Worst case scenario on a US withdrawl? It would really embolden the terrorists. A US withdrawl would encourage and encite them to come over here and to Europe, and do more of the same.
We'd have to withdraw the troops and start stationing them around America. We'd need about 10 million of them to guard schools, mass transit sites, public buildings, shopping malls, dams, shipping ports, airports, etc.
I think a US withdrawl would put the terrorists back on the offensive, and the US (and you) on the defensive.
Posted by muckdog at August 24, 2005 11:48 AMThis is Bush's problem. Let him solve it. He wanted an Iraq War, he's got an Iraq war.
Posted by T2 at August 24, 2005 12:16 PMThe U.S. will be in Iraq for the next 70 years, just as we have been in Korea, Japan and Germany since the conflicts ended there. This semi-permanent presence will be at the insistance of the Iraqi people.
Even when the Iraqi troops are trained and internally, the Iraqi people take responsibility for their future, without the presence of a U.S. base, strategically Iraq would be an easy target for any of their Middle East "neighbors".
Contrary to liberal views, the U.S. did not invade Iraq to steal it's oil. Bush has made it clear from the beginning that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people. To that end, the Iraqi people will come to the realization that a U.S. base, slightly larger than the state of Delaware, insures the protection of Iraq without the expenditures on tanks and planes that impoverished Iraq for the past 30 years.
jwest - hahahaha, oh, aren't you cute!
Posted by iamcoyote at August 24, 2005 12:26 PMT2 - yes, it is Bush's problem, for now. But is also a problem for us and the world. Bush is incapable of solving it and quite capable of making it worse. Standing silently on the sidelines and letting him do whatever he wants is the option that by omission, endorses whatever GWB does and by extension taints all of us. While "getting out NOW" isn't a great option, it's a hell of a lot better than whatever GWB will do, and has the advantage of placing all the blame for the mess on GWB. However, all the other recommendations coming out have unrealistically high expectations that the people in Iraq will do what we want, the insurgents don't have legitimate goals and interests and other nations will help us out.
j.west -- that kind of thinking is what created this mess in the first place.Bush has made it clear from the beginning that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people. Would that be like he made it perfectly clear that Saddam was building nukes or that he would get OBL "Dead or Alive." Bush lies and with Chalabi at the Ministry of Oil -- the people of Iraq shouldn't expect to see anymore of that oil revenue than they did under Saddam when the UN sanctions were in force.
Posted by Marie at August 24, 2005 12:31 PMThe root of the problem is that people are taught to hate from the cradle. Northern Ireland would be case in point. Such a hate is very difficult to remove. Until the various groups in Iraq realize that they have to get along, no amount of money or pressure will solve the problem.
Posted by tempus at August 24, 2005 12:38 PMNote to Centrist: Even the Amish wear more colors than only black or white. They also wear gray and brown. That's at least two more than you allow.
Worst case scenario on a US withdrawl? It would really embolden the terrorists.
They seem fairly bold already, muck.
Posted by pessimist at August 24, 2005 01:16 PMMarie, I do think leaving Iraq tomorrow is the best idea out there. News Flash - T2 is not the President, Bush is. All the screaming and yelling we can muster won't make him say "I goofed, better bring the GI's home". That, my friend,was what the November election was for. I voted for Kerry,and I really don't think he's really been in the forefront of the "Bring them Home" bandwagon either. Our elected congress is on the sidelines, as is the 52% that keep the imbecile Bush in office even while any fool could see the lost cause in Iraq a year ago. My point is why bail Bush out.....let him screw the entire GOP.
Posted by T2 at August 24, 2005 01:53 PMIt would really embolden the terrorists.
Really Muck, please something new please. You are entertaining for your predictibility but can't ya just try to make it a bit more interesting? Just like the Abu Ghraib photos/videos: "Don't release them or there will be hell to pay!"
Hmm maybe, just maybe, could it be the original actions that are the source of the problem? Nah! Sorry what could I be thinking.
Posted by Simp at August 24, 2005 02:48 PMKeep your shirt on Marie, everything is getting better in Iraq. You get upset over non-realities: we are not after their oil and we are not after a permanent military base there. We are after freedom. What do you do with your great and wonderful freedom? Sit around and think up conspiracy tales from the crypt.
Posted by Das at August 24, 2005 03:30 PMHere's a solution for Iraq
Posted by muckdog at August 24, 2005 03:50 PMgood try muck!
Posted by dorita at August 24, 2005 04:17 PMT2 - If it wasn't clear, politically, I think the best position for Democrats to take is "Get out Now." It's simple, understandable and better than what GWB will do.
