Can we really get out of Iraq?

[bluestateguy]

I opposed the war in Iraq from Day One. People who don't believe me can look at my old posts to prove it. Now we are bogged down in a serious mess. Let's just say George W. Bush is defeated this fall and John Kerry is now president. Will it really be possible to get out of Iraq? Let's put aside all those arguments about how it looks to pull out, or about "letting the terrorists win". I don't buy into those arguments. The problem will be how to get out of Iraq without leaving the situation in worse shape than it is now. Some say, "give it to the UN", but I'm not so sure the UN wants to get involved, and even if they do a UN force would still require a major American presence. If we pull out, en toto, Iraq could very well turn into another Somallia with even more carnage and destruction on all sides. That could generate major resentment from the Iraqis, similar to the resentment we generated from the Afghans after we abandoned them after the Soviets were defeated, and from the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites after we sat on our hands during their 1991 rebellion. We bombed the hell out of the country and we have an obligation to put it back together again, through a competitive bidding process that allows companies from all over the world to participate. This mess will take a long time to clean up. It is George W. Bush's mess and a President Kerry would do well to remind people of that during his term in office. Kerry has to have an exit strategy for Iraq, but I have concluded that immediate withdrawl will do more damage over the long-run.

[AG78]

1. Can we get out?

We didn't go in to get out.

[atreides1]

4. "We didn't go in to get out."

We is plural, do you carry a mouse in your pocket. Better yet are you in Iraq, have you been to Iraq recently? From your use of the word we, one could come to the conclusion that you have been there
recently or that you're there now.

My question for you is why did we go in? Was it because Iraq was a real threat, no wait, it was WMD, no that's not it, it was to bring
democracy to the Iraqi people, no that's not it either!

So why did "we" go into Iraq.

[thebigidea]

5. global hegemony, revenge, marketing, hubris, momentum, evil.

[Guaranteed]

7. Basically.

I'll add ignorance, greed, stupidity, racism, and apathy.

[AG78]

14. Well...

The "we" I was using was the American government. I was born here, and thanks to the modern nation state, I'm an American. I could have said "they". It would've worked either way.

I've never been to Iraq. Although for the pure learning about a different culture, I wish I could go.

Why did "we" go into Iraq? For geo-strategic reasons. We'll put a few bases there. It's easy access for any future conflict in the Middle East. It's directly in the middle of the Middle East. Syria is on the western border. Iran on the eastern border. Saudi Arabia is due south. Our friend's in Azerbaijan are just north of Iraq, and we need to protect those pipeline's.

It's not like it's my idea. "They" have already spelled it out. PNAC, "The Grand Chessboard", and I'm sure there are more sources, but how much more does anyone need when everyone that has the world in the palm of their hand is in prominent positions inside our government, as well as influential people in "think tanks" on the streets of Washington DC.

It's all about power.

[atreides1]

21. Thank You For the Explanation

I too am an American, but I am not part of the government. To paraphrase what was once said by Mark Twain, "Loyal to my country always, loyal to my government when it deserves it"

By saying they it would have indicated that you are against this power grab, by using the word we, you indicated that you were for
the war.

I have been to Iraq, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. I have learned much about the people and places in those countries. I have even had the honor of speaking to Bedoin tribesmen.

By the way I was born in Hawaii, another victim of a geopolitical power grab by a white "American" government, which did not think that
brown skinned people could rule themselves. Much like what happened with Texas, Hawaii invited Americans to come and make a life, they
like mongrel dogs betrayed the people who invited them.

Compile that with being betrayed by some of the Hawaiian advisors to the Queen, we Hawaiians know how it feels to open our doors, only to have a "friend" betray us.

[Guaranteed]

2. The "problem" is that, no matter who makes sure it happens,

turning over sovereignty of Iraq to the people means that we're going to be giving power to the Shiites (and the remaining Baathists). There's no way around it, other than NOT giving them their sovereignty back. It's such a simple concept, and the Bush administration were either IDIOTS, literally, not to see it, or they just never planned on leaving in the first place!

