To All People That Want Immediate Iraq/ME Pullout- Please Read & Respond

[GOPAgainstGW]

I’m sorry, but people need to wake up on this immediate pull-out of Iraq/ME garbage. We are NOT talking Vietnam here people. We had no strategic interests in ‘Nam other than fight the communist expansion in the region after the Korean War.

While the BushCo Nazi’s made one of the worse blunders in American History, by invading the most Holy Mecca Country in the World, we cannot just immediately pull out. Iraq has the highest quality grade of oil reserves in the World. What?, we just going to immediately pull out and let the Islamic Terrorists have all the $ billions in oil reserves to finance their operations. That would be totally stupid.

Further, “pull our troops out immediately” supporter, what’s the plan for Afghanistan? Are we just going to immediately pull out of their also and let the Taliban and heroin dealers take control of it again, and use routes through Afghanistan to smuggle nuclear and biological material out of Russia, like they were doing? Again, that would be totally stupid.

The US did this same garbage at the end of the Cold War against Russia. We broke Russia and their infrastructure, and then announced “mission accomplished” with no plan on what to do when Russia descended into total collapse. After that happened, and the U.S. sat on the sidelines, the Russian Mafia took over key control of Russia and its massive stockpiles of nuclear bombs/material and biological weapons. Then the stupid U.S. administration had to go begging to the Russia KGB to get some of their people elected and our CIA helped them rig the vote to get KGBer Vladimir Putin elected.

General Wesley Clark’s plan and direction is really the only thought process that makes any sense in this Iraq/Middle East disaster. A deal MUST be brokered among the Islamic Countries, while we assure the Israeli Government and People that we will always protect them, BUT they cannot and will not interfere with U.S. and World policies any longer in the Middle East region. Every political scholar in the World has stated for the past 40 years that the World MUST allow the Middle East to polarize. Yet now the U.S., with our BushCo Nazi Regime, totally blew that out of the water invading Iraq. Invading Afghanistan was one thing, but the U.S. invading the Holy Mecca County of Iraq was the Islamic Terrorist’s dream come true.

No, I’m not A General Wesley Clark supporter, but this is the direction that has to happen. The ME War is totally unwinnable, for many of the same reasons as Vietnam. Iraq is another Beirut all over again for the US, except magnified to the power of 20 million. The bottom line is EVERY Islamic country in that part of the World is funding and backing the Insurgent War against the US in the Middle East. NO Country in the ME region wants a U.S. lead democracy or Christian majority. There is no way we can win against that (we are totally surrounded), while we try to shove our Christian religion down a part of the World’s throat that practices Islam, with 1.8 billion followers.

Wesley Clarke is not a smooth enough politician and negotiator, like Clinton and Kerry for the needed ME Peace negotiations and Plan needed. Clinton really wanted a legacy when he left office by brokering a Israel & Palestine deal. It wasn’t his fault it failed. To me, Clinton can do more to help in this ME disaster, as a broker/negotiator, as an ex-President, than when he was President. John Kerry is a well thought genius, and would be a great member of Clinton’s ME Crisis Peace negotiation team. It would be like when Kerry and John McCain went to Vietnam and brokered the MIA and normalization deal, that Clinton signed while President.

To me this is what the Democrats & DNC need to be talking about and developing a platform. I have to agree with many others, it seems like the DNC, and Dem 527/PAC groups, spend all their time bashing BushCo, but offer no solid solutions to the problems. Accordingly, the millions of Republicans that hate BushCo, and the Bush Family Texas Mafia, have nothing to rally behind as to a clear and thought out Democratic agenda on key issues facing this Country.

A Middle East War Peace Plan also gives the public something to REALLY protest hard about against BushCo, and the World would clearly take notice. This situation is also a way to go around the BushCo machine, like when Nixon started going to China to develop US relations, which was against U.S Admin policy at the time, and he took a lot of political heat over.

Just My 3 Cents
GOPA

[CitrusLib]

1. For what it's worth, I agree with you.

I too believe a 100% immediate pull-out would be folly.

But I am a Clark fan. Had the honor of shaking his hand twice and voting for him in New Hampshire in 2004. He's pretty impressive in person and smart as a whip.

Right now, I think we need him as Secretary of State. He would be unbelievably brilliant in that role.

Suffice to say there are many, many, many views within the Democratic party that run the spectrum. It would be nice if we were one cohesive block that could run the neo-cons out of town, but we aren't there yet. I don't know what the answer is for the Dems, but I keep wishing and hoping a leader will rise above the fray to start putting this country back on track.

Peace

[confludemocrat]

2. You're living in a dream world, buddy. cf Juan Cole and Billmon

two former supporters of the war who have come to similar but definitely idependent conclusion that we CAN'T afford to NOT get out NOW if only to save ourselves. And if you believe we can ever do good in the world and not suffer permanent censure by the world you would agree.

[Fla Dem]

59. Unfortunately there is no way a Wes Clark, John Kerry, or Bill Clinton

would ever get the chance to broker any type of agreement in the Middle East, at least as long as the Repugs are in charge. Do you really think the Republican Machine would allow them the spotlight? Especially when all they have done is bash Clinton's legacy for the past 6 years.

I agree a total immediate pull out would be disastrous. And my concern is not for the oil supply, although you make a good point, it would be for the people of Iraq. If we were to pull out tomorrow, there would be slaughter in the streets. Women and children would be raped and killed, men tortured and killed, and Iran would ultimately take over the country.

