Iraq and the development of its new Constitution and government. He would:
Transfer Responsibility to the UN for Governance. Kerry will go to the UN with a proposal to transfer responsibility to the UN for governance and the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq. The UN would succeed the Coalition Provisional Authority and the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General would become the overall international leader in Iraq. The UN would work with the Iraqis on the substance and process of the Iraqi government and the electoral process to give it legitimacy and to organize the writing of the constitution. Kerry cautioned that this cannot happen overnight and that the CPA will have a key role in ensuring a smooth turnover.
Build an International Coalition. Kerry will reach out to the European nations to build a coalition in support of operations in Iraq. He will eliminate Bush’s discriminatory contracting procedures and offer a genuine partnership of responsibility in return for a genuine partnership of burden sharing – troops and money.


http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/index.html

Sounds fairly logical to me, not much other choice, IMHO.

[Postman]

5. The only solution is to get out and fast.

go back to the UN and throw everything on the table.

[DulceDecorum]

27. Remember when we asked Florida to count the votes AGAIN

what did we end up with?

Now, if we had sent someone ELSE in there to do the tally
we most certainly would not be in this mess now.

Moral:
If he broke it in the first place,
stands to reason he doesn't know how to fix it neither.

[troublemaker]

3. excellent point

I had hoped it was unifying to argue for the sense of that position, which I happen agree with--but you seem to be right that it's divisive here, so I should drop it. On a national level I suspect US OUT OF IRAQ is even more divisive, being a more absolutist position, but venue is everything.

[dpbrown]

17. The context for many is that this is an illegal invasion

Therefore the rationale, for those people, for going in is tainted. Those people "knew" that Bush was lying, and at least one opposition candidate for the nomination "knew" Bush was lying, as evidenced by his vote against the invasion resolution, and his effort at bringing more than half the Democratic members of the House to vote against the invasion resolution.

Therefore, it's not just the "venue" of DU that makes the proposition that "everyone" adopt one absolutist position over another, it's the contextual need to adequately address the concern of millions that the invasion was illegal - that if it was wrong to go in it's wrong to stay - that must flavor the discussion of when and how to disengage from Iraq.

"We broke it and we must fix it" translates for them more like, "We didn't have to break it, we were warned not to try, we don't have to fix it, and we're making it worse by continuing the transformation of Iraq into America's West Bank."

Additionally, for every day that the United States and its Anglo-Saxon privatization pirates remain in Iraq, Iraq stands less of a chance of emerging from this occupation with its rights to control its resources, banking, and water rights under its own sovereignty intact. Privatization by foreign corporations of Iraq's resources is an issue that the presumptive nominee is not addressing, but one that at least one opposition candidate for the nomination continues to address.

Illegality and privatization - context - as much as or more than "venue" make a proposal for rote acceptance of this particular "absolutist" position a nonstarter for many, myself included.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

[troublemaker]

29. Privatization

It's shocking -- of everything we've done that's the most offensive.

[corporatewhore]

4. I think Tariq Ali knows more about whats goin on

check it out http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1103-07.htm also check out his book bush in babylon about iraqs history of resistance to empire and colonialism

[Djinn]

45. just to be completely off topic

nice to know what Cynthia McKinney looks like - heard a lot about her over the years, mainly from Noam Chomsky amongst others and her comments on Israel/Palestine...I have absolutely no idea why but I always pictured her completely differently.

[wasichu]

6. I stopped reading

when I read "they fear their neighbors even more (than us).

Nice try.

[troublemaker]

23. Crime doesn't matter?

The most reliably anti-war press sources, which is mostly what I read, are full of descriptions of increased crime and general mortality rates in Bagdahd, and of people who've been afraid to go outside for a year, and rape becoming commonplace in some quarters, etc. I think most Iraqis do fear their neighbors more than they fear the Americans.

[leftofthedial]

34. if it's that bad with us there

what difference will it make if we leave?

[BeFree]

7. So, you have a plan?

Ya think that by keeping armed military in Iraq is the solution?

I don't think so.

