NationStates Jolt Archive

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Probably. But remaining in Iraq longer only to have to leave later anyway (which is looking more and more inevitable) will be even worse.

I like those odds!

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Whereas remaining in Iraq is also a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Nonsense. That's true if I buy the official line NOW proclaimed by demorepublicants. The "we stay til the job is done" bullshit. Hey guess what, i don't.

Kind of like a rapist who, in the middle of the rape, realizes he may as well complete the act and jism inside his victim. I mean why "pull out" right? Might as well "complete the job" (of fucking over someone else), right?

And please. You act like you care about what happens to Iraqis? You who wants to "send in the military" to africa and just "start kicking ass?" Yeah fucking right. I'm about sick of you and your fascist trolling.

Full article: http://************/d7yer


WASHINGTON - In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader says the U.S. "ran and left" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."

In a wide-ranging letter spanning over 12 typed pages in the English translation, al-Zawahri also recommends a four-stage expansion of the war that would take the fighting to neighboring Muslim countries.

"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," al-Zawahri writes.

The letter lays out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and
Syria.

The final stage, al-Zawahri writes, would be a clash with
Israel, which he says was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."

The letter, obtained by The Associated Press, is dated July 9, and was acquired during U.S. operations in Iraq. It was written in Arabic and translated by the U.S. government.

That's not good. >_<

Full article: http://************/d7yer




That's not good. >_<

What was worse was starting the invasion in the first place. Now you have an absolute disaster on your hands, a Vietnam if you will, that the US can't likely win.

Anything that happens after we pull out is inevitable no matter when we leave, we’ll just end up spending more money the longer we stay.

What was worse was starting the invasion in the first place. Now you have an absolute disaster on your hands, a Vietnam if you will, that the US can't likely win.
No, this is not Vietnam. We have removed Saddam from power. This occupation is completely unnecessary, though I agree that the initiation of violence was wrong.

Anything that happens after we pull out is inevitable no matter when we leave, we’ll just end up spending more money the longer we stay.

The US will spend more money and more blood.

No, this is not Vietnam. We have removed Saddam from power. This occupation is completely unnecessary, though I agree that the initiation of violence was wrong.

This is not Vietnam yet but it will be when a full scale civil war erupts around the US forces now stationed in Iraq.

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
Because Iraq needs civilising?

Because Iraq needs civilising?

Yep, they need conquering "for their own good". :rolleyes:

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

As others have stated, the worse disaster would be staying.

Good job on fucking up iraq, though.

As others have stated, the worse disaster would be staying.

Good job on fucking up iraq, though.

I don't agree. We destroyed the country, now we have the responsibility to do what we can to put it back together. We need to fix the infrastructure, security and leave the place with some stability. Of course, we haven't been doing these things very well -- we need to stay, but we need to do things right.

And for the record, I was against going in in the first place. But let's not screw over Iraq twice.

Full article: http://************/d7yer




That's not good. >_<
If that scenario were actually to come about--which is highly unlikely, even if we pull out of Iraq--that would make it easier to deal with those elements, wouldn't it? They'd be stationary targets instead of hiding in the mountains, right?

But these people, their letters aside, really have no ability to bring about their government--it's a lot harder to do than they seem to think it is, and most of the Muslim world would tell them to go fuck themselves if they tried it.

Really we sort of have to fix Iraq if only because of the fact that we broke it. Leaving a broken Iraq behind is not only morally wrong but it also looks bad. If we can fix it then at least we can claim the utilitarian argument of "the ends justify the means" but if we leave all we have is a loss and the shame of losing. We have to fix Iraq for moral reasons, for national pride, and to try to regain some level of international respect. People hate us anyway, let us not give them an example of American failure to cite as a sign of our weaknesses.

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
What exactly do people mean when they say 'a disaster of catastrophic proportions', anyway? It doesn't really mean anything... you could just as easily say it would be a 'catastrophe of disastrous proportions', and it still rings pretty hollow.

Would leaving now be as big a disaster as... the sinking of the Titanic? The crashing of the Hindenberg? Krakatoa? The Tunguskan Meteor? What?

Leaving now wouldn't be a disaster for Bush's opinion polls, at the very least.

Iraq is fucked regardless I feel.


I remember my sister saying about 5 years ago that "The US will probably never go into Iraq because even though Saddam is a tyrent, he keeps the region pretty stable, and taking him out will just cause civil war"


It remains to be seen...

Iraq is fucked regardless I feel.


I remember my sister saying about 5 years ago that "The US will probably never go into Iraq because even though Saddam is a tyrent, he keeps the region pretty stable, and taking him out will just cause civil war"


It remains to be seen...
I don't think anything remains to be seen. I think we've been watching the early stages of civil war now for months, and the reason it hasn't been recognized as such is because the US is in the middle of it and is taking a lot of the heat. We go, and they'll turn on each other, and we'll either wind up with three states, or we'll have one in name only, with the Kurds getting de facto autonomy while the Shi'ites decimate the Sunnis.

Whether you support going into Iraq or not one thing remains true.

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

You mean like:

Leaving Vietnam was a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

:confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused:

I don't think anything remains to be seen. I think we've been watching the early stages of civil war now for months, and the reason it hasn't been recognized as such is because the US is in the middle of it and is taking a lot of the heat. We go, and they'll turn on each other, and we'll either wind up with three states, or we'll have one in name only, with the Kurds getting de facto autonomy while the Shi'ites decimate the Sunnis.


Fine, I was TRYING to be diplomatic.


Iraq is on the fast track to full blown civil war.


Oh and the turks will stop the kurds anyway...

