I am conflicted about the war in Iraq.

[Texasgal]

I truly believe that we shouldn't be there, I believe that The American public has been lied to, by Bush-co. I am angry about it, and unhappy that we have lost so many American lives for this lie.

However...

Here's where it gets conflicting for me.

I see alot of calls to bring our troops home now. I would love to see a pull out, but this is where it gets sticky for me. How can we pull out now? Iraq is in total disarray, innocent Iraqi's are being killed on a daily basis. Many homes are still without basic electricity and running water. The new Iraqi police force is not yet well trained to protect their citizens. The new government is still not trustworthy and we have pissed off so many people ( insurgents ) that I doubt that Iraq will be fully stabilized for a while. Streets, bridges and homes have been bombed out, schools are having a hard time educating the young.

How do we pull out...walk away from all the damage we have caused? Do we not owe the Iraq citizens some help re-building their nation? Do we owe it to the all of the soldiers killed in this mess? Can we admit our mistake and turn this into a humanitarian mission?

Thoughts?

[BayouBengal07]

1. That's my problem too.

I've just kept it to my self.

Maybe one strategy would be to pull out, see the shit in Iraq go down without us, and then have the international community come in, unable to watch Iraq fall apart without a foreign stabilizing force.

But I think the longer we stay the more animosity we attract. The war on terror is more than bodycounts and just "killing all the terrorists", its about preventing further terrorists from coming into the fold or tipping those on the fence into extremist influences. And staying in Iraq will not win hearts and minds.

Bin Laden's 1998 fatwa sited three problems with the US: Our support of Israel, our troops in Saudi Arabia, and our incursions into the region like the no fly zone constant antagonism of Iraq. We're playing right into their hands.

[bpilgrim]

112. pulling our troops out and sending aid are NOT mutually exclusive, though

folks shouldn't be conflicted about that.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS - OUTSOURCE THE WAR - TO IRAQIS :bounce:

peace

[cthrumatrix]

137. didn't they say that about Vietnam...??? Looks like pulling out did not

disadvantage the US down the road. It saved US / Vietnamese lives.

[bicentennial_baby]

2. How is staying going to make it better?

Will it? If so, in how long? Because it won't be soon...5 years? 10 years?

Btw, the U.S. military isn't really in the business of humanitarian missions...

[G_j]

13. there are plans for building four huge new military bases

in Iraq. Doesn't look like there is any plan at all on leaving.

edit, link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5199524-103681,00.html

US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday May 23, 2005

Guardian

US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.

The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

However, the decision to in vest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.

Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.

"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.

..more..

[bicentennial_baby]

19. I agree

but I can't see why anyone thinks that staying (if we had an option)is necessarily going to produce a better result. :shrug:

[G_j]

25. I don't think it can

has this crew (Rumsfeld and all) done anything good...ever???

EVERYTHING they touch turns to crap. They are NOT CAPABLE of bringing peace anywhere. They don't even believe in peace!

[Just Me]

49. They INTENTIONALLY lied about their intentions and PROFITTED off,...

,...their plan. When a greedy, bully rolls over any person, there can be NO good result.

We have no other choice than to get rid of the greedy bullies and work our asses off spreading MORALLY-BASED "good will".

AFTER WE REMOVE THE GREEDY FRIGGIN' EXTREMIST CORPORACRAT WAR MACHINE:

Take the US multi-national companies OUT (especially the fucking mercs)!!!
Put a UN/Iraq infrastructure IN!!!
PUT THE RECONSTRUCTION DOLLARS IN IRAQI'S HANDS TO RECONSTRUCT THEIR OWN COUNTRY!!!
Bring in a multi-national security force primarily of progressive Muslim background.

IOW -----> DO THE OPPOSITE OF THE BUSHCO/NEOCON/CORPORACRAT BASTARDS!!!!

[Zhade]

77. Indeed - foolish to trust those who stabbed you to stitch up the wound.

Btw, I'm still remembering your plea to me in the other thread.

[Zhade]

76. We didn't have plans to leave Viet Nam either.

We know how that worked out...

[maveric]

101. We invaded Germany, Japan and Italy. Sixty years later we're still there.

The US will be in Iraq forever! There's oil there, remember?

[Kellanved]

145. apples and oranges

The occupation of the WW2 axis countries is hardly comparable to Iraq.
Occupation aside, most US soldiers were in Germany because of the cold war.

Today, the US bases on German territory are welcome guests; it is not like removing the presence would cause any danger to the stability of central Europe.

[eleny]

3. Ask yourself this...

How many more soldiers deaths can you tolkerate? Come up with a number.

I ask this of everyone who holds your point of view. Not one of you can come up with a number. I usually get more philosophy. So, come up with a number before you say another thing. Then, let's talk.

[Texasgal]

14. I cannot come up with a number.

It's saddening what has happened. To have so many troops die for nothing is really heart wrenching.

But to have so many innocent Iraqi's who just want their lives to get back to normal is also at issue, we need to clean up our mess. We need to give them the tools they need to become stable. I just cannot fathom us walking out now and just leaving them with such a mess that WE CAUSED.

[eleny]

35. It's tough being between a rock and a hard place

But we can't have it both ways. It's either/or. I've decided to pick our soldiers. Good luck with your decision.

[Texasgal]

54. What decision do you speak of?

Do you honestly think we are going to pull our troops out now?

I am having an opinion. I can sit around and hem and haw about Iraq all day long, but it won't change what is really happening there. I am just merely expressing an opnion.

I cannot understand the decision thingy.

[eleny]

58. But if you make up your mind we should be out and someone else does...

...and more and more people decide we should get out, then we'll be out of there sooner. So, you have to decide for yourself one way or the other. That's what I meant.

[Texasgal]

62. I understand wht you are saying...

But there were many of us who were aginst this thing from the beginning and that didn't change anything.

I was even arrested at an anti-war protest. It changed nothing... zero.

[eleny]

68. I was against it from the first drum beats before the 2002 elections

In fact, I was waiting for what * would do to raise his poll numbers before that election. So, we're on the same page with that. I've just been wanting to pull out before we went in and haven't really changed my mind. When I considered staying in, I asked myself that question about how many losses I could tolerate. Because that's what it boils down to.

I trust that the Iraqis will sort themselves out. They don't need us to decide what they want. After all, the Kurds are just waiting for us to get the hell out so they can start their own independent moves.

Btw, I heard an interesting quote today. "If Democracy is so damned great, how come we have to kill people to make them accept it?" Food for thought.

[Zhade]

74. Never would have mattered - they were bombing months before the IWR vote.

I'm still proud to have marched.

[LynnTheDem]

42. So why do you think we should continue to ignore what IRAQIS want?

Don't we really owe it to them to do what THEY want us to do?

They want us to get the hell out of THEIR nation. They do NOT want us to "clean up our mess". They just want us out.

Sure, we should PAY for all the fixing. But IRAQIS should be fixing Iraq in the manner THEY see fit; US corps should NOT be doing the "fixing" and reaping the war-profits.

Iraqis want us out.