I say we pay off all the Iraqi's. Pay each and every Iraqi a thousand bucks or more for the damages we caused and promise that we never bother them again. That's how we handle civil matters here. That's real American Justice.

[The Magistrate]

8. There Is No Need For This, Sir

The earlier discussion is perking along just fine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1343083&mesg_id=1343083

Nor have you been wholly accurate in characterizing it.

This is a subject on which many people here feel very strongly, and you must expect strenuous expression upon it. The overwhelming majority of those who disagreed with you are still going to vote for the Democratic Party's nominee for President in the fall.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[troublemaker]

13. Strong feelings, yes, but

I'm surprised by the near unanimity (90%+) of US OUT OF IRAQ given that these boards were, not long ago, full of ardent advocacy of Clarke, Kerry, and Edwards, all of whom are probably somewhat to the right of my position--all three definitely accept nation-building conceptually more than I do.

Is it that during the primaries there was a higher proportion of party loyalists and today most DUers are more idealogical?

[bemildred]

15. The choices are limited. nt

[PsN2Wind]

21. Which of them said

that 20,000 American lives wouldn't be too many to sacrifice to save the Iraqis from themselves? Not gonna get far campaigning on that.

[BradCKY]

9. You make some very good points.

Don't let them bother you, some will not listen and throw names no matter what you say. Good to see others on the moderate left in here. :)

[PsN2Wind]

You might take a look at the other thread

he started on this subject. He has a quite cavalier attitude about the numbers of other peoples lives he is willing to sacrifice to keep a presence in Iraq. Emphasis on OTHER PEOPLES. We'll have a draft long before those 20,000 lives he's willing to right off as a good investment in saving Iraq. Anyone you know ready to go in the lottery?

[leftofthedial]

10. any civilized person agrees

we had no right to invade and now have no right to occupy.

I'll ignore for the moment that you accuse me of being morally bankrupt.

Iraq is melting down NOW, already.

It will get worse before it gets better and us staying there only makes matters worse, not better.

If we DON'T pull out now, Iraq's fate is still civil war.

If we DO pull out now, Iraq's fate is civil war.

We have no moral authority to impose order on the country where we have created the chaos.

There is NO scenario in which we stay and the situation improves. Period.

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. .

.
.
.

:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:_:thumbsup:

[leftofthedial]

35. thanks!

:-)

[mmonk]

11. I understand your position

and have shared it somewhat. It's just I don't see the violence letting up as long as we're there in any fashion and I don't see anyone wanting to really help us. Everyone wants the US and the coalition to fail because of the way we have conducted ourselves internationally and our arrogance. The only way for us to stay and everything to work out reasonably well is if the people of Iraq desire it.

[teryang]

12. No matter the cost?

This is a non-starter. In cost benefit analysis, cost is 50 percent of the consideration.

The primary moral obligation that arises from invading a nation without justification is to get out. Now if you wish to provide technical assistance, money, reconstruction, and reparations do so. If the situation you've created by the unlawful invasion renders this impractical, do what one can and wait it out to supply the rest, American Armed Forces not required.

The hubris to fancy that we can prevent civil war in Iraq after we destroyed it is so obvious that one would think it didn't need explaining. In the first instance, is the right to national self determination. The Iraqis are going to have to fix things themselves and govern themselves. To think that they can't without our Armed Forces is the worst kind of "white mans burden" chauvinism. If civil war is the cost of our immoral attack and invasion, that doesn't imply that the presence of American forces can prevent any killing and bloodshed that go along with it. In fact, the last year shows that we are impotent when it comes to imposing order in Iraq. Since this is the sine qua non of rule in an Islamic state, we have failed and proven that we are incapable of governing. The total immorality and lack of legitimacy of our presence there only aggravates the civil war and prolongs the suffering.

What is the benefit of the continued presence of our armed forces. I contend that nothing positive can come of it.

Defense Economics 101: when doing cost benefit analysis realize that sunk costs are no costs.

Lastly, the notion that we can remedy the irrevocable harm that we have done to Iraq by the further application of force is childish. It is like that immature killer who regrets that he cannot bring his victims back to life after he has slaughtered them in cold blood. You can't remedy the results of slaughter.