Unfortunately, this sorry excuse for a presidential administration, has with its ill conceived adventure in Iraq, all but finished the job Iran started, The destruction of Iraq and the conquering of its lands. How can we walk away and leave them to that fate, one we caused.

Iraqis may as well bend over and kiss their asses goodbye if the US pulls out. And so to answer those who would ask...well aren't the Iraqi people better off now than when Saddam was in power, I would say,"Hell no, my God, Hell no."

[Fla Dem]

60. Unfortunately there is no way a Wes Clark, John Kerry, or Bill Clinton

would ever get the chance to broker any type of agreement in the Middle East, at least as long as the Repugs are in charge. Do you really think the Republican Machine would allow them the spotlight? Especially when all they have done is bash Clinton's legacy for the past 6 years.

I agree a total immediate pull out would be disastrous. And my concern is not for the oil supply, although you make a good point, it would be for the people of Iraq. If we were to pull out tomorrow, there would be slaughter in the streets. Women and children would be raped and killed, men tortured and killed, and Iran would ultimately take over the country.

Unfortunately, this sorry excuse for a presidential administration, has with its ill conceived adventure in Iraq, all but finished the job Iran started, The destruction of Iraq and the conquering of its lands. How can we walk away and leave them to that fate, one we caused.

Iraqis may as well bend over and kiss their asses goodbye if the US pulls out. And so to answer those who would ask...well aren't the Iraqi people better off now than when Saddam was in power, I would say,"Hell no, my God, Hell no."

[brokensymmetry]

3. I understand your arguments...

and yet, I think that we need to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. There are strategic reasons used to justify remaining; but the truth is that the whole effort has been so badly run that we cannot achieve success.

So, we must ask - what can we gain, and at what price? Quite frankly, I think that we cannot gain much; and the price we pay in blood and treasure will be heartbreaking. Perhaps nation-breaking too.

Will "bad people" take over? No doubt. But if we continue on the present path, it seems unlikely that "good people" will win; rather, it will simply be a different band of "bad people".

Maybe (a very big maybe) the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could have been won. But that time is in the past. And if victory is not achievable, why extend the agony?

[enigma000]

7. We lost Afghanistan? n/t

[kick-ass-bob]

17. Did we find what we were looking for?

Did we destroy the taliban?

The answers are: No, and No.

So yes, we failed in Afghanistan too. And that one was doable, unlike Iraq.

[DemsUnited]

57. Also, Afghanistan now run by warlords producing huge amounts of opium

Oh yeah, it's so much better. Let's have a meaningless election and declare victory.

[K-W]

28. We accomplished next to nothing in Afghanistan,

and we certainly didnt destroy Al Queda.

[tjwash]

66. Afghanistan was used as a staging area for Iraq.

that's what we accomplished.

[Yupster]

81. Can we at least pull all the people

who worked with us out of Iraq before we leave so they don't get their heads sawed off?

I think we owe our allies a better fate than what happened to our collaborators in Cambodia and Vietnam.

[brokensymmetry]

86. We ought to.

But if I were one of them, I wouldn't bet on it. The record of how we treat our friends isn't very good, in my opinion.

[Corgigal]

4. Seymour Hersh said on The Daily Show

That's it's too late. The general population of Iraq know what we did to them in the prisons. Pull out.

It might have been different IF we treated them like humans, we didn't.

[GOPAgainstGW]

9. Major Hersh Fan, But How Do We Pull Out With It Falling to The Terrorists?

[K-W]

25. Falling to the terrorists?

First off, who are the terrorists? There is no group of terrorists. There are many groups involved in this, many of whom contain people who have committed acts of terrorism.

I will assume you are referring to Militant Islamists of the Al Queda persuation who want to create a militant Islamic republic. If so, that is simply not a reasonable concern in Iraq. They simply dont have the numbers to ever win a power struggle against the existing groups in Iraq.

[okieinpain]

31. well it's not the iraqi's themselves. everyone keeps saying a lot of the

insurgents are from outside the country. we pull out they will go on a mass killing spree to wrestle control of the country from the people. then you throw in this weird ass triangle between the kurds, shiite's, and sunnis that spells trouble, m.o.o.n.

[K-W]

38. Actually it is, to a large extent, the Iraqi's themselves.

The foriegn fighters are a minority group in the insurgency, which is itself a minority force in the country. The most powerful groups in the country are the Kurdish and Shiite Militias.

[okieinpain]

61. but the shiite militias are not blowing up their own people, it's out

siders trying to get the shiite's and sunni's fighting.

[Qibing Zero]

75. That's unfounded

There are way too many sides involved to just say 'oh, it's just Al Qaeda trying to start up a civil war'. Some of them want their own wishes expressed in the government, a lot of them want us out, and yes, some of them may indeed want to see a civil war.

[okieinpain]

90. and that's why you can just pull out. it is a mess, which is why dumb

ass's father did not go running in there.

[leftchick]

47. why are you calling them terrorists?

they are rebels fighting US occupiers. A very small percentage are "foreign fighters". It can also be argued that many of the bombings are US/UK operations after the UK's whoopsie last week!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4898620

And Juan Cole has given up hope for the USA to do any good what so ever anymore and is calling for a complete pullout. That is a big turn around for him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4885891

[0007]

65. Who created these folks that hate us? The U.S. pulled out of

Saudi pretty goddamn fast after 911. Who's trying to steal what and from whom. It isn't about jealously of our freedom, it is our present in their country.