I don't agree. We destroyed the country, now we have the responsibility to do what we can to put it back together. We need to fix the infrastructure, security and leave the place with some stability. Of course, we haven't been doing these things very well -- we need to stay, but we need to do things right.

And for the record, I was against going in in the first place. But let's not screw over Iraq twice.

Things like the war in iraq really get me thinking about partisanry(not about you in general, but this made me think about it).

Republicans often use this argument to support staying in iraq. These are the same people who are vehemently against welfare. While I agree, this can go both ways, it seems silly. We should give to the iraqi's, even though the money could better be invested into american buisness. However, we shouldn't give to the american poor, but instead give to american buisness.

They could probably very easily divide the country up into thirds and leave soon afterward, but sadly, this wouldn't happen.

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Actually, you're wrong.

I wish I could enumerate why ....

Oh wait ... I can ....

South Korea
Poland
Kuwait
Bulgaria
Canada

All did fine when the Americans pulled out.

'Nuff said.

Nonsense. That's true if I buy the official line NOW proclaimed by demorepublicants. The "we stay til the job is done" bullshit. Hey guess what, i don't.

Kind of like a rapist who, in the middle of the rape, realizes he may as well complete the act and jism inside his victim. I mean why "pull out" right? Might as well "complete the job" (of fucking over someone else), right?

And please. You act like you care about what happens to Iraqis? You who wants to "send in the military" to africa and just "start kicking ass?" Yeah fucking right. I'm about sick of you and your fascist trolling.

Holy shit dude, you deserve this.

*hands you a box of cookies*

<snip message to Santa Barbara.I'm actually somewhat scared, because when I first started to read Santa Barbara's posts way back in the day, I pretty much completely disagreed with them. Now I agree with about 3/4 of them. It's eerie.

South Korea
Poland
Kuwait
Bulgaria
Canada


Just a side note here:

While I am aware that many of these countries have become a haven for hippie radical free ideaologies that do not coincide with the current idea of what the US has for the world, I'd like to point out that those same ideas have done more for said countries than any form of "tax the poor, feed the rich" could ever have.

Oh ... and those who don't think we've invaded Canada need to have a frank and open discussion with Canada about that.

I'm actually somewhat scared, because when I first started to read Santa Barbara's posts way back in the day, I pretty much completely disagreed with them. Now I agree with about 3/4 of them. It's eerie.

Yeah, same here... How strange.

I'm actually somewhat scared, because when I first started to read Santa Barbara's posts way back in the day, I pretty much completely disagreed with them. Now I agree with about 3/4 of them. It's eerie.So who's done the changing? :D

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.You state the obvious...

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
Nonsense. That suggests that the US is the only one who can hold that country together.

Actually, you're wrong.

I wish I could enumerate why ....

Oh wait ... I can ....

South Korea
Poland
Kuwait
Bulgaria
Canada

All did fine when the Americans pulled out.

'Nuff said.

South Korea -- pull out? We've got over 30,000 troops still there.
Poland -- when were we in Poland? Maybe my history is rusty, but I'm pretty sure the USSR saw to them post WWII.
Kuwait -- pull out? Our troop level there has fluctuated from the thousands to 100k in the last decade.
Bulgaria -- See Poland.
Canada -- Um, no?

You leave out Japan and Germany, though, who of course greatly benefited from US post-war involvement.

Don't get me wrong -- the US is pretty bad at nation building (see Cuba, Haiti, Vietnam, etc) -- but don't be disingenious with your examples.

Nonsense. That's true if I buy the official line NOW proclaimed by demorepublicants. The "we stay til the job is done" bullshit. Hey guess what, i don't.

Kind of like a rapist who, in the middle of the rape, realizes he may as well complete the act and jism inside his victim. I mean why "pull out" right? Might as well "complete the job" (of fucking over someone else), right?

And please. You act like you care about what happens to Iraqis? You who wants to "send in the military" to africa and just "start kicking ass?" Yeah fucking right. I'm about sick of you and your fascist trolling.

That's a poor analogy -- perhaps a better one would be an uninvited party guest who has too much to drink and wrecks the place, creating a mess. Once he sobers up, he figures he'd better clean up the place since it was his fault.

Of course, under Dubya's leadership, the cleaning up process has been inefficient, poorly guided and ineffective -- but it doesn't change the fact that you gotta clean up. We need to stay and leave Iraq in a stable condition -- a country that has a solid infrastructure and security. To leave now would be irresponsible and poor diplomacy.

What we need to do, of course, is put the operation in the hands of the UN or NATO, but of course US troops should remain as the vast majority of manpower.

We could have bought Saddam with the money we've spent on the war and the rebuilding...

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

A disaster of catastrophic proportions now seems inevitable, as Iraq will descend into civil war. Leaving soon will gain the nations the hatred of the Iraqis decades down the line when peace returns, but remaining will probably have huge social effects in the nations with troops there (as with Viet Nam).

I don't know about the catastrophe being a certainty. If we leave, Iraq could just descend into anarchy on its own and not be a problem for anyone outside the middle-east, or it might end up becoming a despotic terrorist haven thing, which would probably come back to bite us on the arse later (like propping Saddam up in the first place did, whose brilliant idea was that?).

But more than, I think we (that is, the "Coalition of Willing") have a responsibility to the people of Iraq now. We went in and fucked up their country and now we have a responsibility to fix it. Although just pulling out and leaving the USA to clean up the mess on its own does have a certain appeal to it.

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.

Yes. But will getting out next year be any better? How about the year after that? Or the next one?

Leaving later only makes more sense if you presume that the current efforts are productively working towards a better outcome, and that fact seems more and more in doubt.