There's nothing we can do, other than giving the Shiites the country. It's more or less theirs, and while we don't get along with them, in order to leave we're going to have to hand it over to them, one way or another. It doesn't even really matter who does it.

[opihimoimoi]

3. We are such Lolos we have allowed ourselves into such a mess by having

Bush in the WH. The man and his Masters have Put America into a predicament of which we are trapped.

We pull out... we lose face.

We stay, we lose lives and treasure.

Its a lose- lose situation unless we actually pull off the stated goal of a FREE IRAQ and a Democractic one at that/

Something too many in the region do not wish to happen.

We are fucked... both by Bush and Co and the Forces opposing our presence in THEIR HOMELAND. Apparently, Bush guys don't care as they continue the charade of doing good while America pays the steep price. BusgCo guys are EVIL from the get go.

[NNN0LHI]

6. The question we had better start asking is can we stay?

Can we afford it if it ruins our very successful all volunteer army? Doesn't this weaken our countries ability to defend itself if the need arises? Can we afford it financially? I mean really. Do we have the bucks to pay for it? I don't know but we had better find out the answers to these questions before we make any more rash decisions.

Don

[Michael Costello]

8. Who should run it?

The question is simply, who is more capable of running Iraq, the US or the Iraqis? To me the answer is clear. Many years ago, General Smedley Butler said that war was a racket, and that the Halliburton types who profited from it were the racketeers, and I tend to agree with him. Aside from direct US intervention, aside from the billions sent to Colombia and Israel every year (which, surprise, are plagued by many violent deaths every year), I can't think of any time the US Army has done anything noble, save driving the British out of the thirteen colonies and liberating the French people from their invader in the 1940s. And it should be remembered that many of the French preferred what they saw as the lesser evil of the Nazis over a possible communist takeover. I tend to see the US armed forces as the rest of the world sees them - as instruments of death controlled by the majority shareholders of GE, Halliburton, ExxonMobil and the like. And I sure as hell wish I didn't have to finance this machinery of death with my tax dollars. I for one refuse to apologize for wanting to remove myself from these killers.

[puerco-bellies]

9. We have to surrender Haliburton's income stream to win..

We need to give up the lucrative contracts on development and repair to the Iraqis, to distribute them to whom they wish. We need to bring in the U.N. to administer Iraq in three different zones like the allies did for Berlin. With the mandate to create a National Federation of some type. Initially there will have to be three "separate but equal entities - The Northern Zone consisting of the Kurds, The Central Zone for the Sunnis, and lastly the Southern Zone for the Shiites. With any luck we can wash our bloody hands of this clusterfuck, hopefully the wiser for the useless sacrifice that we brought on ourselves and the civilian population of Iraq. I think the initial unifying event for the New Iraq should be the War Crimes trials and sentencing of Saddam, G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi, Wolfowitz, Perle, and a host of others.

[Disturbed]

10. Imperialism

"they just never planned on leaving in the first place!"

Correct!

If Kerry wins perhaps he will get the UN and NATO to help out. The US will be in Iraq for may years. Hopefully, the UN will do as seems logical, three states with a Central Govt.

If Bushco gets re-selected it will be more Occupation with a puppet Govt. and more troops being killed and maimed.

[jpgray]

11. Iraq is due for some terrible suffering no matter what we do

I wish I could believe otherwise. As to which course will alleviate that suffering most, I have no idea. Seems like delayed civil war/fundamentalist rule or instant civil war/fundamentalist rule. :shrug:

edit: HOWEVER, the situation of the Congo should tell you that Iraq needs to at least be able to defend itself and its resources from greedy neighbors.

[salib]

13. OK, Let's get real!

We already "defeated" them once supposedly. Then punished them, to the tune of perhaps half a million people, mostly young children, through "sanctions." So, we are so complicit, engaged, Guilty, whatever the word you want. No, we do not just say, "OK, that's enough." WE finally try to figure out what to do that would be the best we possibly could. And then we do our best to do just that. It is going to be a long, hard, sacrificing, process. And we will become so much more as a nation, as a people, and as individuals if we make it.