We can't turn back the clock, we can't change the verdict of history. We can only sustain more losses. In Vietnam it took ten years for sanctimonious politicians to realize this. In many cases people in positions of power today never realized it and are still trying to prove their case in Iraq. They are still wrong.

[troublemaker]

16. No cost-benefit

There are practical limits, of course, but unless one's a true Kissinger realist there can be moral considerations that defy cost-benefit... again, up to a point.

[teryang]

19. Wrong

How cavalierly one dismisses the costs of our sons, daughters, husbands and wives in Iraq. How easily one dispenses with hundreds of billions in prospective costs.

One contends that they are moral and there is no further need to consider costs. Human life is the limit on such pompous nonsense.

This effort is jeopardizing the national security and future well being of our entire nation.

[bloom]

14. Since the US is the invading force

I don't see how we can bring peace.

I think we should do what we can reasonably do to help - by providing equipment or what have you. I don't see why they can't rebuild their country without OUR contractors.

They have 70% unemployment among the men in Fallujah - yet we have all these American companies working there? And there isn't going to be more and more resentment?

I don't see it working as long as we are there.

I think, and I think most of them think that we continue to be there for what "we"(ie.Haliburton) can get out of it.

[troublemaker]

18. Agree!

The unemployment is the biggest social problem--probably larger than ethnic or sectarian tensions. Our contracting practices have been absurd. We could have set up a friggin' WPA with what we're feeding to American corporations.

[iangb]

20. Iraq needs a unifying presence.....

.....and US troops are incapable of that. (Nothing against the US Military, but they aren't trained or equipped for this stuff).

The likelyhood of civil strife is being increased by the US's presence........not vice-versa.

Decisions concerning Iraqs future must be taken out of the hands of the WH and Pentagon and left to the Iraqi people.

Until Bush and Co. Ltd. destroyed tha UN's credibility I'd have said that the UN was the obvious choice for overseeing Iraqs transition to whatever form of government they choose.........and it may not be the form of 'Western Democracy' we'd recognise........now though I'm not so sure.

[Aidoneus]

26. the US troops are capable of that, just in the wrong way

They're doing a fine job of unifying, against them.

[atreides1]

24. One More Life Is Too Much

WE did not do this, so don't put the rest of us in your little world.

This was a war of choice, the US Congress and the President decided to wage this war, and they even went against the wishes of those that
they are supposed to be working for, the citizens of the US.

When would it be time for US military personnel to leave, 10 years, 20 years, perhaps we'll continue to occupy Iraq, as we still do Germany and Japan.

My own viewpoint is this, our own history has shown that we Americans hate when foreigners attempt to intervene in our affairs,
why would we think that the Iraqi people would feel any different.

Our own history shows that everything wasn't roses even after we defeated the British in the Revolutionary War, the infighting among ourselves is a matter of record. It took the US twenty years to finally agree on the contents of the Constitution.

How does the US act morally, our military has dropped bombs on civilians, killed women, children , members of the media, and with the exception of some MP's beating prisoners, it's all been white washed. The US has failed to meet the "moral" requirement you seem to think that it posseses, it was lost when the first troops crossed
the border and headed for Baghdad, in an illegal war.

Once again WE DID NOT DO THIS, those in Washington, with the exception of a few brave men and women DID THIS. But I guess if you
or anyone you know and love aren't stopping bullets then it's okay

Perhaps it would be better for all concerned if the coalition returned Iraq to its origins before the British screwed it all up,
by forcing them to become a single country, sort of like what the US
is trying to do, by forcing them into democracy.

Besides the others are right, it's presumptive.

[DulceDecorum]

25. Throwing good money after bad

like a gambler who doesn't know when to quit.

If I was run over by a man in a car and woke up to find that same man saying that he was a surgeon and wanted to operate on me,
you betcha I would do anything in my power to stop him.
My attitude is, "you have done enough."

I think the good people of Iraq feel much the same way.
Send them restitution by all means but
TAKE THE SOLDIERS AWAY.