The dialog seems to go like this:

1) It's bogging down into a quagmire!
2) Stay the course!
3) We can't leave!
4) Change nothing!

Got to 1) and repeat.....


Staying just for the sake of staying is a waste. Staying and trying to get it RIGHT is what's needed. So far, though, I've seen little evidence of any shifts in tactics or plans that engender any hope that they are trying to become a more effective occupying force.

At which point do you have to admit that the current plan is NOT working and will continue to not work unless drasticly overhauled? And without change when does the expected outcome become more favourable?

And at what point do you say: either overhaul it or get the fuck out!

Because that is the eventual choice that will need to be faced.




Staying the course made little sense on the Titanic. Maintaining headway while changing course, however, would have had a much better outcome. But if you ain't gonna change course, don't blame people for looking longingly towards the lifeboats.....

Staying and trying to get it RIGHT is what's needed. So far, though, I've seen little evidence of any shifts in tactics or plans that engender any hope that they are trying to become a more effective occupying force.

It's rather hard to fight an insurgency. So far, it looks like the Shiites and the Kurds could go on and rule themselves, just fine. In fact, the Kurds have been enjoying autonomy since 1991 with little problem.

The problem is the Sunni area. There isn't a "right" way to deal with an insurgency.

The British had an effective means to ending an insurgency that they used during the Boer War. Technically, it was the "right" method because it was peculiarly effective. Do you suggest that we follow that method?

Nonsense. That's true if I buy the official line NOW proclaimed by demorepublicants. The "we stay til the job is done" bullshit. Hey guess what, i don't.

Kind of like a rapist who, in the middle of the rape, realizes he may as well complete the act and jism inside his victim. I mean why "pull out" right? Might as well "complete the job" (of fucking over someone else), right?

ah yes, quite true. however the alternative of leaving now is also quite like a surgeon cutting open a patient, removing all his vital organs, putting maybe one or two back in, then walking away...

we have to stay, not for our sake, but for the iraqi's. leaving now would be a disaster of catestrophic proportions for their country, and leaving now would be doubly our fault. whether or not its worse for us to stay or not, or whehter we should have started the war in the first place, we must stay until the job is 'finished' and iraq can stand on its own two feet again

Reall why should we stay over there? I mean they are in the midst of a civil war, you have outside invaders, we are losing men everyday, and their government is still confused as what to do. Also one other thing let us look back to the american revolution, after we gained independence with tthe hep of the french, did they stay and occupy us for 2 1/2 yrs or so? nope. we built our nation on our own,. we knew what we wanted and what worked best for us...not anyone else.. Like wise. we helped Iraq gain indepence let them work it out for them selves. They know whats best for them. The more we try to help them out, only leads to more hatred for america and we screw things up even more. Really think about it.. If we went in, dispose hussein and left, why would the terrorists come swarming in? no reason. the wouldn't care about iraq..but you throw in the chance to attack "the western devil" and it brings them joy to cause chaos. Just my thoughts though

That's a poor analogy -- perhaps a better one would be an uninvited party guest who has too much to drink and wrecks the place, creating a mess. Once he sobers up, he figures he'd better clean up the place since it was his fault.

Oh, so Iraq was having a party in which it invited a bunch of other nations' militaries over, and ours just got out of control and accidentally invaded? I don't think so. My analogy is just fine. Invading another country and replacing it's government is a bit more like rape than oops, drunk at a party. Rape is violent, nonconsentual, and so was the invasion.

Of course, under Dubya's leadership, the cleaning up process has been inefficient, poorly guided and ineffective -- but it doesn't change the fact that you gotta clean up.

Maybe rapists should carry napkins with them. They should clean up after they do their duty.

We need to stay and leave Iraq in a stable condition -- a country that has a solid infrastructure and security. To leave now would be irresponsible and poor diplomacy.

Maybe rapists should do a medical check on their victims too. To leave without repairing vaginal lacerations would be bad manners!

ah yes, quite true. however the alternative of leaving now is also quite like a surgeon cutting open a patient, removing all his vital organs, putting maybe one or two back in, then walking away...

A surgeon's duty is to operate on a patient. It was not the US's duty to invade and occupy Iraq.

we have to stay, not for our sake, but for the iraqi's. leaving now would be a disaster of catestrophic proportions for their country, and leaving now would be doubly our fault. whether or not its worse for us to stay or not, or whehter we should have started the war in the first place, we must stay until the job is 'finished' and iraq can stand on its own two feet again

Tell me why you think Iraq cannot stand on it's own two feet? Oh, I know I'm supposed to believe it can't, and that only a US occupation for an indefinite period will help them back on their feet...

But you know, when I see a guy get knocked over by another guy on purpose, and then kicked repeatedly in the ribs, some part of me is skeptical about the attacker's ability or desire to help the victim onto his feet again.

And this "for the Iraqis" argument really grates. Let's invade Iraq, for the Iraqis. Let's get rid of Saddam, for the Iraqis. Let's install a puppet government, for the Iraqis. Let's occupy the place for a few more years, for the Iraqis. Hey while we're at it, maybe we can move American businesses in - for the Iraqis!

I don't think so!

We got rid of Saddam not because he was a brutal dictator that needed to be removed - although he was - but because our President wanted to. We invaded not because Iraq had violated UN resolutions - although it had- but because our President needed a foreign war to take our minds off how little we're doing about Osama or domestic affairs. We installed a government in Iraq not because we took out the ringleader of the last one - which we did - but because we want a nice, friendly, mini-US style government loyal to us. We're not occupying the place because Iraq cannot handle the insurgents, but because our puppet government cannot. I say, fuck 'em. How much longer do we need to fuck Iraq before Iraq gets fucking tired of being fucked by us?