If you did me a grevious wrong, don't you owe it to me to do what I ask you to do?

[Zhade]

78. This is such a damned good point.

I see you say this over and over, and it's so worth saying - I wish more would say it (but, as you can see, I've adopted your logic, because it's right and true).

[LynnTheDem]

90. It's the only point, imo.

I've had a few people say that point's made them change their minds on us staying to "fix what we broke". GOOD!

I know how hard it is to say "yes we should leave the Iraqis to their own devices". OF COURSE moral and good people want...WANT...to fix what was destroyed in their names. But we CAN'T.

Going on three years now and we're STILL doing WORSE than Saddam Hussein. We're not going to do better.

No one can predict the future; yes a civil war may break out. But Iraq (Mesopotamia) in all its thousands of years has never had a civil war. And oh yeah they've done more than their share of kicking occupiers out.

OF COURSE we WANT to fix what we broke. But the IRAQIS DON'T want us to fix what we broke. They just want us OUT.

Imagine the anger and rage and frustration of someone breaking a bunch of your personal belongings in your house who then REFUSED TO LEAVE, insisting instead that they MUST STAY and FIX what they broke...while they continue to break more of your personal belongings!

And that's just stuff, not the LIVES of your loved ones!

I'd IED such a bastard myself. :D

[Zhade]

113. I read you loud and clear!

I'm glad your point is effective. I'm going to start using it whenever I talk about the war.

:yourock:

[LynnTheDem]

121. I also tell em "This ISN'T ABOUT YOU! It's about what the IRAQIS want!"

The Iraqis DON'T CARE about anyone's guilt or fear of chaos/civil war, or them being "incapable" or our "must fix" obsession.

THEY DON'T CARE.

They care us getting the hell out of THEIR country right now.

WHY would anyone deny the Iraqis the one thing they want most; us the hell out of THEIR country??!

How the hell do any American's "feelings" about getting out of Iraq take precedence over what the Iraqis want for themselves & their own damn country??!"

That's what worked on me when I was hit with it by a Voice in the Wilderness.

[Frederik]

123. What are those tools?

I don't think the United States have anything to give them at this point.

[Inland]

4. I understand that.....

but I look at the thugs and miscreants in power and think, no matter how much we should be helping Iraq, it ain't gonna happen. This bunch's only interest is in avoiding blame, not helping, and they are grossly incompetent. Any plan will be sabotaged through incompetence and self interest.

Best we can do for Iraq is to get Bush and Co away from it. Get them out of their clutches. Say, "Save yourselves"!

[friesianrider]

5. I know, me too.

It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube - there's no way to "go back" now.

One thing I know for sure: I completely disagree with some Democrats who, when asked if we were lied to or at least mislead about the war, say "it doesn't matter, we're there now and need to concentrate on the future." Yes we are there now and need to concentrate on the future, but it DOES matter how we got there. We've got a big task ahead of ourselves, but we mustn't forget HOW and WHY we got here - and then take appropriate actions.

[the_spectator]

6. Well, I'm not going to argue against you ...

:popcorn:

[movonne]

7. The problem is by staying we will cause more havoc...We have

to get out, they don't want us there...but I do believe we should have to pay for the re-construction to their country, but we cannot be in charge of this as we are just throwing money at the corporations..

[Igel]

40. I guess my problem is that

in short order there'd be total chaos. Let's say we set aside $100 billion for reconstruction.

In a year, it'll stabilize, if we're lucky. And I suspect it'll be a strongly Islamist regime. Sunni, Shi'ite, little difference.

If I'm wrong, it'll probably be because it'll be a secular dictator.

Do we turn over the money, knowing that the government's primary goal won't be building infrastructure that'll help the people, but either indoctrinate them even further, or build infrastructure that'll help the dictator?

Even Saddam had the ability to import a great deal more food, medicine, and equipment, and decided to play politics with it under the UN sanctions.

[LynnTheDem]

118. Who says there'll be chaos? Aside from bushCo & their pundits.

"Odd. Isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. Al Qaida has never uttered a threat against Shias....Yet for weeks the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war....Somehow I don't believe it"
- Robert Fisk The Independent 3 March 2004.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5805.htm

The Sunni Versus Shia Myth

Much that has been written about the ‘division’ between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq is not only a total distortion of the demographics of the Iraqi population, it also feeds into the propaganda campaign of ‘divide and rule’ tactics that even opponents of the war and occupation can fall into the trap of accepting as true...

http://www.williambowles.info/ini/ini-0156.html

Bush and Blair continue to peddle the myth, beloved of old colonialists, that Iraqis will start a civil war if the "benevolent" presence of the occupation forces is removed.

It is the US-led presence itself which is dividing Iraqis now. The US is deepening a split between a minority for and an overwhelming majority against the US-led forces.

-Sami Ramadani is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University and was a political exile from Saddam's regime
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-ramadani030704.htm

Unembedded in Iraq

The Shia/Sunni rift is largely a CIA generated myth. There are countless tribes and marriages alike that are both Shia/Sunni. There are mosques here where they pray together.

There is the possibility of war if the Kurds go independent, but the more likely possibility of that war would be Turkey invading Kurdistan before any Shia/Sunni action would occur regarding this.

Another Iraqi man pointed out that if there were a civil war, no Shia or Kurdish attack on Fallujah could ever possibly compare to the devastation the US military has caused there. I think he makes a good point.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20669

The Bush administration has promoted the idea that Iraq will descend into civil war and chaos without the occupation. This argument is no more credible than the “terrorist base” argument.

Unlike the United States, Iraq has never had a full-fledged civil war. There have been various revolts and revolutions, but never a full-fledged civil war on the scale of the American civil war. This propaganda about the inevitability of civil war if the US pulls out plays off stereotypes and prejudices many Americans have about “third world” peoples – that “they” are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq.
http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/Iraq.html

[TheFarseer]

8. That troubles me also

I wonder if we are doing more harm or good by staying. I think more good. They would probably collapse into civil war if we leave. But won't they revert to civil war whenever we leave? Will the insurgency go away in 2 years or 5 years or ever if we stay? I don't think there is a definite answer for this.

[KG]

9. how many more dead soldiers?

how much more money shoveled into the gaping maw of the defense contractors?

not another drop of blood, not another red cent.

but mostly, who cares what you, or any other american thinks? the iraqis should decide whats best for iraq and nobody else.

[Texasgal]

18. Oh yes...I agree!

Of course I think that the Iraqi's should decide what's best for them... but how can they when we have literally destroyed almost all their resources?

Edit: spelling

[KG]

23. they're not as helpless as you seem to think they are.

let them decide, i'm pretty sure the want the foreigners to just go away.

[Texasgal]

43. Ofcourse they want the foreigners to go away!

They hate us, we are shit to them. We screwed up and killed so many of their innocents.

If we leave... we leave them with what? Nothing, no decent goverment, no decent places to live, a poor police force, no army...nothing.

It's the human side of me that thinks we owe it to them to help them get back on their feet.