The longer the soldiers remain in Iraq,
the more Depleted Uranium they inhale and the higher their chances of dying from radiation poisoning.
And wait till you see their babies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5431&forum=DCForumID43&archive=yes

Get out of Iraq. NOW.
Do it for the children.

[Bucky]

30. Throwing young blood after the spilt

Unfortunatly, I agree with the original poster. If we cut and run from Iraq now, we'll only be saving American lives. There's a bloodbath brewing between Sunnis and Shia--and in fact between rival factions within the Shia. If the Shiites were united, they'd just wait for us to leave and then slaughter whatever Sunnis are left from their fight against the Americans. But instead the Shia are now positioning themselves against each other for the right to slaughter the Sunnis.

God help us, we have unleashed this hell. But we can't just cut and run. Our country has a moral responsibility to try and head off this chaos because we were the catalyst. We didn't cause it, per se. We didn't build this house of cards--though at times we made a profit from it. But we did knock the props out from under it. Our country will end up paying for this in the blood of our young soldiers. No, make that dozens, perhaps hundreds, more of my fellow citizens will die in my name so that I can drive around in relative freedom back here. The dead will all be guys younger than me. Perhaps a thousand or two more will lose an eye or a hand or both legs in this tragedy.

I don't want to pay this cost, but the purchase has been made. The bill will come due. And behind it all, al-Qaeda and its successors are waiting to start picking up the peices. If 9/11 showed us anything, it taught us that mistakes can now follow us back to our shores.

[welshTerrier2]

28. you still haven't responded to this

this is a repeat of my post in your other thread ... the bottom line is that you need to be able to make a case that we can change the outcome in Iraq ... i have no problem with the "we broke it so we have to fix it" theme as far as it goes ... but it fails to understand that we are not only not able to fix Iraq; we are making things much worse by continuing our occupation.

here was my previous post:

subject: well meaning but naive

you correctly point out that if the U.S. pulls out now there will be civil war ...

but you don't explain how U.S. presence, no matter the length of our stay, will do anything to change that reality ...

perhaps it's not a useful analogy, but humor me for a minute ... imagine back in 1860 or so that the North wanted to eliminate slavery in the South ... civil war loomed on the horizon ...

and imagine that a third country occupied the U.S. and held off the conflict ... no matter what actions that country took, when they left the North still wanted to impose its will on the South ... and when they left, that which had to happen would have happened ...

you create some type of fantasy that U.S. presence is something akin to "couples counseling" and that by our mere, mystical presence the american good guys will stabilize the cultural, policital and military institutions and "bring the parties together" ...

it's a nice fantasy ... it would be nice if civil war could be avoided ... it was also very generous of you to contribute 20,000 american lives to blunder our way through a policy that can never succeed ... btw, we're already over $200 billion for this policy ... wanna try for $400 billion ?? these are dollars that could be building new technology to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels ... it could be spent fighting aids ... it could be spent on so many things that might really help some people on the planet ...

you're right to recognize the risk of civil war and genocide when the U.S. withdraws ... unfortunately, you haven't seen that it's not just the cost of U.S. occupation that's unacceptable ... it's that the outcome will not be changed ...

[bemildred]

31. Doesn't seem to want to talk about that.

I made the point at least twice and it was ignored.
I halfway suspect some sort of clever trolling going on.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

38. My sentiments exactly

[troublemaker]

32. Social Tensions

The tensions in Iraq are very real, just as they were in the US in 1860. But the expression of tensions is not going to be the same in every environment. What if an occupying army in the US had either banned slavery everywhere or mandated it everywhere? When that power left there would be facts on the ground that would shape the prospects of war vs. reconciliation.

Maybe the two sides find common ground in their mutual oppression. I would be delighted if Iraq formed a government whose first act was tossing us out. We would be out and they would have at least one experience acting nationally.

It makes a difference, for instance, if we leave Iraq with a national army of a range of local militias. That difference, even if the Iraqi army was lame and corrupt, would shape the nature of the inevitable resolution of existing tensions. Just one example.

Small example: We still blow up a lot of ordinance every day--ordinance that won't be used Iraqi on Iraqi when we leave. That's not solving any major social divides, but it's better than the alternative.