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
That's not a justification to stay. Santa Barbara is right, if you've screwed up and have lost control, that's no reason to carry on when you find you have a choice. Let the distaster happen, bring on the punishment, and maybe those who have some decency remaining, will have learnt a lesson.

It's rather hard to fight an insurgency. So far, it looks like the Shiites and the Kurds could go on and rule themselves, just fine. In fact, the Kurds have been enjoying autonomy since 1991 with little problem.

The problem is the Sunni area. There isn't a "right" way to deal with an insurgency.

The British had an effective means to ending an insurgency that they used during the Boer War. Technically, it was the "right" method because it was peculiarly effective. Do you suggest that we follow that method?


Well, if you're arguing that there is only one known effective way to solve the problem, but that way is not possible in today's world, then we circle right back to the initial: what more good do you do by staying?


I'm NOT for arbitrary leaving just because you shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But I'm not for blindlfy "staying the course" either if that course is continually proving ineffective.

But either find a better course or the abandonnment option becomes more and more valid.

Well, if you're arguing that there is only one known effective way to solve the problem, but that way is not possible in today's world, then we circle right back to the initial: what more good do you do by staying?

I'm NOT for arbitrary leaving just because you shouldn't have gone there in the first place. But I'm not for blindlfy "staying the course" either if that course is continually proving ineffective.

But either find a better course or the abandonnment option becomes more and more valid.

It's the only proven way to solve an insurgency. Relocate the people (IIRC, the UK did this in Malaya as well), starve out the insurgents, kill them in free fire zones. After it's over, the people feel beaten and they can return to their homes.

It's not palatable as a modern solution, and the media would have a field day with it. If you think outrage was expressed over prisoner mistreatment, etc, you haven't seen anything yet.

I see no reason why the US should remain in any country that it attacks. We should not remain. I believe that's why the new policy for short wars that just came out implies that we will attack an enemy, destroy his government and infrastructure, and leave.

IMHO, if the people of Iraq wanted to have another government other than Hussein, they could have overthrown him themselves. When you think about the supposed impossibility of the fall of the former Soviet Union, there's hope for any people to overcome their government.

Alternatively, we could have just done the deed in Iraq, and then immediately thrown it into the lap of the UN. Peacekeeping and nation building is supposed to be their job. They do so poorly at it that they make the US look good.

I see no reason why the US should remain in any country that it attacks. We should not remain. I believe that's why the new policy for short wars that just came out implies that we will attack an enemy, destroy his government and infrastructure, and leave.

I wholly agree.

And if the next government is bad, or worse, or otherwise highly unacceptable, there's little difficulty in attacking again.

This whole "form a friendly democratic government" manipulation seems like control-freakism to me.

It's the only proven way to solve an insurgency. Relocate the people (IIRC, the UK did this in Malaya as well), starve out the insurgents, kill them in free fire zones. After it's over, the people feel beaten and they can return to their homes.

It's not palatable as a modern solution, and the media would have a field day with it. If you think outrage was expressed over prisoner mistreatment, etc, you haven't seen anything yet.

I see no reason why the US should remain in any country that it attacks. We should not remain. I believe that's why the new policy for short wars that just came out implies that we will attack an enemy, destroy his government and infrastructure, and leave.

IMHO, if the people of Iraq wanted to have another government other than Hussein, they could have overthrown him themselves. When you think about the supposed impossibility of the fall of the former Soviet Union, there's hope for any people to overcome their government.

Alternatively, we could have just done the deed in Iraq, and then immediately thrown it into the lap of the UN. Peacekeeping and nation building is supposed to be their job. They do so poorly at it that they make the US look good.


So, to clarify, am I correct in determining from this that given the unwillingness to do what you feel needs to be done - that you AGREE that the forces should be pulled out now?

Side issues on how this could have been bettere handled from the start, how else the people might have got free on their own etc being besides the point when discussing the current situation and best course of action from now. What is your personal opinion?

In or out?


I'm just curious as you seem to be one of the few here who seems rather hawkish but whose words indicate that Out is the best option given the current plan of action.

So, to clarify, am I correct in determining from this that given the unwillingness to do what you feel needs to be done - that you AGREE that the forces should be pulled out now?

Side issues on how this could have been bettere handled from the start, how else the people might have got free on their own etc being besides the point when discussing the current situation and best course of action from now. What is your personal opinion?

In or out?

I'm just curious as you seem to be one of the few here who seems rather hawkish but whose words indicate that Out is the best option given the current plan of action.

