Democrats Stop War (1 Viewer)

[statsman]

Now that there's a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress perhaps its time to vote an end to the war.

Sorry Mr. President, not one more dime for Iraq and you've got 30 days to get every single American military home (no advisors).

What do you think?

 

[Kraj]

I think it would be a bad idea. It's basically telling the world not only should you be worried about the next mess we'll make, but on top of it you should worried about who cleans it up.

We owe it to the world to see this through. Of course, that doesn't mean we necessarily need to be doing more of the same. An entirely different strategy could be appropriate at this time. But I doubt any successful strategy would call for an immediate withdrawl of troops.

 

[jsanders]

I think it would be a bad idea. It's basically telling the world not only should you be worried about the next mess we'll make, but on top of it you should worried about who cleans it up.

We owe it to the world to see this through. Of course, that doesn't mean we necessarily need to be doing more of the same. An entirely different strategy could be appropriate at this time. But I doubt any successful strategy would call for an immediate withdrawl of troops.

The old idiom, of the river and the horse would seem to apply here.

 

[Rich]

The old idiom, of the river and the horse would seem to apply here.

never heard of it?

 

[Kraj]

Something along the lines of "you don't change horses in midstream".

I'm not sure that's the case, since the American people voted to 'change horses'. I just think that we owe the people of Iraq to leave their country as safe and stable as it was before we got there - if not more. If pulling out would accomplish that then I'd be all for it, but it doesn't seem like it will.

 

[Matty]

I agree, but right now it looks like there's no way to at least make it as safe as it was before. If lives are being lost just to bring the country back to what it was before, at what point do you just cut your losses* and say that you can't sacrifice any more lives to bring something back to the start?

*I know "cut your losses" is a bad term when dealing with human lives...

 

[RichMorrison]

Kraj wrote
<<
I just think that we owe the people of Iraq to leave their country as safe and stable as it was before we got there - if not more.
>>

That makes sense and seems morally right, but...
we don't seem to be making anything safer or more stable.

The destabilizers always have an edge on the stabilizers, IMO. So I think the fact that everything in Iraq was not an instant success is just the way it goes. But the trend over the last year has clearly been toward disorder and away from order.

The status quo is not acceptable. Either go in with a substantial commitment or withdraw in an orderly manner.

RichM

 

[jsanders]

Iraq was destined to dissolve from the very beginning and only a massive international police action is going to save it.

Since that is not likely, what to do next.

The biggest problem, forgetting for a moment the cost in shattered lives, is regional destabilization. There is much evidence to a wide spread revolution in the Middle East.

The time is ripe for factions within the Muslim nations to reassert previous alignments. There is actually as much, or more, hatred towards other Muslim sects as there is traditionally towards the West. As soon as our presence is no longer felt; the old hatreds will reassert themselves.

Iran is going through tremendous internal strife now as educated citizens are pushing for a more western style nation and Muslim clerics are touting killing Westerners and Jews.

Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a quiet boiling; as members of more devout factions ply for more conservative Muslims traditions. Meanwhile the royal family has pilfered billions from the economy in order to secure their place in the West after the pending revolutions begins.

Syria is still led by an ambitious military dictator looking for signs of weakness in the region to assert Syrian power.

Of the region mostly only the Arabic Emirate and Kuwait have tried to bolster Trade with west in areas other than oil production, leaving their economies vulnerable.

The pressure cooker is in full churn now, as the powers in the Middle East are determined to see the failure of Iraq to create the world newest democracy.

 

[Rich]

the failure of Iraq to create the world newest democracy.

Pity no one thought to ask Iraqis if that was what they wanted in the first place

 

[jsanders]

Pity no one thought to ask Iraqis if that was what they wanted in the first place

You mean when you guys artificially created the Iraqi state?


Didn't you just post somewhere that Americans use the same old arguments.

The funny thing about being a one trick pony is that when people have seen your act, brother, they really have seen it.

I have a challenge for you Richie Try tomorrow (today by the time you read this) to only say encouraging and insightful statements. And while you’re at it answer some of the questions your own countrymen pose to you.

I bet you can’t do it, I’ll bet your old habits are just too far ingrained.

 

[Rich]

I've got a great idea, call up the axis of evil and ask them to sort it out

 

[statsman]

I think it would be a bad idea. It's basically telling the world not only should you be worried about the next mess we'll make, but on top of it you should worried about who cleans it up.