I know the we cannot know the best course of action without a crystal ball, and I hate everything we've done over there so far, but I believe that a force as powerful as ours can do something comparatively benign--something to reduce the eventual civil strife death toll.

This is a subtle point--I agree that it's a dynamic situation driven by a zillion underlying forces. I don't pretend to know exactly what actions would manifest what outcomes, but I don't accept what seems almost axiomatic here, which is that the US presense tomorrow is automatically malign (Not what's been done, which is plenty malign).

There's an uncertainty problem in that if we cannot know what the US could do to help how can we know that the answer is "nothing?"

[bemildred]

33. Better.

"I believe that a force as powerful as ours can do something
comparatively benign--something to reduce the eventual civil
strife death toll"

That isn't what conventional military forces are good for.
They break things and kill people, that's their job.
But it's a common mistake.

[troublemaker]

41. Agreed, but

Agreed, but I'm looking at the situation today. None of us chose what's gone before, but today our chief asset in Iraq is, unfortunately, our military presence. That limits our options. I wish we had a corps of 5000 Arabic speaking diplomats, but that ain't gonna happen.

But given the horrible hand we've dealt ourselves (and them) it's like Apollo 13. You need a CO2 exchanger and all you have is what's on board.

Civil war's not the only danger. Iraq has no real military left. They couldn't possibly resist an invasion from Iran. Not certain or even likely but definitely a possibility... would we have to go back in to drive out Iran? As things stand there's no danger of that. A small plus, but a plus.

[bemildred]

44. "It's like trying to shove a piece of spaghetti up a wildcats ass."

When you are impotent, the thing to do is go home and sleep it off.
Being well meaning and wanting to make it right is not enough.
The most serious danger is Kurdish nationalism, which has the potential
to initiate a general war in the region. But that does not mean
we can fix it by getting more of our soldiers killed. We may have
a hammer, but it's still not a nail.

[trumad]

36. Ya know...I've been searching high and low for a good reason

to stay in Iraq and risk the lives of American Soldiers...and you just provided it to me..."We can blow up a lot of ordinance"

Dear Mr. and Mrs Jones, we regret that your Son Billy died today in Iraq but we want you to know that he did it for the cause of ridding Iraq of Ordinance.

So you're telling me thats why we've got to stay in Iraq, because we've got to blow up Ordinance...:eyes:

[welshTerrier2]

43. The Inevitability of the Inevitable

the whole world hates what the U.S. is doing in Iraq ... we are destroying every alliance we had ... and the few governments that still back bush exist in countries where the people do not support us ... look what just happened in Spain ...

you make a point about destroying ordnance (no "I" btw) ... sounds a little like "we have to invade Iraq to destroy their weapons of mass destruction" ... the U.S. is the world's number one arms merchant ... do you really believe that the Kurds or Shi'ites will not obtain all the arms they want after the U.S. withdraws?

you seemed to imply that those who want to withdraw immediately or very soon don't have compassion for the suffering of the Iraqis ... nothing could be further from the truth as far as my own views go ... we installed Saddam in Iraq ... we sold him weapons ... we wink and nod when he wants to invade Kuwait ... then we destroy Saddam on a case built on lies ... now we're going to bring freedom and democracy ???

i appreciate that you believe the U.S. has the power to be a force for good in the world ... with the right people in office, perhaps that could at least be the motivation for being in Iraq ... but it's going to take more than the U.S. military to "fix" Iraq ... it's not going to happen whether we leave now or in ten years ...

it is only a matter of time before we see demonstrations with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the streets ... the tolerance for U.S. presence is diminishing everyday ... how will you quash these riots ... you will be forced to respond with overwhelming force or you will be forced to leave ... and with each U.S. death, with each explosion, future "terrorists" are born ... we are driving a massive wedge between Islam, especially Islamic youth, and the U.S.

we are well on our way to building a cultural and religious war against the nation of Islam ... and the "civil strife" you seek to reduce will be a fantasy ... it's not that there's anything wrong with your goals or your values, but military occupation of Iraq will not bring them about ...