1. I was for attacking Iraq, but not for the reasons stated by the Bush administration.
2. According to UNSCOM, not the US, 9 tons of anthrax was unaccounted for. The reason it was unaccounted for turned out to be laughable, but while it was missing, it represented a real threat. In the aftermath of the anthrax letters, eyes in US intel were on Iraq's missing anthrax. It turns out that Dr. Taha, the woman running the anthrax production, dumped it into a pit near one of Saddam's palaces in 1993 without telling Saddam. She was in the position of telling inspectors and Saddam that she didn't know where it was. Saddam was convinced he had some. Only she knew it was gone. And we had no real way to find out - the inspectors were never going to find out no matter how long they stayed. This alone represents intolerable risk in my opinion, and would have justified a rapid incursion and departure.
3. If I was running the US, I would only attack nations that posed a threat to US citizens that could not be overcome by other means. But, once I decided to attack, I would be swift and merciless. Nor would I linger. I would definitely take a page from the Mongols.
4. Our troops should leave. I predict that regardless of what we do, the Shiite areas will become part of Iran. That, and control of the Shatt al-Arab, is what worries the US - not the Sunni insurgency, which could go on for decades and still produce only a fraction of the casualties of the Vietnam War. The Sunnis will devolve into Taliban-like freakishness. The Kurds will carry on as they have since 1991.
5. Alternatively, we could be far more ruthless, and accomplish our goals.
6. One of my pet theories on why nations cooperate or do not cooperate after invasion deals with whether or not they feel utterly defeated. While we defeated the Iraqi Army rather quickly, the typical Iraqi (and indeed, typical Arab) finds it unbelievable. How can an army that large be wiped out without leveling most of the structures in Iraq? No massive Stalingrad-like battle for Baghdad. If we desire to stay, we must convince the Sunnis that they are beaten. This would be politically unacceptable to the Western world.
7. If people wanted to overthrow Saddam, they only had to be more ruthless than he was. This was something he understood implicitly, which cowed the majority of Iraqis into submission.
8. Based on this, I believe that the US should leave. It does have the salutary effect of attracting more insurgents to fight there, instead of having them come here, but the situation is politically untenable, as Americans have no stomach for prolonged casualties. They like their wars to be quick, high tech, overwhelming affairs that last about as long as the movie Independence Day. Anything longer, and they hate it, no matter what the reasons are.
9. Based on my items 2 and 3, I would do a surgical invasion of Pakistan to obliterate their Army and their nuclear weapons capability, as well as scour South Waziristan and Kashmir in order to make sure I've killed as many jihadis as possible before leaving. I would also stomp North Korea into the dirt.

But, I wouldn't be sticking around. Nor would I give warning of the attack.

On TV, Americans would see quick, nearly bloodless (from the US perspective) ass whippings. Victory parades on the troops' return.

A surgeon's duty is to operate on a patient. It was not the US's duty to invade and occupy Iraq.
agreed, but this isn't about intent or why or how this began.



Tell me why you think Iraq cannot stand on it's own two feet? Oh, I know I'm supposed to believe it can't, and that only a US occupation for an indefinite period will help them back on their feet...

But you know, when I see a guy get knocked over by another guy on purpose, and then kicked repeatedly in the ribs, some part of me is skeptical about the attacker's ability or desire to help the victim onto his feet again.

there you go, you just said it yourself. we've gone in, knocked the country up a load, removed their army and police, started training up a new defence force (though many

leaving now may well plunge the country into anarchy and/or civil war. we've done enough damage as it is - we have to stay if only to prevent this happening.
its our fault, we are the ones who went in and fucked everything up (not that it wasn't fucked up before, mind, but thats yet another seperate issue), and we quite probably shouldn't have. but turning round after fucking the place up (or kicking it repeatedly in the ribs as you say) and saying "oops" is quite pathetic and shows no responsibility - not to mentioned unparalleled selfishness*

*re: the "oh no our soldiers are dying, lets get em home and leave the country we invaded to rot" arguement



And this "for the Iraqis" argument really grates. Let's invade Iraq, for the Iraqis. Let's get rid of Saddam, for the Iraqis. Let's install a puppet government, for the Iraqis. Let's occupy the place for a few more years, for the Iraqis. Hey while we're at it, maybe we can move American businesses in - for the Iraqis!

I don't think so!

yeah, i agree. once again you're talking about cause and intent. this is about NOW. we've done the dirty deed. it may be dirty and wrong and all that, but it's done, and if we leave it'd be worse than what we've already done.



We got rid of Saddam not because he was a brutal dictator that needed to be removed - although he was - but because our President wanted to. We invaded not because Iraq had violated UN resolutions - although it had- but because our President needed a foreign war to take our minds off how little we're doing about Osama or domestic affairs. We installed a government in Iraq not because we took out the ringleader of the last one - which we did - but because we want a nice, friendly, mini-US style government loyal to us. We're not occupying the place because Iraq cannot handle the insurgents, but because our puppet government cannot. I say, fuck 'em. How much longer do we need to fuck Iraq before Iraq gets fucking tired of being fucked by us?
i totally agree, again. but, again, intent and the past are not whats at stake here.

we should sort out the intent and that mess domestically - i think bush should be impeached personally. blair is on the way out anyway (sadly) but he was just following his master...
over there in iraq, we've fucked em enough i know, but it'd fuck em even more if we upped and left now - can you not see this?:confused:

IMHO, if the people of Iraq wanted to have another government other than Hussein, they could have overthrown him themselves. When you think about the supposed impossibility of the fall of the former Soviet Union, there's hope for any people to overcome their government.
the USSR fell apart from within - the regime itself collapsed. the people hardly rebelled or 'overthrew' it :rolleyes:
while Hussain still had an effective military control over his people.

saying that the iraqi people should have overthrown the government themsevels - that its their fault they were under such an evil dictatorial reigime, is just plain stupid :headbang:


Alternatively, we could have just done the deed in Iraq, and then immediately thrown it into the lap of the UN. Peacekeeping and nation building is supposed to be their job. They do so poorly at it that they make the US look good.
thats responsibility for you:rolleyes:



It's the only proven way to solve an insurgency. Relocate the people (IIRC, the UK did this in Malaya as well), starve out the insurgents, kill them in free fire zones. After it's over, the people feel beaten and they can return to their homes.

what about actually listening to the demands of the people, reaching a compromise, rather than just killing lots of people cos "nothing else works"
violence begets violence - it has to stop somewhere.

what about actually listening to the demands of the people, reaching a compromise, rather than just killing lots of people cos "nothing else works"
violence begets violence - it has to stop somewhere.