Look.. don't you think this woman just wants to get back to normal? Who will help her? Her new government? They can't even help themselves!

[Frederik]

126. The US certainly can't help her

They don't need help to get back on their feet - they need peace and stability, which will never come as long as the US troops are there.

[indigo32]

33. And what are we really doing for them at this point

paying OUR companies to build bases and infastructure. Giving excuses for their own people to be killed if they are thought to be working with us, and much more.
It's a freaking disaster, and WE are not the ones to make it better.

[nonconformist]

50. Iraq has more Ph D's per capita than any country in the WORLD

They're not the uncivilized sand people the media portrays them to be.

If China invaded your town and blew up some buildings, would you want them to stay indefinitely and rebuild them or just get the hell out and rebuild them yourself?

THEY WANT US GONE.

[Texasgal]

73. Per capita...

That's a good assesment considering that Iraq is smaller than Texas.

[Zhade]

81. Your last line is what it's all about.

Like the Vietnamese, the Iraqis don't care one fucking iota about the fools who support this war, or the poor conflicted good people who don't but are afraid of our leaving.

In the end, Iraqis will do what is best for them, with or without our say-so. In a way, it's heartening - a dreadful, terrible way.

[wakeme2008]

10. I think the death toll would go down to zip...

IF they set a fixed time table and let all the Iraq people know. But it would have to be 60,000 in the first 3 monthes so they Iraqi people know they are not being Bushed to.

[mike_c]

11. yes we should "walk away from all the damage we've caused...."

The pottery barn rule doesn't apply here. We cannot un-break it, and the Iraqis don't want to sell, so it will only get worse until we leave. Think Vietnam. The longer we stay, the worse the outcome will be. You know what they say about not learning from history?

When we walk away, the next step it to accept responsibilty for what we've done. That means admitting that the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression, and prosecuting the people involved. We MUST walk away from what we've done in Iraq-- we cannot begin to fix it until we do, and we have to accept that the fix is going to be unpleasant.

[marmar]

12. At this point...

It's going to be a disaster whether we stay or whether we leave. We should never have been there to begin with. And ulitmately, it's going to be the people of Iraq who suffer the most.

[mike_c]

21. the Iraqis have already suffered the most by far....

Total American dead 1,700 or so, probably at least double that if you count the non-combat deaths. Iraqi civilians killed? 30,000+, and over 100,000 by some estimates. Their country has been destroyed. Their cities razed. America can't even begin to imagine the suffering we have already implosed on the Iraqis. The level of recprocity is miniscule.

[MichiganVote]

15. Oh, that's right, American democracy began with cable TV and a V8 engine

Of course none of the Iraqi's should be subjected to living without electricity, or water or security. Certainly we want every burgeoning democracy to at least have a running movie theater, modern medicine and Medicaid.

Will you listen to yourself? Americans did not cause all the damage in Iraq. Segments of Saddma Hussein, terrorists, sect members, whatever...they have had a hand in this too.

[Texasgal]

28. I cannot argue that Saddam

and others had a hand in the demise of their own country. But at least under Saddam, they had electricity and running schools. Please don't get me wrong, Saddam was a tyrant, he was an evil piece of crap. Great... he's gone, we have another non-trustworthy government to take his place. Great.

When will it be time for America and our government to stand up, and admit a humango mistake and help rebuild the country?

[MichiganVote]

This admin. would argue they are helping rebuild this country

In reality, all that remaining in Iraq will accomplish is the maintenance of military bases, the installment of an embassy, and more rampant spending for the benefit of Halliburton.

There is no way to make up for the Bush lies, mistakes or ill intentions. If the Iraqi's want "freedom" they will have to work for it themselves. Some say they already are via the insurgents. The fact is, there exists a plethora of whores all vying for the same profitable street corner.

I cannot support the continuation of the war in Iraq b/c it involves american soldiers who are NOT protecting my freedom and that is why we pay for the military.

[Frederik]

129. The US has caused much, much more damage than Saddam

or any terrorists could hope to do. Gulf wars one and two plus the genocidal sanctions, it's not comparable. Which is why the US should get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

[MichiganVote]

143. Agreed

[Cha]

16. bush has opened a Big Ol'

Can Of Whupass in the Middle East..just like we predicted he would.

they didn't even have a plan to go with the bombings.

Nothing will change under the bushreich..Someone else needs to be in charge.

[cascadiance]

17. I think after the impeachment...

That the newer president says something like "We're going to fix this right!". And then he goes to other bodies like the U.N. and NATO and says, "How can we work together to solve this?", and becomes amenable to a joint force and command structure to manage the forces there, so that the people there don't feel like they are under "U.S." occupation, but *really* by a shared leadership of peacekeeping forces. The emphasis would be that those staying there would be there to "enforce peace", and not to "occupy" their country, like many perceive us to be now. That is something that we can do in short order and not throw the Iraqis completely to the wolves. If the Iraqis believe the decision-making on how to enforce order over there is truely that by a group of concerned countries, and not just a single country like ours where they perceive our agenda as not necessarily favoring them, that would help a lot.

Then perhaps the violence will scale down and over time foreign forces won't be necessary and we can phase the pullout in stages.

Without a change of this government though, this can't happen. We need to have an impeachment of both Bush and Cheney first! Then have a takeover by Nancy Pelosi when the Dems take over the House, or maybe earlier Dem Norm Mineta (Secretary of Transportation) if we can impeach or force to resign all who are ahead of him in the queue to succeed the president.

[KG]

29. after the impeachment dick cheney will be president.

[cascadiance]

85. Agnew didn't take over for Nixon either!

Both are likely to be going! We've got to make sure that will happen!

[LynnTheDem]

119. The IRAQIS want to do their OWN decision-making. The IRAQIS

want ALL foreign troops OUT of THEIR country. As in now.

Bottom line, and I REALLY don't understand why every American doesn't understand this; what we want does not matter.

The ONLY thing that matters, whether we like it or not, whether we like the results or not, is what the IRAQIS want.

And they want their country back and us gone, now.

[cascadiance]

140. Hey, I'm all for giving their country back to them...

The problem is how do we decide who "them" is? Are "they" the Kurds? Are they the "Sunnis", Are "they" the Shias? The problem is that we created a mess there. There still isn't nything close to a unified country there now let alone a unified voice/will of how things should go, now that we've gotten rid of Saddam's dictatorship. Everyone leaving now will leave chaos there, and more "blame" aimed back at us. We need to help make sure it gets cleaned up. Whether we do it ourselves is a separate question. I personally think that it is time to get more collective help from other countries, so that there is likely closer to a majority of Iraqis that might favor another peacekeeping force there until the democratic process can be built.

Will it be easy? Hell NO! That's one of the big reasons that I and many of us here felt we shouldn't have gone there to start with! But now that we are there, we are obligated to fix it up before we leave.

[Ignoramus]

20. The problem is the Americans. The solution is for the Americans to leave

It is like if a man breaks into a house and kills abusive parents and a kid or two, then claims he must stay or else the remaining children would be left unable to care for themselves.

Obviously the murdering criminal should not be left in the house.

