Poll, What Happens When We Leave Iraq?

[CGSteve8718]

Same thing that happens if we stay. It'll just happen sooner.

Simple, direct, and to the point. I agree. The sectarian violence that is happening now is not just a "predictor", it IS what is going to happen because it is already happening. And, it's not like us staying or leaving is really that much of a factor in it happening, since they find scores of bodies every day.

There are so many factions at work there it is almost impossible to say any goals. Some of them are content with killing each other, some of them solely want to kill US troops, some want to kill each other mainly, but if one of us gets hurt or killed, it's a bonus. Regardless, there will be killing.

From my own experience over there, we provided force protection to Iraqi Army/Iraqi Police, escorting in convoys to different places for their leave rotations, training places, etc. and whenever there were command dets on those kinds of runs, they targeted them over us! That was a blessing to us at the time, but one day, when they kill all the IAs, and IPs, and supporters of "our" Iraqi ideal, then they will turn on us.

Also, according to what I've read in that military paper, Stars & Stripes, in Baghdad, our forces fight the Mahdi Army one week, and fight with them the next against someone else. It's already such a mess over there, leaving won't make it that much worse, just a slightly.

 

[pitz96]

Who said anything about leaving? Why do you think we're building permanent bases there? We have to shoulder Israel's burden.

***That about sums it up. Not only are we shouldering Israel's burden we're doing their bidding, but if anyone mentions this, they're branded "anti-semitic" and the discussion is soon over. I also agree with the person who said "same thing as if we stay, only sooner." Sometimes when things are broken, they just can't be put back together, no matter how much we "stay the course".

As far as I can tell, "we" have no intention of leaving. Didn't Colin Powell say, way back when we first invaded, that we didn't go to Iraq to give it to the UN.

 

[ConfuseUs]

Honestly, I don't think the regime we installed will instantly dissolve in a puff of smoke. More likely it will collapse in a year or so after we leave. There is nothing durable about it so once U.S. troops aren't there to do keep the Iraqis honest and do some heavy lifting the regime will start to swirl around the toilet bowl. The question the world is asking is "what will the rate of swirl be?"

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

How about we agree that there are no IRAQIS. There a bunch of various folks who live in a construct that the colonial parties called Iraq.

They don't like each other and want to fight it out. Why do we have to keep them apart unless it really saved American lives here? But it doesn't.

It's clear we went there to dominate the oil reserves. So let's all figure out how we don't need the oil from that cesspool. It is the funds we pour into the area that supports these countries and makes them imporant.

Do what it takes to get off the oil - that should be our policy so that we can let them play in the their sandbox without screwing our economy.

One reason I think Bush is just Cheney's puppet is that we shold have mobilized after 9/11 to get off the damn oil. But then the economic rulers of the GOP would loose some luxury yachts.

I don't like Pat Buchanan but he has this right. The GOP is a MPD of the economic exploiters of the general USA population vs. the social conservatives. So far by waving the flag, yapping about abortion and gays - the economic guys have continued to make money by getting the social guys to support them - while they screw us.

The party is going to come apart when folks realize that the Bushies screw us on immigration and oil - they let our young folks die and our jobs wither - so they can make a buck.

 

[SteelCore]

That about sums it up. Not only are we shouldering Israel's burden we're doing their bidding, but if anyone mentions this, they're branded "anti-semitic" and the discussion is soon over.

That's exactly right. Or, if you're ethnically Jewish like I am (mother's side), they'll call you a "self-hating Jew" for being loyal to America rather than Israel. :barf:

It's just like the way liberal types will call you a "racist" if you oppose affirmative action or illegal immigration. Narrow-minded idiots use these terms to shut down debates that they know they can't win using facts and logic.

What's wrong with it breaking into three nations? I don't see drawbacks, except that a bunch of relics of Western civilization ought to be moved out of Baghdad till people there start being civilized again.

I can't see anything wrong with it at this point. I guess I just hope it happens as smoothly as possible and that the end product is somewhat stable.

"...walking away from the Middle East is exactly what the US should do. We should have no dealings with them at all except buying their oil at a fair price ..."

What about American military presence in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf? What do you think will happen there? Do you think that the passion for green money will drive the militants which will seise power there to sell you oil for "fair price"? Or, maybe, they do not give a f* for dollars?

I don't see any real danger of militants seizing power in Saudia Arabia. If they somehow did, then I guess we'd end up buying from the new government rather than from the current government. If you're concerned about price inflation...well, look at the cost of perpetual warfare and occupation in the Middle East. What has Iraq cost us so far -- something like 600 billion dollars?

US should be "even-handed broker for peace in the Israeli-Arab conflict (rather than always taking Israel's side)".

That means two sides can be brought to some divorce court in New-Jersey and asked to be nice.

I don't see why fair mediation is only achievable inside a divorce court.

As far as I know, Israel agreed for Palestinian state existence long time ago, while Palestinians (especially Hamas) want all the land for them, up to the sea shore.