These people aren't any more terrorist than people that want us out of their country. We are liberators, we are occupiers. Building fourteen military installations in their country isn't setting very well, on top of the pack of lies that the American people were fed.

[Generic Other]

5. Oh boy another rightwing voice telling those on the left what to think

Thanks for moving me even farther to the left.

[bryant69]

14. Is expressing an opinion different than yours

telling you what to think?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[okieinpain]

34. sorry dude, but the poster is right. in your defense we do need to draw

down sharply, but we will have to keep a presense, and spend lots of money to keep that place from going to hell (ok, going to deeper parts of hell). but the usa created that mess, like it or not so we have to clean it up.

sorry, but that's what we get for having bush as president.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. Oil is not a valid reason for invading a sovereign country

"We want your resources" is imperialism, nothing else, no matter what pretty words you decorate it with. The invasion of Iraq will go down in history as one of the most shameful things the U.S. has ever done, and there is no "honor" in any course except getting the hell out of there and turning administration of the country over to the Arab League or the UN or some other body that will take an even-handed approach among the parties.


Instead of fighting for the last drop of oil, we should refocus our national priorities on alternatives to petroleum, both by funding and providing for alternatives to the car and airplane and by finding substitutes for plastics and other petroleum-based products.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we already blew that one big time. Afghanistan was the playing field for a stupid pissing contest between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., and as such, we owe them a Marshall Plan, not further military occupation.

The money currently being spent on the military should be spent on rebuilding the country's infrastructure and on providing micro credit loans to war widows and those whose businesses were destroyed. This is what we should have done with Afghanistan from the very beginning. If we had, we would have gained the admiration of the Islamic world, instead of...well, the opposite.

Don't fall for the neocon talking points.

[norml]

8. Because only 5% of the insurgency are "foreign fighters" the faster we get

out, the faster the locals can throw out the "foreign fighters" and stop "terrorism".

And the faster they will get the oil flowing again.

And the better it will be for everyone's business,

Except for the oil and defense industries.

US out of Iraq now!

It's the only sensible position to take.

Hand it over to the UN.

Let the locals rebuild their own country.

US out of Iraq now!

[GOPAgainstGW]

21. That's Not Accurate & the ME Goverments Are EXTREMELY Fragile....

I spent 3 years working in the Middle East in the '80's restructuring Oil & Gas deals for U.S. banks. Money was good but it was the hardest job I've ever had. But I learned a boatload about the ME region, and our screwed up US policies in the region, from a group of very wealthy Christian Lebanese businessmen in Beirut.

The American public really needs to get up to speed on their understanding of the ME Region. If they understood it they would have never voted for the BushCo Regime. If they understood the ME Region, they would realize that we are now in an EXTREMELY complicated and highly dangeous problem.

[K-W]

33. Actually it is accurate.

The jihadists are not that powerful in Iraq. They could not possibly win a power struggle.

[norml]

36. According to Anthony Cordesman and the DOD that figure is accurate.

It is unlikely that al-Qaeda makes up more than 10% of the total insurgency, with some estimates placing it as low as 5%. While the number of foreign jihadis have increased over time, it is also important to note that as of June 2005 there were only 600 foreign fighters being held prisoner out of more than 14,000 detainees, a possible indication that foreign jihadis are more likely to fight to the death than their Iraqi counterparts. All the same, they remain the most dangerous element of the insurgency because they have increasingly sought to provoke a civil war between Iraqi Sunni and their Shi'ite and Kurdish counterparts.

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007132.php

[txaslftist]

37. They (ME govts) should be fragile. They suck.

Seriously. A bunch of corrupt monarchies, figureheads and tribal chiefs. Without oil and US support many of those fragile regimes would have already collapsed in bloody revolutions.

You know. Like the one our country was founded on.

When did the US become a country that supported fucking monarchies over democratic revolutions?

[Greyhound]

54. They are fragile because they were installed by western governments

for the oil industry period. Their only purpose is to keep the oil flowing and fuck everything and everyone else. There is not one single regime in the region that has popular support amongst the populace and without the pervasive military presence, ours or those we support, they would not last 48 hours.
Unfortunately, the people have only one recourse and that is the fundamentalists. OBL gained his support in the region after the raygun mis-administration walked away from Afghanistan allowing him to come in with his oil money, by building hospitals, roads, schools, and establishing order. A fundamentalist theocracy is preferable to anarchy, which is what we left behind (oh yes, and lots and lots of weapons).
Now, I know it's against what has become the 'conservative' mind set, but if we gave them a real alternative, they would leave the fundies behind as well. Of course that would mean spending money (you might want to be seated for this) on people instead of energy corporations, and we all know how much 'conservatives' hate the idea of giving money to anybody, except of course, to big business.
Look at the current "Iraqi Government" Oil executives all. But what about Afghanistan? Again, oil executives installed by us to pretend to be a government. Do you really wonder why they all hate us?
Something I have rarely heard proposed here, and not heard at all elsewhere, is a "Marshall plan" for Iraq. Give them a legitimate constitution that innumerates the absolute rights of its people, establishes the structure of government, seal their borders, hold legitimate elections, and get the hell out. Oh, and hope they are more forgiving to us than we've ever been to anybody.
Well? :shrug:

[GOPAgainstGW]

79. Greyhound1966 You Are Exactly Right. - eom

[Berserker]

74. OMG

Do you mean its about the FUCKING OIL?