We owe it to the world to see this through. Of course, that doesn't mean we necessarily need to be doing more of the same. An entirely different strategy could be appropriate at this time. But I doubt any successful strategy would call for an immediate withdrawl of troops.

I seem to recall very similar comments during Vietnam...only then it was the domino theory.

 

[statsman]

Iraq was destined to dissolve from the very beginning and only a massive international police action is going to save it.

Since that is not likely, what to do next.

The biggest problem, forgetting for a moment the cost in shattered lives, is regional destabilization. There is much evidence to a wide spread revolution in the Middle East.

The time is ripe for factions within the Muslim nations to reassert previous alignments. There is actually as much, or more, hatred towards other Muslim sects as there is traditionally towards the West. As soon as our presence is no longer felt; the old hatreds will reassert themselves.

Iran is going through tremendous internal strife now as educated citizens are pushing for a more western style nation and Muslim clerics are touting killing Westerners and Jews.

Saudi Arabia is in the midst of a quiet boiling; as members of more devout factions ply for more conservative Muslims traditions. Meanwhile the royal family has pilfered billions from the economy in order to secure their place in the West after the pending revolutions begins.

Syria is still led by an ambitious military dictator looking for signs of weakness in the region to assert Syrian power.

Of the region mostly only the Arabic Emirate and Kuwait have tried to bolster Trade with west in areas other than oil production, leaving their economies vulnerable.

The pressure cooker is in full churn now, as the powers in the Middle East are determined to see the failure of Iraq to create the world newest democracy.

Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia all have a vested interest in the Americans failing in Iraq. They do not want a second democratic country in the Middle East.

And that dear friends is the REAL reason why they oppose Israel. If all these oil rich countries put aside 1 days revenue a year and gave it to the Palestinians, they would be living like kings in Gaza and the West Bank. Instead, they give money to terrorists in the hope they may overthrow the democratically elected government. Their citizens have no idea what a vote is and they don't want them finding out.

Use of the term 'Democratically elected" open to interpretation.

My rant for the day.

 

[Kraj]

I seem to recall very similar comments during Vietnam...only then it was the domino theory.

Well I wasn't there so I can't recall one way or another what comments were being made, but I don't think the situation in Iraq is any way comparable to the Vietnam war.

 

[FoFa]

just think that we owe the people of Iraq to leave their country as safe and stable as it was before we got there - if not more.

Todays MAX (just for Rich's sake) is 54K deaths for the Iraq police action
what about this ONE incident:

The exact number of people killed is as yet unknown, but al-Majid was said to have protested at the accusation by the Kurds that 182,000 persons were unaccounted for and feared dead. He responded that the Kurds were great exaggerators and that he actually killed no more than 100,000.

I like that, he didn't really kill more than 100K, yea, that makes it better.

So they are already better off if you pick and choose numbers.....

 

[Rich]

Todays MAX (just for Rich's sake) is 54K deaths for the Iraq police action
what about this ONE incident:


I like that, he didn't really kill more than 100K, yea, that makes it better.

So they are already better off if you pick and choose numbers.....

Unlike the 600,000 estimated deaths since America took over the country, what's your point again?

 

[grnzbra]

I like the "Ripley" solution.

 

[statsman]

Well I wasn't there so I can't recall one way or another what comments were being made, but I don't think the situation in Iraq is any way comparable to the Vietnam war.

One of the problems with getting older is you remember the previous occasions that things were tried and didn't work.

Iraq and Vietnam are remarkably similar:
The US goes in with no clear goal as to what they're trying to accomplish. The battle cry is we are the mighty United States and we can do whatever we want.
A small minority holds the mighty US military machine at bay for an extended period of time.
The majority don't really care, they just want to be left alone go get on with their lives.
Most especially, at what point can we declare victory and go home.

Starting to sound familiar now?

 

[Kraj]

Starting to sound familiar now?

*Eats crow for not being specific*

Sure there are definite comparissons, but my comments were mostly in regard to who is responsible for the situation in Iraq and therefore who is responsible for fixing it. The United States did not create the situation in Vietnam, we just got involved. Leaving would have returned Vietnam to the status quo. We did cause the situation in Iraq and leaving would not restore the status quo, it would pretty much guarantee civil war.

 

[statsman]

Vietnam WAS a civil war between the north and south.
If the US were to pull out tomorrow, what would happen?

The Iraqi militants would form the government and things would go back pretty much the way they were under Sadim, except there still wouldn't be any weapons of mass destruction.

I don't see how the US can stop this except by putting in their entire Army and placing the country under occupation for the next 10 years.