and while we're busy trying to "fix" things, our own futures hang in the balance ... we will surely see increased risks of terrorism here at home ... we are losing our young people everyday ... we invest and invest and have nothing to show for it ... in the eastern world, patience is more a virtue than it is in the U.S. ... there is no urgency ... the U.S. will tire of their foolish crusade ... and if not, the energy to push us out grows stronger with each attack on U.S. troops ... some people were shocked to see the celebrating in fallujah ... what did they expect? american lives, iraqi lives, U.S. prestige, U.S. financial solvency ... all of these things are being buried everyday ...

it's a dear price we are paying with no end in sight ... and in the end, the Iraqis will determine their own fate ... and no power on earth can change that ...

[Mari333]

37. Its easy to dismiss other people's children in this war

and make pronouncements about them and what should happen to them, when you are sitting comfortably in your home and have no one over there to worry about every day, whether they will even come home, and whether they will be sane , and whether they will be maimed for life.
Until you have someone you love over there, you are playing a video game in your mind, and are no different to me then the right wingers who sit and watch the war on Fox and drink beer and have never been in a war zone, who beat their chests and make decisions about whats to be done with other peoples children in this war.
I just need to be bluntly truthful.
http://www.bringthemhomenow.com

[Skittles]

39. you don't get it, do you?

we can't FIX the damage done in Iraq anymore than we could have FIXED Viet Nam. We will stay there for years and years and all we will have to show for it is a lot of dead soldiers. There will be civil war if we leave and civil war if we don't leave. QUAGMIRE - exactly what all of us crazy anti-war protesters WARNED ABOUT.

[troublemaker]

42. "you don't get it, do you?"

re: "exactly what all of us crazy anti-war protesters WARNED ABOUT"

Why do you think that anyone who disagrees with you about anything is whatever you want to pretend he is. I am one of those crazy anti-war protesters.

[Skittles]

52. you may be one

but you clearly do not get it

[dpibel]

40. Heat? In the kitchen????? Who knew?

I take it you haven't spent too much time on the internet or, for that matter, on DU if you think that thread constituted some sort of horrifying flame-fest. If you put out opinions in a discussion forum, you probably are in the wrong place if you expect people simply to say, "Well, golly! I'd never thought of it that way. Good point!" You especially should not expect that when you are putting out a fairly controversial position for the environment in which you are operating.

You claimed in that thread, and claim in this one, to wonder what people think about the question. You seem, however, to take it very hard if people think about the question some way other than you do. You seem to feel that you are completely within your rights to treat others as terribly naive and uninformed, and that they should respond, I guess, with a humble, "Thanks for straightening me out on that."

As to your current post, in which you air your hurt feelings, I respectfully submit that you are dissembling rather badly. But, since I participated in the other thread, I thought I might have overlooked some of the carnage which you detail here. So I went back and read the other thread, in its entirety. Here is what I found:

You say you "got a ton of really irresponsible, thoughtless or irrelevant condemnations, and I mean condemnations!" I'm sorry, I looked for those and could not find them. Disagreeing with you, in strong terms, does not constitute condemnation. If you cannot make that distinction, I suggest you harden your armor a bit before you presume to lecture on the internet. Point me, please, to...I'll make it easy...two posts which constitute condemnation.

You say, "To read through the posts I thought I was looking at Free Republic—the same sort of thoughtless nasty uninformed bile." I challenge you to show me one post--just one--that comes even remotely close to the sort of nasty uninformed bile you will find on Free Republic. Given that I was preparing to respond to this post, I read with my nasty bile detector set to "high." Yet I could not find it. Again, you were argued with, frequently harshly. But "thoughtless bile?" Not even close. The worst you could find would be thoughtful bile, but I don't think you'll find bile at all.