[Redstone]

22. Uh, what does keeping our soldiers there contribute toward

rebuilding the country?

It does exactly the opposite, in fact.

Redstone

[Texasgal]

32. Was it not our troops that helped

get some of the power grid working again?

[bicentennial_baby]

37. A power grid they destroyed? LOL

You do know that Iraq wasn't exactly living in the Stone Age prior to our "liberation", right?

[Texasgal]

51. Yes.. I am aware of that.

I was truly asking you if this was the case... did we do that or not? Seriously.

I did not start this thread to argue, I truly wanted other peoples opinions on what they think about this mess.

[Redstone]

55. As long as our soldiers are there, it'll keep getting blown up again.

Get them out, let things settle down, then expiate our mistake and arrogance by financing companies from non-"coalition" countries to go in and fix things.

We broke it, and we should pay to fix it. But it has to be fixed by people from a country that didn't blow it up in the first place.

Not gonna happen as long as we have an occupying army there.

Redstone

[LynnTheDem]

120. It took the Iraqis under Hussein SIX WEEKS to restore THEIR power grid

after the US/UK massive bombing of Iraq in 1991.

We're into our THIRD YEAR and we STILL can't get electricity levels to Saddam Hussein's levels.

BOTTOM LINE; The IRAQIS want us OUT of THEIR country.

[Frederik]

130. Some of the power grid

If the foreign troops left, I don't think the Iraqis would have much difficulty getting all of the power grid working. They need a government in place that can defend itself and that enjoys popular support. A government that is supported by America and dependent on American forces is not going to be that government. When its police forces feel like collaborators and are ashamed of their job, the government is not going to be able to defend itself. Stability is not going to come to Iraq under American occupation.

[koopie57]

24. I think we need to apologize to the world community

and go on our hands and knees and beg the UN to take over while we exit. Nothing good can happen there until we are out.

We screwed up and are paying a high price for it and the only honest thing to do is admit it and get out and start making amends to the rest of the world by remembering what Clinton said about Indonesia, how they love America cuz they see the true compasion of our citizens and that it is nothing like the asshole mentality of our leaders.

[Frederik]

131. I think UN is a bad idea

The Iraqis don't want the UN - they want independence.

By the way, that Clinton quote is hogwash. Indonesians know the US supported the brutal and oppressive dictatorship of Suharto for thirty years, and asssisted in the massacres that put it in place back in 1965. They don't love Americans, and they haven't seen much of the true compassion of its citizens for the last 40 years.

[nonconformist]

26. Considering the fact that everything this Administration touches

turns to SHIT, what makes you think they can fucking *fix* anything? Historically, they've never fixed a damn thing in their lives.

I'm continually fascinated that others on the left that should know the score by now are trusting these lying fuck-ups with everything from our right to filibuster to rebuilding Iraq. I wouldn't trust this cabal with a potato gun.

Bottom line, Iraq is descending into civil war. Our presence is part of the problem now, not the solution. The people of that country want a theocracy, not a secular democracy. One of the reasons the Arab world had so much animosity for Saddam was because he ruled Iraq secularly. The Iraqi people view us as invaders, as occupiers - not as a peace keeping force. Ideally, we SHOULD rebuild Iraq and provide security... but "ideally" and "reality" are two very different things. We're throwing money down a never-ending hole, our troops are dying and atrocities have been committed in OUR name.

I'd like to think that if we started pulling out the UN would step in and a true coalition would form to restore some sense of security and they wouldn't be viewed with the animosity we are there, but who knows if that would happen. In any event, we're bogged down in this quagmire and will be for YEARS because Iraq is *never* going to be America Lite, ever.

People said we had to stay and fix Vietnam until the very end of that hopeless war, too.

Out now or out later, the result will be the same. The only difference will be how many more of our troops have to die and how many more Iraqi civilians will be killed in our name. When in doubt, refer to history.

War is hell. HELL. There are no easy answers. Which is exactly why war should never be fought lightly.

In the words of a great American - how do you ask a soldier to be the last person to die for a lie?

[Kraklen]

27. Too young to remember Vietnam?

So am I. But I know that's the same bullshit logic they used.

[spanone]

30. We get NATO. We get the UN. We admit we were wrong.

We plea to the world to help. Whatever. Get out. It ain't gonna get any better while we are shooting the people we're supposed to be helping.

[wurzel]

31. The longer we stay the worse it will get.

The arguments used today about the catastrophe of our pulling out of Iraq are EXACTLY THE SAME as the arguments used then against getting out of Vietnam. Iraq is broken and we cannot fix it. We should pull out and whatever happens, happens. There was very little bloodshed in Vietnam. Once peace has been restored by Iraqis then we owe them a lot of money to rebuild their economy. We should raise taxes (a minimum of $200b) specifically for this purpose called the "Iraq Reparation Act".

[cynatnite]

34. We're damned either way and it's shrub's fault: The bastard

There was ample opportunity to get substantial help without us having to bear the cost in money and in blood. The UN and others were willing to come in there and help even after they denounced the action. They wanted to help in the rebuilding process.

But those greedy bastards in the WH wouldn't do it.

[Ariana Celeste]

36. The way I see it-

Yeah we have caused hell over there. Destroyed a lot, so many lives, so many resources, so many buildings.
Sure we should help fix what we broke. But we aren't doing that. No Iraqi's are being hired to rebuild. No, that job goes to Americans. Americans, are being paid to build some shit there, mainly to be used by.....

you guessed it- Americans. It's bullshit. Their unemployment rate is so high right now, and we can't do the decent thing and help them out by hiring *them* to rebuild, and paying them. Nope, we just have a bunch of Americans getting paid to build stuff, being paid a lot more than our soldiers who are out there risking their lives, dying, getting wounded, for lies. We are killing more and more civilians, creating more and more "insurgents".

Staying there will not fix anything. It won't give Iraqi's food, it won't give them jobs, it won't give them electricity and water, all it will give them is more bombed buildings, a higher unemployment rate, and more hatred for us. Hatred, which is more than justified.

We need to get out NOW. My SO's step dad is out their hauling fuel right now. He volunteered after he helped vote Bush back into office. He put his money where his mouth is. I want him home. I want the rest of our men and women home. And I want the Iraqi's to have a chance to put their broken lives, homes, and communities back together.

[alcuno]

38. I HAVE A PLAN! Admit we were wrong and BEG for help.

I truly believe that the world would help us if the morons running our government would admit they were wrong. We never REALLY asked for help. It was all fake and phoney and obvious that we hadn't learned our lesson.
WHY WOULD THEY ENABLE US?

Here's my 4 point plan

1. Write a formal letter of apology to the UN and the Iraqi people; something along the lines of "We are sorry for invading Iraq....Please forgive us.

2. Put the president on a plane and fly him around the world apologizing and begging for help.

3. Turn the whole thing over to the UN; they couldn't do a worse job than we have.

4. Give Iraq 100 billion dollars and pull the troops out immediately.

I'm a Catholic and we are taught that you must confess your sins, ask for forgiveness, and do penance. I think my plan is WAY better than what we are doing now and I'm absolutely serious about it.