Yes, I'm sure that Zarqawi would sit down and "compromise" with you. Just like he "compromised" with Margaret Hassan.

Yes, I'm sure that Zarqawi would sit down and "compromise" with you. Just like he "compromised" with Margaret Hassan.
Bullshit comparison--Zarqawi represents a handful of fanatics, and it's not like he's going to form a government anytime soon, regardless of what he claims in his grandiose statements and letters.

We've done enough damage as it is - we have to leave if only to prevent ourselves from doing more.

Their army and police will reform. It's not like we slaughtered them all to a man. And if they have an anarchy? Oh well. I'm practically an anarchist myself, so I don't see that as so OMG BAD that it justifies occupation.

[quote]
its our fault, we are the ones who went in and fucked everything up (not that it wasn't fucked up before, mind, but thats yet another seperate issue), and we quite probably shouldn't have. but turning round after fucking the place up (or kicking it repeatedly in the ribs as you say) and saying "oops" is quite pathetic and shows no responsibility - not to mentioned unparalleled selfishness*

Yes, and it's about time we drop pretenses of selflessness. We did it for selfish reasons in the first place. Let's stop bullshitting people into thinking we invaded a country in order to be their bestest friend in the whole world.

If a guy on the street kicks another man repeatedly in the ribs, the last thing we want is for those two people to stick around. "Hey I'm your friend! *kick* No really! *kick* Why does no one believe me? *kick*" The first thing you do is get them apart. Let the professionals handle the guy in need of medical attention, not the guy who broke the ribs in the first place.

yeah, i agree. once again you're talking about cause and intent. this is about NOW. we've done the dirty deed. it may be dirty and wrong and all that, but it's done, and if we leave it'd be worse than what we've already done.

Again, this is a bit like saying a rapist might as well kill his victim to leave no witness. Might as well finish what he started, no? It may be dirty and wrong and all that, but the criminal activity is done, and if he left the victim would be traumatized. Best put her out of her misery!

I don't see how people can say, "Yes, it was wrong to invade, yes, it's wrong to occupy, so let's continue to occupy them cuz that'll somehow make everything better." There's a saying by Einstein, and I may be paraphrasing: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."


we should sort out the intent and that mess domestically - i think bush should be impeached personally. blair is on the way out anyway (sadly) but he was just following his master...
over there in iraq, we've fucked em enough i know, but it'd fuck em even more if we upped and left now - can you not see this?:confused:

I guess I can't see that, no. I happen to believe in self-autonomy, even for nations. And I'm rather skeptical about just how, specifically, they will be "fucked up even more."

Bullshit comparison--Zarqawi represents a handful of fanatics, and it's not like he's going to form a government anytime soon, regardless of what he claims in his grandiose statements and letters.

It's not a bullshit comparison. He leads and controls the majority of Sunni fighters, both foreign and Iraqi, in all of Iraq. If you're going to negotiate, you'll have to negotiate with him - and others like him. You can't exclude him, because he's setting off car bombs and killing people.

It's not a bullshit comparison. He leads and controls the majority of Sunni fighters, both foreign and Iraqi, in all of Iraq. If you're going to negotiate, you'll have to negotiate with him - and others like him. You can't exclude him, because he's setting off car bombs and killing people.
And you have proof of this from where? Thought so.

Even if Zarqawi had operational control of the entire insurgency--and there's no reason to believe he does--that's a far cry from setting up a government.

The bigger problem is this--there really isn't anyone to negotiate with. There's not even the level of sophistication there is in Israel and Palestine, where you can sit down with Hamas and Fatah and Hezbollah, for instance. There's no central authority of the insurgency to negotiate with, because that hasn't shaken out yet. The issue isn't whether or not we ought to negotiate--it's that we couldn't even if we wanted to.

It's the old barnyard rule.

You break it. You fix it.

9/11 (and much of the current mess, I should add) was a result of US withdrawing from Afghanistan without leaving a stable govt there.

Withdrawing from Iraq will be much worse.

It's the old barnyard rule.

You break it. You fix it.

9/11 was a result of US withdrawing from Afghanistan without leaving a stable govt there.

Withdrawing from Iraq will be much worse.

9-11 was the result of 19 assholes getting on planes and killing people.

If world terrorism is the result of policy screwups, then every country with a foreign policy should be inundated constantly with terror attacks.

It's easy enough to go back and hammer the place into sawdust again. And again. And again.

Full article: http://************/d7yer




That's not good. >_<

I think the keys here were the lack of an actual document being presented and the phrase "Translated by the US Government". They didn't even say "A US Intelligence Agency". Sounds like a load of crap pushed by the (he's gonna say it, uh-oh) CONSERVATIVE CONTROLLED MEDIA (oh no, he said it).

We've done enough damage as it is - we have to leave if only to prevent ourselves from doing more.

Their army and police will reform. It's not like we slaughtered them all to a man. And if they have an anarchy? Oh well. I'm practically an anarchist myself, so I don't see that as so OMG BAD that it justifies occupation.

so am i (an anarchist that is), but the transition to anarchy must be made carefully and slowly or there will be literal anarchy (not political anarchy, if you get my difference)
sufficed to say, any damage we do in keeping the place together i feel would be far outweighed by just letting it all go and seeing the country tear itself apart


Yes, and it's about time we drop pretenses of selflessness. We did it for selfish reasons in the first place. Let's stop bullshitting people into thinking we invaded a country in order to be their bestest friend in the whole world.
indeed, but thats no reason to pull out

If a guy on the street kicks another man repeatedly in the ribs, the last thing we want is for those two people to stick around. "Hey I'm your friend! *kick* No really! *kick* Why does no one believe me? *kick*" The first thing you do is get them apart. Let the professionals handle the guy in need of medical attention, not the guy who broke the ribs in the first place.
hmm perhaps the analogy is wearing a tad thin... but ok, what about kicking a dude in the ribs, then offering a helping hand up and when he's halfway up, letting go, dropping him right back down onto the road where he gets run over by a passing civil war?



