There is a good chance that the Democrats will win control of congress in the mid-term elections. If they do, we will certainly pull out of Iraq soon. Democrats widely contend that it is our military presence in Iraq that is causing the violence there. If that is true, it stands to reason that our pullout will lead to peace.
But here is my question: If we soon pull out of Iraq and the situations does not improve, or gets worse, who’s fault will it be? Will it be the fault of those who decided to pull out, or those who decided to go in? Certainly we can all agree on the answer to this question.
EUCLID said this in post #1 : But here is my question: If we soon pull out of Iraq and the situations does not improve, or gets worse, who’s fault will it be? Will it be the fault of those who decided to pull out, or those who decided to go in? Certainly we can all agree on the answer to this question.
There has been something like 160,000 coalition troops in Iraq for over three years and the situation has been getting steadily worse. Now the head of the British military has stated quite clearly (and Blair agreed through tightly gritted teeth) that our presence there is exacerbating the violence in many areas.
Thousands are dying every month. There is a civil war going on. OUr presense is not wanted by either side in this war. Iraqis support attacks against us. A majority wants us gone. For you to suggest that we are preventing things from getting worse is a false proposition. It is getting worse.
How exactly could it get any worse? Terrorists still are not being rounded up ( well not the ones that matter), you have race wars going on, talk of the country being split in 3 which will turn Iraq into Yugoslavia 2, a government that has no control over it's people, and an army that could not fight it's way out of a paper bag. And all this si the coalitions idea of things getting better when we know it's getting worse the UK today said they are sending more troops to Iraq hardly a sign that we are ready to pull our or cut down on troops. Iraq is a tar pit and we are stuck either way.
Go back and re-read my first post. I never said that it was not getting worse. I never said that our presence was preventing it from getting worse. In fact, the only position I took was the belief that we are highly likely to pull out soon while the violence is underway.
My point is about the people who want us out because they contend that it is our presence that is causing the problem. So if our presence is the cause of the problem, it follows that our exit will fix the problem. Now certainly you agree with that.
Firstly you were speculating that it could get worse if you pull out and I was saying that it could not get any worse, that is beside the point though.
As for what you are assuming it is never that simple and you know that. Firstly yes thare are factions in Iraq fighting US forces nothing more nothing less and most likely if the US go they will go and see it as a huge victory. Howevere there are other forces not fighting the the US but most probably caused by the coalitions arrogance, pig headedness and blindness to the problems the liberation of Iraq would create. Those that are against democracy in Iraq, the hardcore Sadamm supporters, and those there either in Iraq just for the hell of it, relgious ideology or those trying and make a bit of dough with a failed kidnapping. it is doubtful they will go they need a reason to go and right now they are not bothered with the coalition so they won't go and if the coalition leave they won't go because nothing will have changed for them.
See I know that there are elctions in the States and there are going to be activists and others trying to convince Americans about the rights and wrongs of Iraq but the problems is that neither one of your parties is offering a viable solution to this tar pit. Democrats want troops out and apparently all problems will cease well that is not true so that policy is flawed the Republicans want to stay the course but the course has been a disaster for the US economy and miltary recruitment and morale in short they can't beat the terrorists and that is the fact and nothing that happens between now and the elections can change that does not matter if Sadamm is found guilty and then OBL is caught it won't solve any of Iraqs problems only escalate them.
lodgebo said this in post #6 : Firstly you were speculating that it could get worse if you pull out and I was saying that it could not get any worse, that is beside the point though.
Democrats want troops out and apparently all problems will cease well that is not true so that policy is flawed...
In #6, I was replying to both you and h@ts together, but I see that you believe the Iraq situation cannot get any worse and h@ts contends that it is getting worse. What I believe is that it is possible for it to get better, get worse, or stay the same.
But my point is about the Democrats and much of the political left's charge that peace will come to Iraq once we pull out, as you have suggested in the above quote. They charge that the U.S. and coalition military presence in Iraq is actually the cause of the violence. h@ts even suggested the other day that the U.S. might be intentionally fomenting violence in order to prolong the war for war profiteering.
There is no question in my mind that we are going to cut-and-run from Iraq soon. So the ones contending that peace will come when we leave Iraq will get a chance to have their prediction of peace tested. They will either be right or wrong.
I believe that Iraq will largely self-destruct in civil war as soon as we pull out. I will either be right or wrong.
Cut-and-run? Is that what the defeatists want so the 'suiciders' win? Can we get past the Bush buzz word propaganda machine. It's like FOX News is breading millions of Manchurian candidates this November.
Whether the U.S. took out Saddam or a meteor dropped on his palace there was going to be a power struggle once he was taken out. Don't let the purple fingers fool you, democratic it ain't.
The Dubya administration has tried, failed, tried and failed some more to bring stability to the region and it has become increasingly worse. The problem you have identified in Iraq is the direct result of the piss poor management of this baseless operation. Now the right contends that if we don't clean up crap storm we started then it will get worse? Well look at the writing on the wall, it's worse. Hell, if we stay there long enough there won't be any Iraqi's left to worry about.
I have yet to see anyone even begin to formulate something close to a reason to stay over there, not to mention going over there in the first place.
And to cover up the mistakes the right tries to scare up more support my saying the left wants to cut-and-run. Sorry, that band-aid isn't going to hold.
The fact is Euclid is that Iraq is slipping in to a civil war and that has happend on our watch so either way we have faile the people we were meant to bring a better life to.
I agree with Heck it was poor management and we never had a plan B I thinkBush hioneslty thought that Sadamm would fall and he could drive through Baghdad and people would throw flowers at him. I think the coalition forget about the 6 P's rule - Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance. Proper planning means having a back up plan.
I was reading that some guy is going to recomend to Bush that troops pull out of Iraq ASAP. It's in a report due to be published soon.
HECK! said this in post #11 : Cut-and-run? Is that what the defeatists want so the 'suiciders' win?
I have yet to see anyone even begin to formulate something close to a reason to stay over there,...
...the right tries to scare up more support my saying the left wants to cut-and-run. Sorry, that band-aid isn't going to hold.
-HECK!
Well if the term, "cut-and-run"sounds too accusatory, I can use the term, "end the Iraq engagement" or "bring the troops home." I could have sworn that was the basic desire of most Democrats. Bush wants to stay the course. Don't most Democrats disagree with Bush?
What would you do today about the Iraq situation if you had absolute power?
Well if the term, "cut-and-run"sounds too accusatory, I can use the term, "end the Iraq engagement" or "bring the troops home." I could have sworn that was the basic desire of most Democrats. Bush wants to stay the course. Don't most Democrats disagree with Bush?
What would you do today about the Iraq situation if you had absolute power?
Why not do exactly what the Iraq people want us to do, and overwhelmingly they want us out of their country. Isn't that what democracy is all about? (seems it is only when it suits us).
I'm sure this is how many Democrats see the situation. Bush can't leave because he's yapped on and on so much about "staying the course" when he hasn't got a clue what it even means. To him getting out means only one thing - accepting defeat. And so Bush would rather a lot more soldiers died than having to face the awful inevitable truth that he's going to go down in history as as the President that took the US into another Vietnam.
10-17-2006 03:36 PM