[Dez]

10. Chimpy is an oil junkie

and he's not going to pull out, even if the American people want him to. He fucked up BIGTIME by starting this war, and now look at it! If our government was so concerned about Arabs nuking us, then why don't they pull their corporations out of these coutries?? And take the soldiers out as well.. I don't mean out of Iran, but the other Arab countries.

There IS a solution to the energy crisis, but it's illegal! It's hemp. We could fuel ALL our autos with fuel made from hemp, but the DEA enforce bogus laws which keep it illegal.

The corporations are running this country, through all our crooked politicians! They all get rich off the lobbying of the oil companies, drug companies, and so on.

Hemp will be legalized AFTER this world runs out of oil, not before.. the corporations wont allow it. We're all held hostage by them. If everyone would protest and vote for the Greens/Indeependents, you would see incredible positive change in this country.. but not until then will there be positive change, IMHO.

Meantime, we pay $3.00+ for a gallon of gas, and piss and moan about chimpie.. he is just one part of the problem.. they're ALL crooked, and allow these things to happen! If we relied on Hemp for fuel, we could tell the Arabs where to go! We could bankrupt all of them!

[norml]

26. War Makes Gas Cost More! This is a war to take oil off the market.

Iraq has the world's second largest reserve of oil.

Iran has the fourth largest reserve of oil.

The goal is to restrict the flow of their product to raise the value of what they hold by trillions of dollars.

They call this "Stabilizing Oil Prices".

[AnotherMother4Peace]

11. & the Bush girls will be signing up soon for this noble cause?

[GOPAgainstGW]

27. Bush Girls Already Signed Up For This Cause, ........

[dogday]

12. Instead of invading countries rich in oil

we should be inventing new ways of fuel consumption. Who are we to do anything to any country with oil. It is not ours. Why do we rightfully think it is? I think the idea of an immediate pull-out is to save lives not oil.

Afghanistan should of been settled long ago. This is just government screwed-up political agenda. They needed Afghanistan to run the TAP and that is why we tread lightly over there. Once again, it is all about some other country's assets that we want to call ours.. When will we ever learn?

[xchrom]

13. the future if iraq is the responsibility of the iraqis.

what is it with people in the west, whether it's colonialism or out and out slavery, or plain old economic extortion that they feel like they can run some poorer countries business better than they themselves?

i do not get it.

we support oppressive dictators rather than people on the ground who REALLY ARE INTERESTED democratic intiatives -- because then it won't be in the best interests of our country.

look what's happening to womens rights under the conditions as they are developing now.

look at the continuing degradation of relations between the three major groups in iraq -- all of this with our support.

we are not bringing them something better -- we are bringing them a lot of mayhem, murder, chaos, etc.

let's bring our soldiers and our fucked up EGOS home!

[enigma000]

15. The Russian Mafia?

We broke Russia and their infrastructure, and then announced “mission accomplished” with no plan on what to do when Russia descended into total collapse. After that happened, and the U.S. sat on the sidelines, the Russian Mafia took over key control of Russia and its massive stockpiles of nuclear bombs/material and biological weapons. Then the stupid U.S. administration had to go begging to the Russia KGB to get some of their people elected and our CIA helped them rig the vote to get KGBer Vladimir Putin elected.

The U.S. was a little more involved than that in post-communist Russia and the former Soviet states. It's not like the Russian Mafia was selling nukes. Eastern Europe didn't magically turn into free-market democracies on their own - it took U.S. and E.U. help.

[K-W]

30. The US was very involved and there was certainly a plan.

In many ways Russia's transitional failures can be blamed on the free market economic model it adopted.

[whatever4]

16. Complete with obnoxiously large pics, how special

"pull out and let the Islamic Terrorists have all the $ billions in oil reserves to finance their operations."

Sure, I'll respond. That bit you say about "let...have...in oil..."?

That is hogwash. This is their nation. That is their oil. It was not, and is not, a justification to continue killing people.

Further, the war was a farce to begin with, and with no good reason to continue, it should stop. Now.

Lastly, since Iraq shows every indication of escalating into something no matter what we do, ANYTHING we can do to stop that, up to and including immediate pull-out, SHOULD be done. We should do whatever we perceive as being helpful, and everyone there says we should leave.

If we actually care about the situation and, heaven forbid, the people (remember the people?) who live there, we'd do the smart thing. Instead, we do the same and worse things. We show no caring to improve the situation, just to "win" the situation, which no one knows how to define, because we've made absolutely no strides in any winning directions. Towns won are later lost, the fighting gets worse and worse. Win? Win how??

Yeah, what you said stopped making sense right after "let...have...oil...". There's just no getting around that difference in philosophy, because according to yours, our own national interests are the ONLY consideration, which isn't fair, and won't work anyway.

[Qibing Zero]

76. That sums it up perfectly. Nice post. nt

[walldude]

18. Whether we pull out now or later

Iraq will end up as an Islamic Republic, and they will ally themselves with Iran. It's a foregone conclusion. We're fucked either way....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Hmmmm

What happens to the Sunnis and Kurds in this scenario?


They certainly don't want to be part of a Shia nation...

[KnowerOfLogic]

73. If they're lucky, they'll go their separate ways in peace; if not, well,

you do the math. It's a done deal, whether anybody likes it or not.