However, I do think it's worth thinking about ways to do better than simply "Get out." It's possible that this mess will still exist after GWB and the GOP is out of office. I doubt that the country will give a DEM a pass if they perform at the Nixon level. They'll start to consider that maybe they didn't give the GOP enough time to resolve it. I don't have the answers but I do think that the one American habit of thinking that they know what's best for other countries and people around the world is part of the problem, and when we don't do that, we turn our back on problems that we at a minimum aggravated. Sometimes we luck out as with did with Vietnam that didn't create any blowback for us. IMO we will not be that lucky this time.
Posted by Marie at August 24, 2005 04:27 PMOrignally the neoknuckleheads were going to call it "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (*OIL*) Oopsie! They quickly changed the logo to read "Operation Iraqi Freedom." OIF? And some of you knuckleheads still think it's not about the oil. Puh-leez. Wake up and smell the napalm baby. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at August 24, 2005 04:35 PMHere's a solution for Iraq Posted by muckdog
Makes as much sense as your other idiotic analyses.
Contrary to liberal views, the U.S. did not invade Iraq to steal it's oil. Bush has made it clear from the beginning that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people. Posted by j.west
Then why did the Bush regime change the pricing of Iraqi oil from Euros to dollars, thereby earning less money for the Iraqis? Why then did the Bush regime privatize the Iraqi oil companies in contravention of international law instead of leaving them state-owned? Why then is Bush planning permanent bases to maintain control over Iraq? The preponderance of evidence is against your theory.
I think a US withdrawl would put the terrorists back on the offensive, and the US (and you) on the defensive. Posted by muckdog
You keep repeating the same tired, fallacious crap. The number of acts of terrorism around the world have increased since the US invaded Iraq, not decreased as you say. It is the American presence in Iraq that has emboldened your opponents, and given them the best recruiting tool in the world: To drive out the invaders. Not only that, your occupation is giving them more opportunities to kill American men and women, and enabling them to learn more deadly ways to do so. Frankly, if you are so gung-ho on the invasion, you need to go there and show our generals how to fight and win. Go, Armchair General: Go!
Gang -- it's okay to ignore the trolls. They are really rarely coherent or factually correct enough to bother responding to. It's also futile to debate the willfully ignorant.
Donald Cormac: Orignally the neoknuckleheads were going to call it "Operation Iraqi Liberation" A Freudian slip? IMO the rationale for invading Iraq was complex -- and the oil guys were the last to get on board (recall a lot of Poppa Bush's gang initially raised objections to it -- Bush and Cheney like to think of themselves as oilmen but they aren't --they're like all too many in a second generation, mostly incompetent).
What the name of the operation betrayed to me was that all the rationale for the war was bogus. Suddenly the mission was all about something that had never been the subject of any debate. It also betrayed that they knew in advance that there were no WMD. But it did reinforce their naivity that they could march into Baghdad and suddenly Iraq would be free (guess they watched too many WWII movies about liberating Europe).
Posted by Marie at August 24, 2005 04:53 PMMarie, of course you're right about the trolls. It's just that I can't punch out the stupid people at work, so I take it out on these guys. Sorry if I get too nasty. Is it okay to taunt them just a little?
Posted by iamcoyote at August 24, 2005 05:27 PMMarie and the rest of the non-troll posters - there is a reason Saddam was an iron-fisted tyrant. We are seeing it every day. Iraq is a confluance of cultures and religious adversaries centuries in development. Only a dictator/tyrant could rule there without turmoil. Iraq is not Switzerland. It is more complex, and has been for centuries. This place is above Bush, intellectually. Now, I'm not saying a tyrant is a preferred form of governance, only that the Bush Administration practiced idiocy in thinking they could force democracy down these peoples throat at the point of a gun. We are seeing that every day in Iraq. This war was lost the day our Congress voted to give a fool like Bush the option of War based on clear b.s. Dems let us all down that day, and to this day, most have failed to redeem their folly. The only question I have is will any of our representatives call it like it is, and not retract or fishtale the next day?
Posted by T2 at August 24, 2005 06:31 PMIraq seems to becoming Hotel California. You can check in any time but you can never leave.
Posted by Ga6thDem at August 24, 2005 06:43 PMiamcoyote - go for it as long as it's a good substitute and doesn't make you even crazier. "Stupid people at work" is what originally led me to find blogs, but all I wanted was to hear some voices of sanity.