[Zomby Woof]

39. If we stay there

The best that will happen is nothing will change. It will stay shitty.

The worst is that it will get worse.

So let go of the conflict. Iraq *is* in disarray as you say, and the #1 cause is our presence. You think staying there will eventually fix things?

Staying there with some faint hope we can make it work is folly.

I am a firm believer that we should get out yesterday.

[LynnTheDem]

41. So we should continue to ignore what the people of Iraq want?

We know better than they?

Only we can fix Iraq?

And if you're raped, do you want your rapist to go with you to your therapy sessions?

We were wrong to invade; we are wrong to be occupying Iraq. Two wrongs won't ever make a right.

Do what the IRAQIS want; get OUT of THEIR country and let THEM fix THEIR nation as THEY want.

And send all the bills to the White House, c/o G.W. Bush.

[Texasgal]

47. No... I am not saying that we know better..

But... isn't it our responsibility to fix the bombed out roads and bridges? Isn't our responsibility to train their police force? Give the Iraqi's the tools they need to move on?

I mean...hell we already gave them a corrupt new government!

What I am trying to say, is how and where do they get the tools to get back to normal?

[LynnTheDem]

60. In a word, NO.

What IS our responsibility is doing what the IRAQIS want us to do. And they want us the hell out of their country.

It's that simple.

Yes we should pay to fix every single item we've broken. But NO we should not be doing the fixing, we're NOT doing the fixing now-THREE YEARS we're going into now and STILL we can't even get the oil & electricity back to what SADDAM got it to within WEEKS of being bombed to hell & back during the Gulf war!

Child malnutrition has now DOUBLED since bush's invasion.

Shall we keep "fixing" until it's TRIPLED?

I understand the guilt and the desire to fix what we broke, but we CANNOT do so by remaining in Iraq.

Or we can remain and lose more troops and more Iraqis every single day until, as they did to the UK the first time, the Iraqis kick us out.

YOUR feelings of guilt, MY feelings of guilt ARE NOT IMPORTANT. The first step in fixing what we broke is in LISTENING and HEARING the people of Iraq about what THEY want. They want us OUT P.E.R.I.O.D. We cannot assuage OUR guilt by continuing to inflict ourselves on them against their wishes.

[Texasgal]

69. So..should we allocate

so much money to help fix the broken country and have their Government ( The one that BUSH picked ) dole out the money to fix it? Do we trust that the country will be fixed?

[LynnTheDem]

80. Me personally, I'd give the money to al Sistani and let him dole it out.

We need to get peacekeepers and the UN in, and ourselves out. The Iraqis will soon sort out their own government.

Let them have a vote, if they wanted to, on individuals they want to be in charge of the money and we hand over the geld.

As for trusting the country to be fixed, that just isn't our business at that point. If the Iraqis decided they want to use the entire sum for lifetime tickets to Disney World for every Iraqi, fine.

It is not up to us to say how and where or when or in what way Iraq needs fixing.

It's NOT OUR COUNTRY.

*I really do understand the guilt complex over all of this, but the bottom line remains simple; we owe it to the Iraqi people to do what they want us to do. They want us to get out. By arguing with them over that, we're clearly saying we know better than they do what's best for them. And that just isn't the case.

:hug:

[Lilith Velkor]

115. al Sistani?!?

Why him?

[LynnTheDem]

117. Because -so far- most Iraqis (even Kurds) view al Sistani as honest

and wise.

Why the "?!?" Are you perhaps mistaking al Sistani for al Sadr?

[Lilith Velkor]

125. Nope.

Sistani's a fundie freak, according to Riverbend:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#107456690065710747

I'd sooner trust Sadr than this guy.

[LynnTheDem]

127. Huh...well this is the first time I've disagreed with Riverbend.

But disagree I certainly do. Al Sadr is a LUNATIC of a rightwing extremist fundie.

Al Sistani is moderate.

If you were to trust al Sadr, better make sure as a female you're properly attired head to toe (hidden) and keep quiet unless spoken to;

"In an incendiary speech before thousands of Shiite Muslim worshipers in Kufa on July 18, a zealous young cleric condemned the 25-member Governing Council appointed by the United States to run Iraq as made up of "nonbelievers," declared that he was forming a religious army"

" The Sadrists have imposed strict Islamic practices in areas they control, under the direction of firebrand cleric Muhammad al-Fartousi, who preaches at the Hikmat mosque in Sadr City."

And then there's his Mehdi Army.

Where does she say al Sistani is a fundie nut? I can't find it (may need glasses, lol!) I'm truly surprised Riverbend would call al Sistani a fundie...al Sadr calls himself a fundie!

[Lilith Velkor]

141. They are both fundies

It is my understanding that al Sistani is more extreme when it comes to things like how women dress. He was influential in establishing Sharia family law. His followers tend to be older and more established.

Al Sadr's people are poorer. Some of his popularity comes from the fact that he doesn't get along with the Iranian religious establishment (of which al Sistani is a creature). He's more extreme when it comes to resisting the occupation. Being who he is, he couches it in religious terms.

So, maybe they're both pretty thugly, but I think al Sadr would be more likely to dole out funds to those who need it the most.

[LynnTheDem]

142. Al Sadr is a fanatic.

Muqtada al-Sadr has maintained his rejection of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council and has actively advocated the so-called "faithfully Islamic government".

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/815FF50A-4D63-43CB-A404-84DF9E6CDF70.htm

The Sadrists have imposed strict Islamic practices in areas they control, under the direction of firebrand cleric Muhammad al-Fartousi, who preaches at the Hikmat mosque in Sadr City. According to reliable sources, the Sadrists have vandalized, and even firebombed, cinemas, liquor shops, and video stores in areas under their control.

Recently, the Sadrists appear to have relaxed restriction, apparently so as to avoid antagonizing the Americans.

"We had some imams saying women will be beaten in the streets if some of their hair is showing and liquor stores burned down," al-Fartousi told the Associated Press.

"This is not what we are about. A gentle advice to such women or a tap on the shoulder should suffice."

http://www.meib.org/articles/0307_iraqd.htm

[Frederik]

134. Yes, I trust it would be fixed

At least the chances of it being fixed will be much greater once the US is out.

[Career Prole]

44. I'm hitting a wall with that as well.

The Geneva conventions made certain responsibilities incumbent upon a belligerent occupier (that'd be us...thanks to Dim Son).
Among those responsibilities are an obligation to provide for the safety, security and well-being of the civilian populace of the occupied country until such time as they can do it for themselves.

I'm no expert on the subject but I think that must be considered by those who are.
:shrug:

[Jacobin]

45. Viet nam thinking

Same questions were asked back then and it got the death toll up to 55,000 plus americans killed, hundreds of thousands wounded and millions of Vietnamese killed, all for nothing.

Keep it up.

Keep thinking that way

[Texasgal]

56. C'mon.. give me break will ya?

I am not posting this because I won't more Americans to die! I mean, hell... I just want us to take care of our responsibilty. That's all.