[Yupster]

82. I agree Knower

I think things could go very wrong for the Sunnis.

If teh Sadr Militia is called to mobilize, they could sweep through the Sunni triangle, and the region could be quickly emptied except for refugees fleeing to Syria.

When people say there's a Civil War there, I think, not until the Sadr militia truly joine the fray. Then you'll have a real Civil War.

[KnowerOfLogic]

72. Correct; the writing is on the wall, and it really has nothing to do

with BushCo's "mismanagement" of the operation, as many dems and repubs say. The die was cast on the day we started on this fool's errand. What the OP and many others don't understand, is that there *is* no way to "fix" the iraq mess, just like you cannot un-break an egg, or continuing with egg metaphor, all the king's horses and all the kings men, will not be able to put iraq back together again.

[confludemocrat]

19. This post should be nominated for a "Dumbest page" if we had such. n/t

[whatever4]

55. Actually I kinda liked my answer

and quite a few others here too :)

[confludemocrat]

56. I liked your answer too, I meant the original post!

The premise was of the kind we seem to be getting more and more of, the pro-war line under the guise of a "sensible strategy" which is then followed by garden-variety borderline freeper shit.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Here's our list of conditions if we stay in Iraq.

(1) Impeach, Remove and charge Bush & Co. for their criminal behavior.

(2) Admit that the last two elections were potentially part of a pattern of corruption that led to Iraq and accept the fact that you owe two men, Gore and Kerry, apologies as well as civil remedies.

(3) Impeach, Remove and charge Bush & Co. for their criminal behavior.

(4) Admit that the Republican party has lost all credibility to run this country because of the crony capitalism which has diluted the effectiveness of the government to operate in a benign manner. Admit that because of their ineffectiveness, Republicans are now scrambling to find a "safety net" to compensate in times of emergency disasters which they largely create. And that "safety net" is none other than martial law. A move that will most assuredly be abused by politically oriented Republicans.

(5) Impeach, Remove and charge Bush & Co. for their criminal behavior.

(6) Admit that Republicans have co-opted our media and then cooperate in pushing for an investigation that will reveal to the American people how our pundits are being paid and cultivated to report pro-Republican views. Then support the return of the Fairness Doctrine.

(7) Impeach, Remove and charge Bush & Co. for their criminal behavior.

(8) Admit that the Republicans have been trying to usurp our constitution by breaking the separation of church and state. Then support an investigation that will show a clear connection between church activism and political influence which will conclude that right-wing churches should not be tax-exempted because they are P.A.C.s.

(9) Impeach, Remove and charge Bush & Co. for their criminal behavior.

(10) Support tax increases for the rich; Stay the hell out of our national parks; admit that racism exists in this country which is why Affirmative Action is necessary; demand that the president release important presidential papers; demand that Cheney tell us who was in those energy meeting; LET SIBEL TALK!!!!

Otherwise, why in the hell would we allow you to put one finger on our children? I would almost trust a pedophile, before I'd put my trust in a Republican. I would almost prefer to take my chances that the terrorist will be placated once we remove a party from power which appears to be following policies which threatens everybody.

[GOPAgainstGW]

39. 100% Agree & Need A War Crimes Tribunal To Fry Some BushCo Nazi's

[Mandate My Ass]

22. Isn't this the OP who called Cindy Sheehan an idiot?

I couldn't bring myself to read much of that screed or finish this one, but this seems like the same drivel in a different package.

[NNN0LHI]

23. Your poor attempt to rewrite history is despicable

Americans were being told that it was better to fight the commies in Vietnam than to have them raping our wives in America. Sound familiar? Don't even try that

>>>We had no strategic interests in ‘Nam other than fight the communist expansion in the region after the Korean War.<<<

bullshit. You are either willfully lying or you don't know WTF you are talking about. Either way you should lay down if you you are unable to prevent yourself from spewing lies in the first paragraph of your post.

Don

[Jackpine Radical]

24. I'm very glad you reposted this, as I think it deserves debate.

In fact, it is perhaps the most urgent issue confronting us (albeit not the most important).

Here is the problem as I see it: Who will go in there & cover our withdrawal? If you say "The UN," that's too global an answer (no pun intended).The UN is composed of individual member states. Which of them should send peacekeeping forces? To oversimplify (and to state the obvious), the choice comes down to Muslim or non-Muslim forces, or a mix.

I think right now, Europeans would neither be accepted nor be very willing to go in to clean up our mess. Who, then? East-Asian troops? How would the Iraqis react to having their streets patrolled by, say, Chinese? Or Indians? Canadians? How would they react to Sunni foreigners? Not well, in any of these cases, I would predict. My bet is that any peacekeeping force would come under fire and be pulled out shortly.

I fear that Iraq is too broken to fix. We can't do it, the rest of the world can't do it. The longer we stay, the deeper will be the wounds. There is no way out but OUT.

[Yupster]

83. I don't think Mid-east nations

have any reason to put troops in their to clean up our mess.

They sure don't have any interest in Iraq becomming a democracy.

[leftofthedial]

29. more later, but two points

1. It is THEIR fucking oil, not ours--unless you are a fascist . . .

2. The poppy growers and heroin dealers are in control of Afghanistan RIGHT NOW. The heroin industry is stronger than it ever was, which seems to have been part of the bushgang "plan." Murkans have nominal control on their bases and a few square blocks of Kabul.