When are we going to realize that the more powerful we become, the less we can choose to do. Instead, we must do what must be done. OK, let us grow up.

[Karenina]

24. America is due for some terrible suffering

even if, at L-O-N-G last, her citizens WAKE UP!

[salinen]

12. All contracting should be given

to Arabic firms. The Iraqis know what Halliburton is and who is rewarded. America, England, and Spain should pay all expensces but have very little influence.

[mmonk]

15. The answer is yes

but that defeats the purpose of setting up permanent bases there which was one of the real reasons we're there.

[ulTRAX]

16. CHENEY 1991: IRAQ WOULD BE A QUAGMIRE

He was right then and wrong now.

From http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

[thebigidea]

17. I'd kill for a tape of this. I wonder if CSPAN has it.

[ulTRAX]

18. Chalabi did quite the snow job on the gullible neo-cons

Chalabi and the IRC must have done quite the snow job on the gullible neo-cons to get them to ignore the obvious.

[ulTRAX]

19. maybe you can write....

[e-mail].

I didn't find a store but the above is the contact address.

Someone must have video.

How about writing [e-mail] ?

Wouldn't you LOVE to see Cheney saying this in Kerry or DNC ads?

[thebigidea]

20. yeah, I'd like to put it into a few of my own ads/videos

i did write them, pretending to be some eager conservative eager to embrace the wisdom of Dick.

[leftofthedial]

22. hasn't Kerry said he won't leave Iraq?

I thought he had.

[ulTRAX]

23. Dean and Kerry both...

There is such a great potential for destabilized Iraq to further destabilize the mid-east... which probably include more radicalization of the Muslim world and the destabilization of world oil markets which could result in a destabilization of world economy... that we're probably stuck in Iraq until we get it right. I think both Dean and Kerry recognize this. But this could easily be the quagmire Cheney feared. What may be of more concern is that Bush may be so desperate to not make this an election issue that he might OK a Muslim government. Wouldn't THAT be a twist!

[9215]

25. My prediction if Kerry wins:

The US will pull out and Iraq will probably degenerate into civil war. The news media will just turn to some other crisis, maybe focus on domestic issues, etc. Americans will forget about Iraq and the lawyers will fight out our liability as a country in the courts.

If the BFEE is allowed to stay intact is will resurge in a few years more powerful than ever with all the dough it has from the contracts with Iraq and Homeland Security, etc. The BFEE will go to work to undermine any effort by the dems to clean up the glaring shithouse mess we see unfolding in the world. True to their fascist nature there will be a rabid hatred unleashed like what happened to Clinton. Alternatives to fossile fuels will be undermined as they always have been. If the BFEE is allowed to stay intact that will be the end of the human specie, guaranteed. The world will become little more than a social and environmental cesspool with vast stretches of the oceans classified as "dead zones". Global warming and all the other environmental problems we face now will look like the good old days. Even with the BFEE gone we may not be able to stop the environment from going down the tubes; it will depend on how hard we work to switch to alternative fuels and socio-economic structures.

I dont' think that Bush is going to allow any election to take place that he is not "guaranteed" to win. He will do whatever is neccessary to stay in power. The only way I see him dethroned is through an impeachment process motivated from a massive uprising of the US public that demands from their legilsators--Republican and Democrat--that they impeach the bastid. To be honest I don't see much use in working for a Dem Presidential campaign because Bush is not gonna let it happen. He stole the first term without hesitation, he LIHOPEd 9/11 to hold onto power, and started a unilateral no-win war to rake in the profits irregardless of the outcome. He doesn't care about public opinion, or winning wars, or deficits. His goal is to bankrupt the government and be a chaos capitalist in the aftermath.


The BFEE is central operations of the imperialist/Trilateral/Neo-liberal powers. If they are destroyed change to a more sane way of life could happen rapidly. If they are not, we are a dead specie walking.

THE BFEE MUST BE DESTROYED!