After the inevitable US withdrawal in defeat from Iraq

[Hardrada]

what else will come tumbling down besides our prestige? Is not the whole white male patriarchal corporate imperialist order here not at stake? How long will this now perceptibly weakened greedy and ultimately unsustainable social order persist? I think that is why the Bush hacks like LIEberman are on the air trying to stave off the inevitable.

[bryant69]

1. What are you talking about?

We are going to win the war in Iraq; and if we don't actually win, we can at least declare ourselves the winners.

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

[Hardrada]

2. Good link. Oh, I see, just like Vietnamization

and our Peace With Honor in Viet Nam. I think the general perception of that was we did actually lose. (I know you were being ironic, actually).

[bryant69]

3. The trouble with Vietnam was that there were two fairly distinct sides

so when the Communists took over, it was clear we had lost. In Iraq they might figure out a way to create a coalition government that confuses the issue just enough.

Bryant

[Hardrada]

4. OK. But what if the country just splits up

and this is obviously because of our invasion? I can't see this could be construed as anything other than a disaster. Especially if Iran and Turkey are drawn into the fighting. Someone will come out on top and that someone will want our guts for garters.

[bryant69]

5. Let me make one thing clear

I think Iraq will be a disaster, and that if we withdraw without getting some sort of structure in place, it will end up being more dangerous than it was under Saddam (of course in one of those crappy paradoxes, our continued presense there makes this sort of structure unlikely).

But can they play of such a fracturing with "Freedom is messy?" They will try, I'm guessing.

[Hardrada]

8. I never bought the idea

that Iraq under Saddam was any menace to the United States of America. Still don't.

[bryant69]

10. A potential menace to the United States

A menace to the stability of the region.

But there are a lot who'd agree with you.

Bryant

[Hardrada]

11. No and no

and Hurray!! We need an end to that particular paranoia which directly nourishes imperialism. Iraq was stable before we invaded.

[bryant69]

12. The problem with having this argument

is that people reading will automatically assign me pro-Bush positions and attack me based on those positions they've made up for me.

Iraq was a slim potential threat to the United States; key word there is potential. They could have been contained without the invasion (in fact they a largely were), but they were seeking weapons of mass destruction (key word there, seeking. They were obviously a lot further away than we thought).

Iraq was also a potential threat to the region. For one thing, they invaded one of their neighbors; that seems like a pretty good indication of what they wanted to do. Again this menace was largely contained without the need of an invasion. And then Bush invaded anyway.

Saddam Hussein was not a good guy. He wasn't particularly stable.

[sendero]

13. Trust me..

... Iraq will be a bigger menace to the interests of the US after we leave there than they EVER were under Saddam.

[Hardrada]

14. Exactly my point!

Odd this is not obvious to everyone.

[jmowreader]

15. Iraq was an ABSOLUTE menace to the United States

Well, the United States of AmOILica.

The United States of AmOILica is kinda like the one you and I live in, except the currency is Petrodollars (many, many Petrodollars) and everything revolves around the oil barons.

Saddam Hussein was preparing to accept the Euro in exchange for his oil. After Saddam started doing this, other oil-producing nations would have been encouraged to accept Euros for oil. Because the United States of AmOILica can't survive if people are buying oil using non-Petrodollar currencies, Saddam had to be stopped.

Don't believe that bullshit about bringing peace and stability to that region, or democracy, or ending the reign of bloodthirsty tyrants. If Saddam wouldn't have wanted to take Euros for oil, we'd probably never have invaded.

[Ravy]

6. The trouble with winning...

Winning involves completing an objective.

The problem with Iraq is that there is no clear objective, and any time the administration is pressed to settle on an objective for the end of the conflict, they scream "No timetables!!!!" and run around with their hands in the air and their head still up their ass.

Ensuring that Iraq can't attack us with WMDs? Check

Removing Saddam from power? Check

"Training" an Iraqi army that was ALREADY supposedly in the top 10 in the world? Who knows what that involves? That is why some say 700 are trained, some say 105,000 are trained.

Democracy? For how long?

Winning means that we accomplish X. Bush won't say what X is, because X is really that we control the oil, more importantly, that he and his cronies control the oil. That is why the goal for winning in Iraq keeps pushing further and further away. There is more raping and pillaging to be done.

[Hardrada]

9. We're going to go broke

stealing free oil.

[EVDebs]

7. UN Arab Human Development Reports show democracy is a goal

But the great hubris of the neocons and Bush administration is that once the initial war was won in March - April 2003, the battle for hearts and minds came down to occupation or do-it-ourselves, with possibililty of civil war.

"The first Arab Human Development Report (AHDR) was published in 2002, principally as a critique of, and a charter for, development processes relevant both at the regional and country levels. The AHDR, and its evolution into a series, provides the Arab region, with a needed neutral forum for initiating dialogues and structuring debates to build a reform agenda from within. It builds on the wealth of Arab knowledge and insight, to offer new tools and indexes to measure progress and deficits beyond basic needs; and it brings together independent and solid analyses targeted to people-centered development, and the mobilization of one of the Arab world’s most precious resources: human capital."


http://www.rbas.undp.org/ahdr.cfm

The goals of the Arab Human Development reports since 2002 were democracy in the ME with increased women's rights.

The US cannot impose these goals or an agenda to implement them. The war was a huge mistake once an immediate pullback could not take place. Now the Murth-style pullback may be inevitable...Bush will just call it something else.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Someone should have told * to listen to his daddy (the earthly one). Self-determination means just what it says.

[Disturbed]

16. There will be a drawdown of 60K but 100K will stay.

"The terrorists want to control the oil. Our way of life will be at risk". George W. Bush (Nov. 2005)



Bush Regime Iraq Successes

1. Saddam will no longer sell Iraqi oil via the Euro.

2, A military foothold in the ME. Other than Saudi Arabia.

3, No countries will be able to buy Iraqi oil that the U.S. disapproves of.

4. The Multi-Intl. Oil Corps are reaping great profits.

5. The Military Industrial Complex is a booming Industry.

[EVDebs]

17. Anything after 2007 will require a draft, which is why Murtha spoke up

You may dispute this but inevitable is inevitable and sustainable is sustainable. This current policy isn't sustainable. Change is still possible but educating the public will have to take place.

During the Vietnam War there were 'teach-ins'. Looks like the old playbook is being dusted off again. What's that Santayana quote about remembering the past ?

Murtha knows the neocons are breaking the military with this occupation. A stategic redeployment of troops in the region is required but Bush is trapped in his own language. Anything resembling "withdrawal", such as a redeployment to more stategic areas, is viewed as a surrender of sorts.

Oddly enough, the military and Democrats need to help give Bush and the neocons the 'word tools' necessary to achieve the goal that is best for the nation.