[txaslftist]

32. Wow. Where to start. I guess I'd better go in your order:

1. Let the Islamic Terrorists just have the billions in oil reserves to finance blah blah blah... No. Let the Iraqis have the billions to finance their country. And they will still need to sell it to someone, how about us? And we don't own it, they do. And we are currently buying it. And the Islamic Terraists don't actually run Iraq and it is damn near inconceivable that they ever will. And...It's not our oil.

2. Afghanistan: Who is talking about pulling everyone out of Afghanistan, Mr. Leave the Troops there supporter? Most pull the troops outers are talking about Iraq. Oh, and Opium production has increased since the fall of the Taliban, it has not decreased. Oh, and we don't actually have any control over the smuggling routes as of right now.

3. Russia: We didn't actually invade Russia. We didn't actually get in a shooting war with them. We didn't have any troops to pull out of there. Are you suggesting that after we "broke" them (as if their own flawed system didn't) we should have invaded a country with nukes? And the mafia took over the nukes? Umm. No. Try Conspiracy Planet for that one. The Russian Government never actually lost control of the government or the nukes.

All three of these initial points of yours make two very untenable assumptions. 1. That the US is a stabilizing force in the region. I think you are incorrect. Our troops are actually destabilizing the Middle East and increasing conflict. It is inevitable that our troops there must fight to defend themselves. They must fight as non-indigent troops must always fight, that is, with overwhelming force. That kind of use of force always produces extensive collateral damage. That collateral damage produces innocent victims, from whence the terrorist ranks are most easily filled. Our presence there recruits terrorists. 2. That the ME cannot take care of themselves without our 'help'. I think that actually we aren't helping. They don't want our version of democracy any more than we would want their version of theocracy. They don't want our system of capitalism any more than we would want their system of financial patronage and castes. Iraq was our 'enemy' under Saddam, but it was stable. Abusive, totalitarian, corrupt, venal but stable. The oil flowed freely from Iraq. When we leave it will stabilize again, and the oil will continue to flow freely. Whether it flows from a grasping megalomaniacal dictator or a rabid, hate-spewing cleric or a democratically elected president is really not our business.

We are wasting money, creating enemies, destabilizing the region, savaging our worldwide reputation, choking off oil, and losing two American servicemen each day. Immediate withdrawal makes immediate sense.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. And we just do not have enough military to sustain an occupation

[Beam Me Up]

44. Which is why they want 'justification' to use tactical nukes in the ME.

Which is why I do not trust the Bush administration and the Facitsts that are behind it further than I can :puke:

[GreenPartyVoter]

45. I agree with your assessment. :^(

[Beam Me Up]

41. More "Reality" from you?

:puke:

Think: DEAD SOLDIERS and DEAD IRAQIS. That's pretty god damned real.

Who made this mess? GEORGE W. BUSH and the Congress who enables him.

A lot of people are DEAD: you know, as in NO LONGE LIVING. No longer having a life to live or a body to live it in. A lot of people have been physically maimed, had their arms and legs blown off, their eyes blown out and psychologically injured and will be scared for the rest of their lives -- on both sides -- and you want to prolong this for OUR STRAEGIC INTERESS?

You know, we have 'strategic' interests in Venezuela, too; should we invade that country, overthrow their government and make a total mess of their society and kill men women and children? I know the Fascists behind the Bush administration would LIKE to do that and MAY YET do that... The point being THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT LEGAL. Doesn't even make it good policy!

Have you heard of LAW AND ORDER? The Government of the United States in the guise of pResident George W. Bush has committed war crimes against a sovereign nation. When George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (among others) are brought before the Haig and tried for war crimes, when the United States has paid reparations to Iraq, then perhaps we can talk about our "strategic" interests.

[KittyWampus]

42. The One VERY Positive Thing From Your Post- Democrats Should Use

concept of a ME Peace Summit as their core proposal.

[welshTerrier2]

43. immediate or near-term withdrawal is the only path ...

the arguments made against immediate withdrawal are flawed ...

first, take a read on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2112748

it cites a study done by the Center for Strategic International Studies that concluded that as little as 4% of the "insurgents" fighting in Iraq are foreign fighters ... most of those fighting against the US occupation and the imposition of a democratically empowered tyranny of the Shia majority are native Iraqis ... the point is that those fighting are not international terrorists who want to provide oil and funding to al Qaeda and other global terrorist organizations ... the point is that the entire premise of the argument you presented against immediate withdrawal is based on a myth ...

given the miniscule composition of foreign fighters in Iraq, what exactly would Clark's call for regional negotiations accomplish while American occupying forces remain in Iraq ... you're presenting an argument to sit down with Syria and Iran and others to have them intervene in an internal political struggle inside Iraq?? what would be the objective of those negotiations? it seems there could only be two possible objectives ...

first, you could ask these countries (or pressure them) to shut-off the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq ... one of the articles in the thread i referenced concluded that Syria does not have the capability to do this ... and again, foreign fighters in Iraq may represent as little as 4% of those fighting ... this approach is a drop in the bucket at best and probably not workable anyway ...

or second, you're talking about some kind of regional peacekeeping force to suppress the insurgency ... Syria, Egypt, Iran, Jordan and other countries from the region could send troops into Iraq to suppress the Sunni insurgency ... one, it seems inconceivable they would agree to this and two, the Sunnis are fighting for their survival ... why is forcing them to submit to the will of the Shia majority a desirable objective?