That's a myth. Israel's "generous offer" to the Palestinians is debunked at this (Israeli) site: http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf

There are certainly some Palestinian radicals who want to destroy Israel, but they're not going to get their wish. Israel is too well-established. There are also Israelis, however, who want to ethnically cleanse their ethnostate of all Arabs. Most Palestinian refugees just want to live in their own land without being continually subjected to brutal occupation and collective punishment. And I think most Israelis want to live in peace, too.

Still, atrocities are being committed by both sides in that conflict. One side has a very powerful military machine; the other has nothing but a rag-tag guerrilla force. The US uncritically supports the stronger side that's beating up the weaker side because of the Israel lobby's stranglehold on US politicians. So, when the Israelis knock out power to millions of innocent Palestinians with an air raid (including the electricity in hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) in order to collectively punish them for an attack committed by a handful of Palestinian terrorists, the US government calls it "self-defense" and sends them more missiles, helicopters, and tax dollars.

The US should stop funding either side with US tax dollars and should have no involvement in that toxic situation apart from evenhanded mediation.

So which side should US back, especially now, when Hamas movement made a coup? Both?

I thought Hamas was democratically elected. And we know what a big fan the US government is of "democracy" -- except when it doesn't like the outcome.

My answer is that neither side should be supported by the US. Again, to the extent that we're involved in that conflict at all, it should be as a fair mediator. Perhaps a multi-national mediation effort would be best of all to avoid the appearance of bias.

From your words I understand that it was Israel that lead American troops to invade Iraq. Why not to take one step further? It was Israel that provoked Saddam to invade Kuwait, and it is Israel which is Sunnis,Shiites and El-Quaida at the same time.

Because there's no evidence for those other claims, but there's mountains of evidence that Israel-first neocons pushed for the Iraq invasion and were behind the false claims of Saddam's WMDs. Here's an overview:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_special_plans

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36694-2003Dec4?language=printer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,999737,00.html

Now those same neocons are pushing for military action against Iran: e.g.,

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,1681154.story

Regarding the link to "Israeli think tank", let me ask you: is Joe McKinley, which is the waiter in McDonalds on Middle-Hole street is "American thinking tank"? It's not important that nobody knows him, his ideas about the world are fantastic!

I'm afraid I don't follow you here. The words of the neocons speak for themselves, as do the actions of Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and other neocons affiliated with the Bush administration.

 

[Tim Burke]

I don't know what will happen in Iraq, but I strongly suspect if we declare victory and bring our troops stateside, al Qaeda will do the same... declare victory, and bring their fighters stateside.

 

[Manedwolf]

I think we're seeing a fair indication with what's going on elsewhere.

GAZA (Reuters) - Islamist Hamas fighters and looters ransacked the blood-spattered Palestinian presidential compound in Gaza on Friday as their leader ordered an end to reprisals against their routed, Western-backed Fatah rivals.

They've a real talent for self-governance, don't they? Sort of a nouveau-visigoth method of leading.

 

[Caeser23]

The question the world is asking is "what will the rate of swirl be?"

I'd give it a month at the very most.

 

[LightningJoe]

At the risk of sounding like a Zionist stooge, Israel didn't invent the Arab world or its enmity toward the most conspicuous example of Western success. The interests of the US and Israel happen to be aligned on some matters. The US isn't obeying or being directed by Israel. Israel can't hardly direct itself. I mean, get real, Israel is sitting over there surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who want them dead and they can't agree on whether to get tough or make more concessions. Do you think they could agree on duping the world's only superpower into ignoring its own national interests and fighting pointless, self-destructive wars?

The US and Israel are both threatened by super-Islamicized hotheads with nothing better to do than to blow themselves up. And the US and Israel are both being prevented from taking decisive, self-defensive actions by internal elements who loathe the West and who don't mind the idea of their own countries being destroyed (and who haven't grasped the fact that this would directly harm their insulated, Lefty lifestyles).

 

[stevelyn]

Lightning Joe,

Read "A Pretext For War: Iraq, 9/11 and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford.

 

[Oldphart]

There should be another choice: Who gives a Shiite!

 

[Justme]

I'm not sure whether we pull out or not ultimately matters. I have become increasingly convinced that our presence in Iraq is a moot point. If we stay there will be chaos and civil strife if not all out civil war until one faction gets the upper hand an institutes a dictatorship of one kind or another. If we leaver there will be chaos and civil strife and probably all out civil war until one faction gets the upper hand an institutes a dictatorship of one kind or another.

Hmmm....kinda makes you wonder, what's the point? As far as I can tell our only excuse for being there at all is some sort of vain hope that we can influence which dictator emerges victorious.

 

[madmag]

If we stay there will be chaos and civil strife if not all out civil war until one faction gets the upper hand an institutes a dictatorship of one kind or another.

That's an interesting point. It makes sense. I guess then the main difference is if we stay we continue to needlessly lose American lives.

 

[GoSlash27]

^ and money, and equipment, and new troops into the pipeline....