Again, this is a bit like saying a rapist might as well kill his victim to leave no witness. Might as well finish what he started, no? It may be dirty and wrong and all that, but the criminal activity is done, and if he left the victim would be traumatized. Best put her out of her misery!
taking it too far, but you've got the idea at least.
the criminal deed is done. more damage would be done to them, and us, by leaving now. hence we must stay

it all boils down to what you believe would happen if we left, and whether or not you care what happens to them or not.
personally, i do. i don't want my country to be (in part) responsible for not only an illegal, unsanctioned war, but also for giving up when it seemed hard and then have a subsequent civil war on my country's concience.



I don't see how people can say, "Yes, it was wrong to invade, yes, it's wrong to occupy, so let's continue to occupy them cuz that'll somehow make everything better." There's a saying by Einstein, and I may be paraphrasing: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
and i don't understand how some people can't see that leaving now would cause the country we invaded to be in a worse state than if we stayed and did a little (more) evil to benefit the greater good in the long term



I guess I can't see that, no. I happen to believe in self-autonomy, even for nations. And I'm rather skeptical about just how, specifically, they will be "fucked up even more."
the different factions of muslims for a start? they're at each other's throats enough in mediated talks, yet alone if we just pulled out. there's reason for civil war #1.
the population is angry, and quite heavily armed
the people are able to express political and ideological intent (and differences) for the first time. i don't count on them having the experience and skill, as we do in the developed democracies we live in, to calm nerves and pevent escalation of violence. especially in the intermediary time between now and when the police/army eventually 'reform by themselves' as you are so confident they spontaneously will.
there are more than just religious factions at play, but militant factions too.

put all that together and without some mediating force - thats us - to control it and hold things together until it is more safe for us to leave them, then i would say a civil war, the loss of a lot of lives and the further destruction (especially the infrastructure and, importantly, the negative feelings or hatred against each other such a war could instill into the people, leading to far longer term problems) would be practically inevitable.

to sum up: we started it, we fucked em up, now its our duty to hold them together long enough for them to become self-autonomous again

9-11 was the result of 19 assholes getting on planes and killing people.

If world terrorism is the result of policy screwups, then every country with a foreign policy should be inundated constantly with terror attacks.


You misunderstand.

Following the withdrawal of Soviets, the US too withdrew leaving a power vaccum which was taken over by the pan-islamists elements of Paki establishment.

First they tried to install their man Gulbudin Hekmatyar by aiding him to capture Kabul. Twice he tried but Ahmed Shah Massoud, the then defence minister of the Rabbani govt, defied the Paki plans.

Then the Paki's came up with the Taliban. The Taliban sheltered AQ. 9/11 happened.

IF the US had atleast ensured that the Burhanuddin Rabbani govt did not fall, none of this would have happened. Osama would have been in Sudan and it would have been easier to get him there.

I am not saying that "it is US foreign policy that causes terrorism" in a terrorist apologist way, that you have assumed to be.

I am saying that much of what we see now is due to the not doing a proper job in these critical policies. Big difference. In fact it is the other extreme.

You misunderstand.

Following the withdrawal of Soviets, the US too withdrew leaving a power vaccum which was taken over by the pan-islamists elements of Paki establishment.

First they tried to install their man Gulbudin Hekmatyar by aiding him to capture Kabul. Twice he tried but Ahmed Shah Massoud, the then defence minister of the Rabbani govt, defied the Paki plans.

Then the Paki's came up with the Taliban. The Taliban sheltered AQ. 9/11 happened.

IF the US had atleast ensured that the Burhanuddin Rabbani govt did not fall, none of this would have happened. Osama would have been in Sudan and it would have been easier to get him there.

I am not saying that "it is US foreign policy that causes terrorism" in a terrorist apologist way, that you have assumed to be.

I am saying that much of what we see now is due to the not doing a proper job in these critical policies. Big difference. In fact it is the other extreme.


We should not have been giving aid to Pakistan at any time (I fail to see why we did such a stupid thing).

The apologists here make the case that even if Osama did not exist, our policy failures would make others exist.

So, given that, if I was running the US, and was forced to intervene in a country, I would do what the Mongols did.

People respect that kind of strength - the strength to kill where others will not - even when they hate you and despise you.

hmm perhaps the analogy is wearing a tad thin... but ok, what about kicking a dude in the ribs, then offering a helping hand up and when he's halfway up, letting go, dropping him right back down onto the road where he gets run over by a passing civil war?


Nope. A civil war isn't some external thing that comes and strikes a nation. It's within the nation. So a better analogy would be letting him drop back on the road where he experiences psychological distress. Your plan, on the other hand, would have us take him home, feed him some pharmaceuticals from the psychiatric industry, and make him repeat "I am happy and balanced" until our ego is satisfied.

Let him take care of his own psychological issues. I don't believe assailants should be psychiatrists!


taking it too far, but you've got the idea at least.
the criminal deed is done. more damage would be done to them, and us, by leaving now. hence we must stay

You have yet to make that case.