T2 - agree with everything you said. IMO Iraq was going to be like some weird combination of Vietnam, Cambodia and the Balkans after Tito. However, I've not convinced that self-government is beyond any people. If not for the wisdom of Washington and a few other back then, the US could easily have become another monarchy -- that's all people knew. Mandela could have become President for life. While I have respect for Castro in his early years, he squandered whatever goodwill and love he had for his country by not working to create a self government and his insistence that only he knew what was best for his people. Ditto Murbarek. Regimes, dictators rarely last beyond a couple of generations these days and many not beyond the lifetime of the original dicatator. And once they are gone, history says, "good riddance." Mandela will be revered in S Africa for a long time to come.
Posted by Marie at August 24, 2005 07:27 PMI had this thought -- and it comes from my participation in an activity long ago -- How many of you have written to your reps online, only to get an automated response: happy to hear from you :) please do not respond to this email blah blah . . . the very instrument that provides us this way to connect, also allows politicians a way to avoid us. I know public protest is one answer, but dora needs her meaty bones and I can't leave my job because she's not able to buy them without my money . . . but seriously, how does one express opposition in this electronic age? Blogs, maybe. I guess I am asking for ideas. I have thought about writing the good old pen and paper letter, but I think I will get the same automated response or none at all.
Oh my, that's the problem exactly. I want to hold that w by the collar and push him out out out.
Hoomis?
Posted by Toby Petzold at August 24, 2005 07:49 PMi know talking to the trolls invites a virus, but see, i don't like that w here. You may, but i don't.
Posted by dorita at August 24, 2005 08:09 PMThe number of acts of terrorism around the world have increased since the US invaded Iraq
Actually, it's been on the increase for the last 2 decades. Perhaps you missed the 90's.
Posted by muckdog at August 24, 2005 08:54 PMDorita, I have had the same thought. I envision some political volunteer hitting the delete button on thousands of emails. I once sent Pat Robertson an email protesting a comment he made, and I got an email back saying they would pray for me. Obviously, my email had not been read (or maybe it was, come to think of it).
Posted by Judith at August 25, 2005 03:04 AMMike,
Your facts need a little work. Iraqi oil, just as all other oil trading in the world, is done in U.S. dollars. If it were traded in Euros, it would make no difference in the profit to the selling nation.
Iraqi oil is controlled by the Ministry of Oil, which is not a privatized entity. www.uruklink.net/oil
As far as the military base, don't you remember the screams of protest (from the Germans)when the U.S. suggested we close our bases in Germany? By relying on U.S. protection for the past 60 years, Germany, Japan and Korea have been able to build their economies without the need for vast military expenditures. What is it about this obvious scenario do you disagree with?
Iraq seems to becoming Hotel California. You can check in any time but you can never leave.
good new euphuism for Mess O' Potania.
What is it about this obvious scenario do you disagree with?
uuh - like maybe the Allies ween't looked upon as Crusaders polluting Islam?
And trading in Euros will sure affect a certain buying nation - like the US.
okay - I am disciplined enough to not speak to trolls anymore - there are too many of them coming out trying to cover up the reality that we were fed a Pack O' Lies by a bunch of Dominionist-War Profiteering-Robber-Baron-New-Deal-Breaking fascists.
Bush&Co are getting scared.
Posted by old crone at August 25, 2005 08:25 AMA similar solution would have solved the Palestinian problem in 1955...if we had given the Palestinians on a per capita basis as much as we have given the Israelis and used similar safeguards to prevent corruption.
But then a sane and sensible foreign policy in 1918 would have led to a Versailles Peace Treaty that ....no wait....a sane and sensible domestic policy in the 1820's in the US....no wait,
Guess what, you're being way tooooo sane and sensible.
We need to piss away all our blood and treasure on a stupid foreign policy...that's what all empires do on the way down. Grrr.
John -- good point. Governments tend to be penny wise and pound foolish. A profile on a software company in NC (IIRC) if viewed by a rabid Republican would have had them screaming about all the wasted money on employee perks -- the on-site healthcare and day care, the cafeteria with a pianist, the two artists on staff creating and filling the place with works of art, the company subsidized golf course and family recreation center and pool - and salaries were high. The owner pointed out that he could never take the company public because how he ran it would never meet Wall Streets standard for frugality. Yet, he didn't do anything because he was a nice guy or had some ethical need to treat his employees well. Everything was cost effective. Maximized the creativity and quality of his employees work product, and that is what made the company successful.
Why throw $1.3 trillion at Iraq when the odds of that producing a positive result are really low? It's like this country giving women and children welfare that is just enough to keep them from starving but does nothing to lift them up from poverty? Because it's cheap -- we wouldn't want to make it look as if someone could get something for nothing unless their name if Bush or they run corporations into the ground.
Posted by Marie at August 25, 2005 09:59 PM