Please refrain from being rude. Goodness.

[Kraklen]

72. Wanting to stay longer in Iraq = wanting more Americans to die.

= wanting more Iraqis to die.

Nothing personal. That's just the way it is.

[Texasgal]

75. Ummm...no.

That is YOUR opinion.

I said I was CONFLICTED. There's a big difference, I am open to different thought processes, unlike alot people here on DU.

[Jacobin]

92. This is not a 'goodness gracious' issue

People are dying in droves because we are there, and continue to be there because of ambivilance.

Yes, people will die in droves when we pull out and the civil war erupts.

Then, they can choose their own leader in their own way and their mistakes will be their own mistakes.

America had its own civil war and zillions died in that, too. Its the way of nations, unfortunately.

We have no business there. None. We are the reason for the insurgency. They want us gone. They did not attack us. We have no moral high ground.

We need to leave.

[Pepperbelly]

46. The rationale is so very easy to understand and it makes perfect sense.

The reason that there is an insurgency is to force us to leave. The insurgency exists for that reason. IOW, it is our very presence that exacerbates the situation and makes it out of control.

[the_spectator]

48. It's a terrible dilemma -

Especially since the seemingly-obvious answer, proposed by many here: U.S. out, U.N. in -- can't work.

U.N. forces have always been blue-hat PEACEKEEPERS, just as the word means -- they will stay and keep a peace, but the moment they get shot at and hurt, they have to leave.

The way the insurgency is in Iraq now with the use of terror, I would bet my right arm that if the U.N. ever got into Iraq, a few insurgents could and would force it out without breaking a sweat on their day off.

[Frederik]

135. Yes, UN is a bad idea

Arab League would be a slightly better idea. If Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian and Libyan forces would want to do it, they could possibly make it work. Syrian forces provided some stability to Lebanon in the 70s.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

52. Let's say it's 5 years from now, and Iraq is essentially like it is today,

except there's 5 to 10 thousand more dead U.S. soldiers and 10s of thousands more dead Iraqis, while we were trying to "fix our mess".

Would you then advocate just leaving, even if you knew some awful bloody chaotic civil war would erupt within weeks of leaving?

Or stay, for 5 or 10 or 20 more years of same?

[MissWaverly]

59. I agree

Iraq is not a superpower, why have we failed so badly, is it because that's what we wanted all along, (the oil, the oil, the oil, the money for contracts, ka ching!, ka ching! ka ching!), here we have one of the richest countries on the planet that's been turned into a money pit by us, where is all the money going for the oil that's constantly being pumped out, why is it not going to rebuild the country, is it because what we really want is 4 huge military installations and control of the oil lines while the rest of Iraq is brow beaten into submission and poverty.

[Texasgal]

61. So are you saying that it cannot be fixed?

We leave... tell them to deal with it. Iraq engages in a bloody civil war, more and more Iraqi's die... we get some weirdo tyrant worse than Saddam to take the place of the current corrupt interim government... train more terrorist.... and so on and so on.

Seriously, I hate this more than anybody, I wish we never even went. I am pissed that this has happened. I fucking hate BUSH and his cronies for putting us in this awful position.

But what about your average Joe Iraqi? What about them?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

63. You assume the net effect of our presence is something good.

I don't share that assumption. The net effect is their oppression. The horror that is passed can't be undone. Our presence just compounds it in my opinion, and we should go.

And to answer your question, it's just my opinion, but I don't think our military presence in Iraq can "fix" the problems we have wrought there.

[Texasgal]

66. Perhaps I am confusing our troops

with a force that can re-build bombed out roads and help keep some sort of order amid the chaos.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

79. How much order are they keeping, with all the bombings and carnage...

You may assume that all this will get worse when they leave. (Not IF, WHEN...)

But if a good portion of the violence is directed at MAKING us leave, it may get better for all you know. I'm not saying that it would, just that it could.

In any case if we keep bombing their cities to rubble (like Fallujah) in order to "flush out/destroy the bad guys)" and then make a half assed attempt at rebuilding them, what good does that do anyone?

Do you find any signs from events in the last year that there is in fact progress? Do you find the Bush administration's self proclaimed triumphs to be promising developments that appear to lead towards long term stability for Iraq? What if the "elected" government there is as much a sham in terms of representing Iraqis as ours? Perhaps our military is the only thing propping up this facade which will and SHOULD collapse as soon as it leaves.

[LynnTheDem]

65. Iraq has been invaded & occupied many times. NEVER any civil war.

You cannot read the future. Nor can I.

So saying "we must remain because MAYBE x might happen although it never has in the past" is ridiculous, especially when the IRAQIS don't want us to stay.

"How will they have the tools to fix their nation?" That's THEIR business, THEIR decisions.

IF a civil war broke out, that's THEIR business, THEIR decisions. You mean well, I know that, but by saying we need to stay so no civil war breaks out is the same as saying "only we can prevent a civil war breaking out". Saying we have to fix what we broke, even though the Iraqis don't want us to stay & fix what we broke is the same as saying the Iraqis are not capable of fixing what we broke; only we are.

Neither is true, and neither is a nice thing to say, intentionally or not.

Iraqis are not ignorant people; they had more PhDs -Ivy League- than the USA. They've been around for thousands of years and are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

WHY are we refusing to do what the vast majority of the Iraqi people want us to do???

[Texasgal]

83. Please understand what I am trying to say.

Please.

I am not saying that we are the only people that can prevent a civil war. What I am saying is that the Iraqi's are weak right now... look at them... they have NO RESOURCES. We have literally taken everything from them. They have NO ARMY, NO POLICE FORCE. And why will no one address the fact that the new government is bullshit?

Of course Iraqi's want us gone, they didn't want us there in the first place.

Why hasn't the new government asked us to leave? Why? They need us right now, the civil war is already breaking out... they NEED US.

I would like nothing more than for every American solider to get on a plane and leave today. I really would, but then I would be inundated with stories of more and more Women and children dying. How could that be good?

We screwed Iraq... terribly. What we really need to do is get that corrupt government out of there and let the Iraqi's have a "real" vote.

[LynnTheDem]

84. What we really need to do, REGARDLESS whether we like it or not,

is to do what the IRAQIS want us to do.

[Texasgal]

89. How will we ever know what the Iraqi's

really want with the BS government that's in place?

What are the insurgents really fighting for? There new government?

Do they want the power of Iraq?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

91. How will our staying, and propping up a fake corrupt government we made,

eventually allow us to "determine what the Iraqis want"?

By rebuilding some roads that we blew up?

[Texasgal]

95. Perhaps doing something

that would help the average Iraqi get around better just may help.

Perhaps being more in a peace keeping mode ( with the help of the UN and other countries ) may help keep Iraq from falling victim to yet another US-led mistake.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

99. What if it's the presence of our occupying army that provokes most of the

violence?

You proposed a question. You "feel bad" because our nation has committed a horrendous crime, the worst possible type of crime, in waging an unprovoked war against another, resulting in death, maiming, torture and other acts known and unknown. You ask, "shouldn't we stay and make it better"?