And it's not taking it too far. Are you saying that rape is somehow more violent than war?

it all boils down to what you believe would happen if we left, and whether or not you care what happens to them or not.
personally, i do. i don't want my country to be (in part) responsible for not only an illegal, unsanctioned war, but also for giving up when it seemed hard and then have a subsequent civil war on my country's concience.

The civil war would be their own damned fault. Taking it on your country's conscience is only because the alternative - occupation - seems like a good idea to you. What if in the American Civil War, Britain and France had simply invaded the nation, imprisoned Lincoln and declared martial law? Sure, there wouldn't be a civil war. Nor a real America, made by Americans.

What you are doing is actually sanctioning said illegal, unsanctioned war, condoning it and supporting it fully. You think an illegal, unsanctioned war is better than Iraqis fighting each other. Me, I don't happen to think so. I think the US should stick to minding it's own damned business. That will never happen if we just say, "Well, we've already interfered THIS much... might as well ALWAYS interfere with other countries! Two wrongs make a right!"


and i don't understand how some people can't see that leaving now would cause the country we invaded to be in a worse state than if we stayed and did a little (more) evil to benefit the greater good in the long term

That's because you're a socialist, and doing things "to benefit the greater good" is your favorite justification. How many nations were invaded for that same goal, hmm? How many imperialists thought the greater good could only be achieved by themselves, at the cost of others' sovereignty and peace?

the different factions of muslims for a start? they're at each other's throats enough in mediated talks, yet alone if we just pulled out. there's reason for civil war #1.
the population is angry, and quite heavily armed
the people are able to express political and ideological intent (and differences) for the first time. i don't count on them having the experience and skill, as we do in the developed democracies we live in, to calm nerves and pevent escalation of violence. especially in the intermediary time between now and when the police/army eventually 'reform by themselves' as you are so confident they spontaneously will.
there are more than just religious factions at play, but militant factions too.

Our population is angry and heavily armed as well. Maybe it's time we had another civil war.

Experience and skill to calm nerves? My ass! The same country that used 9/11 to hype up everyone into a Middle East - nuking frenzy, to invade two countries? Pfah.

I never said it would be spontaneous. But you seem to think it will be, if only we just occupy the nation as we have been. For years. And years. Well, not on MY tax dollars, thankyouverymuch.

put all that together and without some mediating force - thats us - to control it and hold things together until it is more safe for us to leave them, then i would say a civil war, the loss of a lot of lives and the further destruction (especially the infrastructure and, importantly, the negative feelings or hatred against each other such a war could instill into the people, leading to far longer term problems) would be practically inevitable.

"until it is more safe for us to leave them?" Hey guess what, it'd be safe for us to leave RIGHT NOW. You mean, safe for THEM, I think.

And really, I don't care about if people in the Middle East hate each other. It's not our fault, and we can't fix it. Let them have their "negative feelings," or should we just dope everyone in Iraq up with RITALIN? Hey, they'd be safer, no? Peaceful, no? Docile. Like lambs.

to sum up: we started it, we fucked em up, now its our duty to hold them together long enough for them to become self-autonomous again

I kick your brother in the nuts. He goes down, hard. I kick him a few more times. Is it now my duty to give him pscyhiatric and physiological treatment? I'm qualified to kick someone, obviously, but am I qualified in medicine? No, but hey it's my "DUTY" right?

No. It isn't. It's my duty to pay for my crimes. Reparations, maybe, in the form of funding. But your brother, or mother, or community, does NOT want me with a sharp needle and a pack of anti-depressants waving that shit in his face trying to make him swallow.

I keep going back to these analogies but it continues to fail. I think you see instances in which rape WOULD be justified. For the greater good. Ugh. Well, whatever. I'm ending this post here so I don't get angrier than I ought to.

We should not have been giving aid to Pakistan at any time (I fail to see why we did such a stupid thing).

The apologists here make the case that even if Osama did not exist, our policy failures would make others exist.

Please read the book "Ghost Wars". It is by far the most detailed work on the Afghan war.

Americans cannot be seen directly involved in Afghanistan. Pakis were willing conduits, because they knew they can always divert the money and arms in their fight against India.

American fault was not in aiding the Mujahideen.

It was in trusting the Pakis and giving them control over the money and arms to be given to the Mujahideen. The Pakis played favorites and the Saudi wahabis and paki pan-islamist elements took over what was essentially a Afghan nationalist struggle with Islamic unity.

There is also a lot of money involved in this. Drug money. US basically turned the other way at this conflict economy and I suspect that many CIA and SD people were also on the take.

Btw, Osama is too exaggerated. The real masterminds are Zawahiri and the islamist folks in Paki establishment who were instrumental in bringing Osama from Sudan.

Again, none of this would have happened if US had put its foot down and made sure that the Rabbani govt stayed in power.




So, given that, if I was running the US, and was forced to intervene in a country, I would do what the Mongols did.

People respect that kind of strength - the strength to kill where others will not - even when they hate you and despise you.

That will not guarentee success. Killing people wholesale will only generate more cannon fodder and play into the hands of the islamists.

Do not focus too much on the cannon fodder. Focus on the cannon and the hands that fire the cannon.

Get the radical islamist preachers, the recruiting network, the training infrastructure, the saudi funders and the jihadi org leadership.

This is how the Khalistani terrorism was defeated succesfully in Punjab, India.

Leaving Iraq now, would be a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
Agreed. Still don't support that we ever went in. Or that we choose to plug the same things over and over. Plans need to be fluid, to account for things beyond our control. It is time to shift some of the things we do over. That is all I have to say.

(I have posting in way to many political threads lately. I miss my glorious randomness *shudders*)