You say, "There was the 'if you love the Iraq War so much why don’t you enlist?' arguments, which I guess are the DU version of 'go back to Russia!'" I will here give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you have experienced an analytical failure, rather than go with my first reaction, which is that you are engaging in dissembling of the baldest sort. Accurately stated, the sentiment is: If you are going to be so cavalier about, or so willing to sacrifice, American lives, you should be willing to make one of those your own. Can you see the distinction there? The comments were not about support, or lack thereof, for "the Iraq war." They were a response to your repeated assurance that you will, albeit ruefully, countenance an additional 20,000 or so American deaths in order to do what you consider to be the right thing. By the way, there are more than 100 posts in that thread. A total of five suggest enlistment could be a learning tool for you. I may have missed one, so I'll give you six. That hardly constitutes a majority view (even though, in light of what I've written above, I think there's merit to it).

You say, "There were comments that I have no right to even have ideas about Iraq policy unless I have a loved one stationed in Iraq." Now on this one, I'm teetering on the edge of bald dissembling. But I'll again give you the benefit of the doubt for analytical difficulties. Here is the sole instance I could find that comes even close to what you say happened (it's #48): "dont make blanket statements about staying the course unless you either have a loved one there about to be blown to bits, or do some research as to whats going on with the military." Now, it's a far, far stretch to turn that into "I have no right to even have ideas." The poster says you should not make blanket statements. The poster has a point, IMHO.

You say, "Posters lectured me about colonialism. . .." And, we might add, you defended the colonialist point of view. Post #41: "The fact that many have claimed something as pretext doesn't make it inaccurate in all cases. The British said that if they left India a religious war would break out killing nobody knows how many hundreds of thousands or millions. And that's just what happened."

Continuing the above sentence, you say, "and informed me that I am in thrall of Republican propaganda." In fact, someone did say, (Post #12) "You are buying the propaganda of lies pushed by bush* and his buddies that only 'insurrgents' are fighting us." And it appears, based on your statements that this particular point is correct. Do you see the difference between saying, "On this particular point, you seem to be buying the official story," and saying, "You are in the thrall of Republican propaganda."

I am not going to line-by-line the rest of this missive about your ill treatment. Much of it reiterates the same points (e.g., "I was repeatedly informed that only people who have served in the military are entitled to opinions on national policy," which is a variant on the "told me I should enlist," and is also, really, this time I'll say it, a bald-faced lie). Saying that Pilger was presented to you as gospel is a falsehood: You were pointed to a Pilger article; since Pilger has lived in that part of the world for many years, you might excuse some of us if we think he knows more about the situation than you do.

Finally, how apologetic should anyone feel to have wounded the delicate sensibilities of a person who heads his Post #98, "You, sir or madam, are a fascist"? Is that pot/kettle or is it dish/can't take? I can never keep those two straight.

If what you really wanted was for a whole bunch of people to say, "Oh, my god! You've really sorted it all out. What could I have been thinking?" You could have said that in your first post. Something like, "Here's the truth. If you agree, feel free to say thanks. Otherwise, don't post on my thread."

[troublemaker]

47. thanks for the post

I'm familiar with forums, the Internet, etc. I respect your view of the thread and take it under advisement (seriously) but there's a vicious edge to that set of replies that I simply haven't seen elsewhere on DU (and I have indeed seen a great deal of DU)

Perhaps today's bad news caused an emotional spike.

God knows I became emotional because my loathing for Iraq hawks is immense, and people tend to respond strongly to imputations that they are whatever they hate most.

The immediate resort on the part of some (not most) to the most dire imputation--that I had called for the slaughter of Americans--isn't what DU is usually about. And while I had monstrously advocated killing Americans there were many lively posts on DU supporting Kos for saying essentially 'fuck the mercenaries'(and many saying otherwise)

Had I titled exactly the same post "How Bush is fucking up Iraq" or "Why our policy is immoral" the responses would have been different, so I guess the title was read as pro-Bush and that was that. I was an obvious troll.

Anyway--these are tense times. Everyone (myself included) is on fire with the frustration of facing an endless campaign where every single day will be a barrage of lies.

[markses]

48. LOL. Two words:

Red Ass. :spank:

Well done.

[dpibel]

50. But I have to give troublemaker credit (seriously)

I certainly composed that screed with a primary intention of smackdown and a secondary one of education.

I give t-maker a lot of credit for his response. "Bite me," while not very effective, would not have been entirely surprising or out of line.