You get a groundswell of responses most of which say "we shouldn't stay, because it's not within our power to make it better, even if our government wanted to make it better, and in fact we are making it worse, by continuing to provoke a legitimate rebellion against our military occupation of their land".

I guess we just agree to disagree.

[Texasgal]

106. You know.... your right.

I have let my severly left side get the better of me. I am truly concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people.

I have read every post on this thread. I guess my heart has over taken my head.

I appreciate the debate.

Good night. :)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

109. Much as it may seem otherwise, no hard feelings.

The reason this is such a hot button topic with so many of us is because it's precisely this kind of thinking, among the well meaning, that has the potential to prolong this nightmare for decades.

[LynnTheDem]

97. Well that poll taken in Iraq where 97% see us as occupiers is a good start

The insurgents, the vast majority of them, are ordinary everyday Iraqis fighting their occupiers.

What would YOU want if I busted into your house and started breaking everything you owned? Want me to stay and fix your stuff, while I continue breaking them? Or would you want me to get the hell out and send you the $?

Every day the people of Iraq say get out. Too bad America just isn't listening.

[Texasgal]

102. I am not in disagreement that the Iraqis' are pissed

I would do the very same thing... but the insurgents are killing Iraqi's too.

What would be so wrong to admit to our mistake, get help from some other countries get help with the UN and turn this into a peace keeping, humanitarian effort?

Would Iraq not accept a humanitarian effort?

[LynnTheDem]

107. US troops MUST get OUT of Iraq.

NO the Iraqis will NEVER accept US troops as peacekeepers. Which is why the vast majority of Iraqis say they want us the hell out of Iraq.

US troops are NOT peacekeepers, they are NOT TRAINED as peacekeepers, they have NO credibility left in Iraq and they will never regain any credibility in Iraq. Abu Ghraib took/is taking care of that for at least a few generations.

Today in Iraq an Iraqi official spoke out against US troops "indiscrimanently killing" Iraqi civilians. NO WAY will Iraqis ever accept US troops.

Now if you're saying we HAND OVER everything to the UN and other nations to do a peacekeeping effort, that's a MAYBE.

But thanks to the USA, the Iraqis view the UN as America's puppet and as guilty as the USA. So there's a very good chance the Iraqis would say no to ANY foreign troops in Iraq...just as 82 Iraqi officials said today when they demanded "all foreign troops leave Iraq".

And of course there's a drastic shortage of available troops for every other nation, too. The UK is so short, they have to pull troops out of Iraq to rush them to bush's other FUBAR, Afghanistan, which is in a "looming crisis" of "total strategic failure".

And then there's Dafur, etc.

Or we can just stay in Iraq and take the losses until the Iraqis lose all patience and kick us out. And sooner or later, they will kick us out.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

108. How do you know that the "insurgents" are not actually representing

the majority of Iraqi people and do not in fact embody a legitimate rebellion against their occupier?

We may find the methods of suicide bombings to be against our morals, but perhaps these rebels are just using whatever means they can against a far better armed and more technologically advanced foe.

Much as rebel movements have done through much of history in many countries and times.

If you conceived of such a possibility, would you then think it worthwhile for our soldiers to stay for years as the agents of our empire to suppress such a rebellion?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

87. You assume that it is actually within our power to turn the chaos of Iraq

into some sort of Jeffersonian Democracy.

Such a thing has never been done to my knowledge, to create a successful democratic nation through an externally imposed war of conquest.

Even if you assumed good and honorable motives on the part of the current administration, namely that they WANTED some kind of orderly representative democracy in Iraq (and ALL EVIDENCE PROVES THE CONTRARY), is there anything about their track record that would inspire confidence that they could achieve such a result?

But the key is that the honorable motives are not there. Who are shrubco's big traditional allies in the region? Saudis? Kuwait? What kind of governments do those countries have? How much effort are we putting into getting THEM to undergo democratic reform?

How healthy is representative democracy in THIS country? How confident are you in the truth of the results of this past presidential election? Or the last one?

What business do WE have being the shapers of that nation, even though "we" DID break it?

We need to get the U.S. troops out of there ASAP for the benefit of Iraqis and the troops both.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

93. We CREATED "that corrupt government" to be our pawn.

By we, I mean Bush.

So, since BUSH still has all the reigns of power at this time, how do you suppose that the BUSH controlled military's continued presence to prop up their own monster will somehow lead to progress to some better kind of government?

:shrug:

[Frederik]

136. The government needs the US troops

to hold on to their positions of power.

I don't see the civil war breaking out. I see an insurgency that is directed at US forces and the Iraqi police/military/government which are seen as collaborators. That's not a civil war. It is more akin to the French resistance fighting against the Germans and the Pétain government, or the Norwegian resitstance fighting against the Germans and the Quisling government. There was no civil war in those countries after the Germans left and their puppet governments fell. That doesn't mean there won't be one in Iraq - but people talk about that as if it were inevitable, which it isn't.

[MissWaverly]

67. I agree we should go but we are accountable for

what we did, there has to be a way of taking this out of the those currently in charge, all they are doing is squandering our money. I think that we are legally responsible to pay to fix Iraq, I just think that Bush doesn't want to fix it, he wants to break it and keep it
in chaos, we need people to salvage and rebuild the country and I don't think those occupying it now want to do that (I am not talking about the
US military), I am talking about the corporations and they are running the show. We really need to unplug the porkers that are feeding off the war and I don't think we or the Iraqis will make any progress until we do.

[nonconformist]

110. Read up on history.

It conflicts with everything you say and supports everything the 'out now' crowd believes.

[Frederik]

132. Curiously, only Westerners talk about civil war

The occupiers and American pundits have emphasized the Shia-Sunni divide and the danger of a Civil War, but the Iraqis themselves seem to put a lot less emphasis on this. There has never been a civil war in Iraq/Mesopotamia during the 5000 years it has existed as a country, but as Lynn pointed out, they have kicked out a lot of occupiers. The "sectarian animosity" is partly Pentagon spin, and partly something the Pentagon is deliberately nurturing as an excuse to stay in Iraq.

The troops won't "let Iraqis die" by leaving - they kill them as long as they're staying.

Saddam wouldn't have seized absolute power without the help of US and Britain. Letting the Iraqis decide for themselves is probably the best idea.

And the average Joe Iraqi? He wants the US out yesterday.

[me b zola]

53. bush broke it

...but all of the king(george)'s horses & all of the king(george)'s men, couldn't put Iraq back together again.

The Iraqi's will rage against the occupation as long as we are there.

The foreign fighters will come to fight & create havoc as long as we are there.

Not just our military, but Halliburtin & every other foreign company that is there raping their natural resources.

It wouldn't immediately be peaches & cream for the Iraqis if the US were to pull completely out, but they will work through it.

Honestly, I don't see any other way. We cannot fix it.

[Lecky]

57. Bush isn't doing shit for the Iraqi people

...except helping them die.

You think the neocons are going to stop at Iraq?