so again, what would be the objective of regional negotiations while the US remains in occupation?

another major point, perhaps the most devastating of all, is the reality that the world's most potent fighting force has been totally unable, after two and half years, to quell the violence inside Iraq ... regardless of what mechanisms for peace and stability you advocate, the bottom line is that continued US occupation will not achieve anything ... it doesn't matter what negotiating process you initiate at this point; the occupation itself is the major cause of the violence ...

civil war and post-withdrawal consequences are very real concerns ... but all the US occupation is doing is blocking a road to the inevitable while Iraq remains a cauldron of suffering ... while the US continues its occupation, Iraq is fighting both internal and external enemies not to mention the devastating costs in terms of people, dollars and international prestige to the US ...

the US needs to get the hell out of Iraq either immediately or within a very short timeframe, say less than three months ... at that point, a massive infusion of humanitarian assistance coupled with a regional negotiating process to support that assistance makes sense ... as long as US troops are fighting inside Iraq against those fighting for their own liberation, nothing will change ...

and finally, keep in mind that the US is in Iraq for imperialistic reasons ... bush and his friends are after oil and regional control ... they are not seeking peace, stability and democracy ... they are seeking oil, power and a puppet government ... calling for anything beyond immediate or near-term withdrawal will do nothing but further enable their agenda ...

[KerryOn]

46. You said:

"The bottom line is EVERY Islamic country in that part of the World is funding and backing the Insurgent War against the US in the Middle East. NO Country in the ME region wants a U.S. lead democracy or Christian majority. There is no way we can win against that (we are totally surrounded), while we try to shove our Christian religion down a part of the World’s throat that practices Islam, with 1.8 billion followers."

So lets get the hell out now!

[GOPAgainstGW]

48. Anyone Seen A Valid Poll On What World Leaders Think on This Subject?

[GOPAgainstGW]

51. Clinton & Kerry Don't Support Immediate Iraq Pullout, Gore?.....

The last time I saw Clinton and Kerry speak on this subject, (within the last month-Clinton last week) neither supported an immediate U.S. pullout from the Iraq (Holy Oil) War (FYI, I voted for both Clinton and Kerry). I voted for Gore also, but don't follow him anymore. Don't know what his position is on the subject.

FYI, I'm with a large "money group" in Houston that has been trying to drag down Tom DeLay for 3 years now. I ran the group last year trying to help John Kerry/John Edwards, and supply intel on the Swift Boat operations, which we had insiders in the organization. Unfortunately, the Bush Family Texas Mafia is extremely powerful and dangerous.

In our opinion, Kerry beat himself in the election over not having a solid operating position on the Iraq/Middle East crisis. ( I have trememdous respect for both Kerry and Edwards!) One of our members personally told John Edwards (face-to-face in a meeting with him) that they would lose the Presidential Election if Kerry (and Senator Joe Biden) didn't come up with a better position on managing that disaster Iraq Holy War that BushCo started, to protect the BushCo & Saudi Royal Family’s joint interests.

[bowens43]

49. Get the troops out of Iraq now.

Afghanistan has nothing to do with Iraq. BTW apparently you haven't been paying attention. The drug lords and the Taliban already control most of Afghanistan. I'm sorry but I for one don't buy the 'we need to take their oil' bullshit that you seem to be pushing. It's THEIR fucking oil.
Also 'terrorists' are not running Iraq. That's another right-wing myth. Leaving the country now will not result in the 'terrorists' controlling the oil.

The only logical thing to do is leave but to continue funding the rebuilding. We broke it, we should pay for it.

[Matariki]

50. I understand what you're saying

but it's not really the *US* in Afghanistan and Iraq - it's the 'bush family' drug, oil, crime cartel. And their interests are *no* better than the interests of the Taliban, heroin dealers, or terrorists. I think they have more than demonstrated their commitment to the people of the United States (not).

What we *need* to be doing do is work with the International Community to make sure the interests of the Afghanistan and Iraqi PEOPLE are being served - and their and OUR countries are protected from various mafias.

[wtmusic]

52. WTF? You think you have the right to tell them what to do

with *their* oil? That's rich, and typical of the American Ethnocentrist attitude.

Ponder a moment whether North Korea should be allowed to decide what to do with our oil, then rephrase your post accordingly.

[porphyrian]

53. We aren't the only military force in the world, for chrissakes.

Yes, we're responsible for the mess and we should continue to be, but that doesn't mean that keeping OUR troops there is the best way to do it. In fact, it's the least-effective way and is actually making the situation worse, so it's stupid to continue. What do you think the UN is for? Just because the GOP can't stand the idea of working with other countries that don't support the Iraq war doesn't mean it's no longer a choice.

As far as Afghanistan, that's where our troops should be, where they never should've been pulled from, until we actually capture those responsible for 9/11 and insure that they are incapable of ever doing that again. Again, however, we are not the only military force in the world, and we shouldn't be.

[crispini]

58. I think this point is well worth discussing.

But at this point, are we helping to stabilize the situation at all by our presence? I am not sure.

Hypothetically, could we turn the whole shebang over to the UN? At least that way it wouldn't be an American presence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. They Don't Want The Tarbaby

The blue hats are wonderful after an area has been pacified but woefully inadequate at pacifying one....