I think his response is measured; I think he makes good points about the high, and escalating, amount of feeling surrounding this descent into bloody quagmire (my terms obviously). I didn't expect that at all which, perhaps, lends some support to his statements about pigeonholing.

But I have to admit, it was kinda wicked fun to write...

[Bridget Burke]

46. An explanation about the "enlistment" comments.

Since you're new here, you may not know that some people at DU have family members serving in Iraq. So these DU'ers tend to take the war personally. When they hear about casualties, they wonder if a message from the Department of Defense is on the way. They also wonder how the war will affect the ones who return "safely".

So, when somebody shows up saying why "we" ought to stay in Iraq, they get a bit testy. YOU aren't in Iraq. So, where did the "we" come from? Of course, there's a good reason you have avoided enlisting.

The permanent US military bases in Iraq need to be abandoned. Rebuilding needs to be done by the Iraqis--with help from US taxpayers; cut Halliburton out of the deal. Get the UN or other international forces in ASAP.

Perhaps everybody is telling you that you are wrong because you are wrong.

[troublemaker]

49. We

I don't know how to talk about America except "we"

If this war wasn't all of ours we wouldn't be half so angry about it. We're Amricans (mostly) and it's terrible this has been done in our name.

It's the 20,000 comment that seems to have upset people, and I'm sorry for that... I don't WANT that outcome! But I'm scared by so many people saying "take care of ours, fuck theirs" in a conflict that "they" didn't start.

If a million Iraqis died it wouldn't hurt me as much as if a thousand Americans died, but I know that's wrong... That I should be ashamed of that natural feeling that our people are worth more than their people.

[Bridget Burke]

53. You missed the point of my message.

Where did I say "take care of ours, fuck theirs"?

I was pointing out why some DU'ers tend to ask visiting hawks about their military background. They have people over there, in danger, overextended, hoping for relief. Your own avoidance of military service is understandable--there's no need to explain why you urge others to die in your place. I heard enough of that over here during the Vietnam years; the word was "chicken-hawk".

And the steps I outlined are meant to save Iraqi lives, as well. How many died this weekend? And you say things will go to Hell if we pull out? They're very close to Hell right now.

Yes, you should be ashamed of that "natural feeling that our people are worth more than their people". You wonder why you've gotten complaints about racism & colonialism?

[BGAL1965]

51. Don`t ever forget that the primary goal

of the fundamentalist rightwingers is to bring about the RAPTURE.The second coming of Christ and the end times of this world. As crazy as this sounds you must plug this obsession into the middle east equation to get a complete picture of the psychotic nature of the republican rightwing. These people will go to any length including bankrupting this country and creating a civil war in Iraq to obtain their goal.

[MadHound]

54. You are fitting a definition of insanity in two ways now

The first way is your position vis a vis Iraq. We have seen, historically, how the US's efforts at nation building have turned out.
Poorly, for the most part. Yet here we are again, doing the same thing, yet expecting different results. Insanity. The example of Vietnam comes most readily to mind. Here we are, involved in a quagmire of our own making, in a country where we aren't wanted. Once again we are installing a puppet government, and once again, well meaning people are saying that we can't pull out now, or a civil war will break loose. Yet look what happened in Vietnam, where these same arguements were used in order to stay in that quagmire for entirely too long. Millions on both sides died, a country was wrecked, and in the end, the US left anyway. This is the path followed by virtually any imperial power that is unwelcome in a country. Yet be of good cheer friend. Apparently you are going to get your wish that we stay in Iraq. Once again, the 'Pugs and Dems are engaged in another pissing contest to see who is "soft on terror". The same dynamic that kept the US entrenched in Vietnam for way too long is at work here, and sadly it looks like the US is in this for the long haul.

The second is way that you are fitting a definition of insanity is by re-posting virtually the same thread as you posted earlier, and expecting to get different result. Once again, this is a definition of insanity. Note, I'm not saying that you are insane, but your actions vis a vis this thread fits a definition of insanity. Just as the US actions vis a vis Iraq also fits this self same definition. Perhaps it is time for all of us to try a different position.

Like getting the hell out of Iraq.