[Texasgal]

64. Where in the HELL did you get that

assuumtion from this thread?

I don't believe that I said anything of the sort.

[Lecky]

94. Was just explaining how I see things :)

Sorry if my post sounded like I was attacking your original post that wasn't my intention. I was just pointing out why I wanted our troops out of there. Our current government went to war w/ Iraq for purely selfish reasons, the main two reasons I believe to be...

Oil
Build bases near Iran

The fact that this administration now pretends like they are helping the Iraqi people or that they even care is such a lie, and it just infuriates me that my country is a part of this mess.

I feel bad for those Iraqi's too because there are some who want us to stay. I just think that our gov't will do the same thing again to another country, claiming that they are a threat, rinse and repeat..

I am fully against the neocon agenda. I believe they are using our fears to do horrendous crimes against humanity, and it will never end b/c they will always be spewing BS propaganda, and people will believe it. :(

[nonconformist]

96. You said we should fix it

They said that Bush isn't doing shit to help those people.

It's a valid point.

[Texasgal]

98. I see no where in this thread that I even REMOTELY

said that I didn't believe that the neocons would not invade another country.

Where's the validity?

[nonconformist]

100. It's a RHETORICAL question.

:eyes:

[Texasgal]

103. Done.

Thank you.

[oldcoot]

70. What if staying means bringing back the draft?

Would you support staying until we have stabilized Iraq if that means bringing back the draft?

[Zhade]

71. It helps to remember that we are the majority of the problem there.

Also, to truly respect the wishes of the Iraqi people, the majority of whom want us out of their country, we should leave quickly, and pay them for a long, long time to come, as a small measure against the horrors we have caused.

To stay, when the majority of the Iraqi people want us out, is to assume we know better than they do. I humbly submit that we don't know as much as we think we do, and certainly not enough to override the wishes of the people some laughably claim we're "helping".

[shadowknows69]

82. the people don't want us there

and they'll keep fighting us (just as we wopuld do under occupation) until we leave. after the mess we made they would be suspicious of a humanitarian mission (isn't that what its supposed to be anyway? spreading God's Democracy) we need to go. the people of Iraq will eventually find their way. We don't have the right to interfere.

[markus]

86. How can we pull out now?

To paraphrase a famous quote of the 60s, in airplanes.

Hell, how much of a threat to us was Lebanon during the civil war? (I discount the attack on the Marines. That was just pure stupidity up and down the chain).

Yes, many people will die. But they are dying already, and will continue to die if we stay.

And if we stay, Americans will die, and do some of the unnecessary killing.

[leesa]

88. Umm.. WE are killing them. WE are the bad guys. We don't walk away from

it. We get out because we are the problem and we pay for the crime we committed for the next 100 years or so.

There is nothing good we can do after we have slaughtered 100,000 people for no reason. WE are the bad guys. WE are the source of the problem.

[Catherine Vincent]

104. You're right, which is the reason why we shouldn't have invaded

in the first place. Damn you Bush!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

105. So we build a road which we blew up, and give a kid a Hershey bar.

Then on that same road, we shoot up a car full of civilians who drove too close to a checkpoint and didn't understand what U.S. soldiers were saying to them, killing all, women and children too. (This kind of thing has happened a lot by the way but doesn't tend to get a lot of play in the U.S. press go figure).

What is the net effect? Are we the strong armed GI Joe helping the Iraqi get on their feet? Or are we the hated invader?

Should we stay and build more roads, and maybe try to shoot up a few less cars full of families? Should we maybe GET OUT ASAP?

[OneBlueSky]

111. whether we walk away now or five or ten years from now . . .

the result will be the same . . . so the question is really do we want to cut our losses, or continue on this futile quest and sacrifice thousands more Americans (and kills tens of thousands more Iraqis), when in the end we're still going to have to leave, and the country is still going to devolve into sectarian warfare . . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. Lord Acton used the same ratioanale in 1919

you do know when Iraq became a more or less stable nation with no bombings? 1955 the year the british left... I can almost predict the same result

They are fighting us as a colonial power, nothing less

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

[DistressedAmerican]

116. They Asked That About Vietnam Too.

They will work it out among themselves once we leave. Our presence does nothing but creat more division. We are free to continue heavily funding their reconstruction, army training, etc. Just no more Americans on the ground!

[Frederik]

122. First of all

The Iraqis don't need help to rebuild their nation. They could use monetary support, until they get more of the oil flowing. But the last thing they need are Americans taking their jobs from them. Unenmplyment is at 40-60% and the Iraqi people is a very well educated and competent one. What they need is the stability and security that is needed for the work to begin. The US has had two years and more to provide that, and it should be clear by now that they are not able to.

After two years, the US troops still can't secure the six-mile stretch of road from Baghdad to the airport. They won't be able to two years from now either. A force of 500,000 troops might be able to pacify Iraq, but those troop numbers don't exist and won't ever exist. Instead, the presence of US troops is contributing to the instability a lot more than it is helping. To think that Iraqi forces will be able to support them is a fantasy. Not because the Iraqis are incompetent or cowards, but because they don't believe in the mission. They sign up because there are no other ways to put food on the table for their families, but they don't like doing it. Many of them support the insurgents and provide them with valuable intelligence.

As for innocent Iraqis, more are killed by US troops than by insurgents. Suicide bombs is one thing, but US fighter jets still fly bombing missions daily. They don't waste their ordnance on the Iraqi desert.

There's no way to turn this into a humanitarian mission when the vast majority of Iraqis want the occupiers out of their country.

[Freedomfried]

124. DON'T FALL FOR THE PROPAGANDA, immediate PULLOUT NOW!

To not do so is to make the common mistake of thinking non-whites cannot govern themselves.
Same type of racially skewed thinking that kept the Vietnam war going so long.
Its their country, when they realize that they are fixing to be on their own, truly free of foreign interference, the Iraqi people will rise to the occasion.

The problem is, Halliburton wont be getting any calls from Baghdad

[BonjourUSA]

128. Don't forget that's a neo-colonial war for oil.

Humanitarian reasons for staying or leaving are very far from the Bushco's political concern

[anarchy1999]

133. Thanks and it is a very tough question. There is no good answer,.

I like Kucincich plan. 90 to 120 days and international help. Lots of peace.

S & D

[Swamp Rat]

138. Wanna hear what someone has to say who has family there?

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!

[NNN0LHI]

139. Yea I understand. This white mans burden stuff is hard work n/t

[Dr Fate]

144. I'm not personaly willing to go over there.

Therefore I cannot support being over there.

It's that simple.

[PaulaFarrell]

146. Read this article

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050617/iraq_behind_the_script.php

One soldier, Amar Mana, explained the situation in the clearest terms: "We don't want to take responsibility," he said. "The way the situation is, we wouldn't be ready to take responsibility for a thousand years."

I also used to be conflicted but the more I read the more I feel Iraq won't have a chance until we do get out. Though I have thought ever since the invasion that the country would probably end up in civil war. I just no longer think the US can do anything to stop that happening.