[Yupster]

85. Maybe if we just kill another

dozen of Zarquawi's # 2's, then we'd be able to find our "laughing place." *

* Laughing place like tarbaby are references that only old geezers like me would remember. (or people who ride Splash Mountain at Disneyworld).

[Yupster]

84. Why would you think the UN would be willing

to send a peacekeeping army into Iraq?

They won't even keep a mission open there.

If they did send troops in, they'd leave after the first suicide bombing.

[Darranar]

62. The oil is theirs. Let them do as they will with it.

It is next to certain that whatever government takes power there will be willing to sell it to us, if that is your concern.

[Seabiscuit]

64. Get the fuck out now - we never belonged there and never will.

[cantstandbush]

68. I agree with you 100%. We will only kill more Iraqis and get more of our

soldiers killed. These people ALL hate us and rightly so. We have wrecked their country, severed the Iraqi nationalism, created at least 10 times more "terrorists" than we have eliminated, killed thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children and for what? We keep digging this whole bigger and bigger and soon we will be asking more people to jump in with us and start digging.

This was the administration that came into office proclaiming that America could not be and should not be the policemen of the world and chided the Clinton administration for whatever little humanitarian efforts they initiated.

Now look at us. We are not only the police of the world, we are the judge, and jury of the world. And the world is more messed up than ever.

[Seabiscuit]

80. I guess yours was the longer version of my short version. :)

[Karenina]

67. Bottom line

When the ROTW has finally had enough, y'all will be cut off at the knees while still furiously masturbating militarily. Economicus interruptus.

May it happen sooner than later. The ice poles are fucking MELTING.

[crispini]

70. What's the ROTW?

:shrug:

[Karenina]

78. The rest of the world.

But of course in today's Amurikkka WE DON'T COUNT. Same way the "common currency" of Iraqi casualties is 100,000- a figure posted by Lancet A YEAR AGO...

[goodhue]

69. But the US occupation is making things worse, rather than better

Juan Cole finally gets it . . .

http://www.juancole.com/2005/09/why-we-have-to-get-troops-out-of-iraq.html

[al bupp]

71. While you make some good points, sir

The latest issue of Harpers (October, 2005) contains an article which eloquently argues why getting our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible offers the best chance for stability in the region.

[LSK]

77. what exactly are we doing to improve the situation???

Nothing that I can tell. Our "leaders" only care about constant war profiteering. So while you give good reasons on why we shouldnt pull out, your argument is flawed because we are not doing ANYTHING GOOD there.

[LWolf]

87. I want them home now.

I wanted them home a year ago.

I never wanted them over there to begin with.

It would be good to start with an exit strategy, don'tcha think? Has Bush ever had one? Here's an effort to prod him into one; better late than never:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.J.Res.55:@@@L&summ2=m&

The "stay the course" propaganda doesn't fly with me. Neither does the "now that we broke it, we fix it" crap. We aren't fixing anything over there. It's getting worse, not better. If we really want to see improvements, we get out and let someone not under the thumb of U.S. Imperialism direct the "fixing."

[spanone]

88. Get out and get out now. It's an illegal war. Out now.

You cannot win an illegal occupation.

[Nihil]

89. Ok, breaking it down to nice bite-sized chunks ...

> We are NOT talking Vietnam here people.

No, you are talking Poland here - in the late 1930s.
(You need a history lesson)


> ... by invading the most Holy Mecca Country in the World

Wrong, that would be Saudi Arabia (hint: "Mecca" is there).
(You also need a geography lesson)


> Iraq has the highest quality grade of oil reserves in the World.

This is the sole reason why the US (and tame poodles) are there.


> we just going to immediately pull out and let the Islamic Terrorists
> have all the $ billions in oil reserves to finance their operations.

Couple of points in that one block:
- It is Iraq's oil.
- The extraction companies making the most money are American.
- Until Saddam was deposed, there were VERY few "Islamic Terrorists"
in Iraq as he had a painful but damn effective way of stopping them.
- "$ billions in oil reserves" do not buy anything (except maybe a
bit of credit from the gamblers). The oil needs to be extracted and
sold to generate money.


> what’s the plan for Afghanistan? Are we just going to immediately
> pull out of their also ...

Yep, get the fuck out of there too.
(Add an English lesson)


> ... and let the Taliban ... take control of it again,

Yes. Their country, their government (whether you like it or not).
The world is not your playground and the kids are getting fed up of
your bullying.


> ... Taliban and heroin dealers ...

Yet another factual inaccuracy. The Taliban were far more successful
at eliminating the heroin industry from Afghanistan than any other
regime before or since. It has now exceeded its pre-Taliban levels
thanks to the glorious invaders.


> ... use routes through Afghanistan to smuggle nuclear and biological
> material out of Russia, like they were doing?

Complete RW bollocks (or "propaganda" if you prefer).


> The US did this same garbage at the end of the Cold War against
> Russia. We broke Russia and their infrastructure, ...

Another load of complete RW bollocks.
(Again, the history lessons will pay off here)


> Then the stupid U.S. administration had to go begging to the Russia
> KGB to get some of their people elected and our CIA helped them rig
> the vote to get KGBer Vladimir Putin elected.

You really have no idea about Russia, the USSR, history or politics.
(You definitely should go for the history lesson you know)

:banghead:

Ok I give up ... my head is starting to hurt and the wall is flaking.


> Just My 3 Cents

Personally I think you made 0 'cents' but there you go ...