Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

I뭢 serious: I am truly worried about just pulling out of Iraq (comments, and discussion welcome).

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

DuaneBidoux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:41 PM
Original message

I뭢 serious: I am truly worried about just pulling out of Iraq (comments, and discussion welcome).

Yes we (Bush) have made an absolute mess out of things. Yes the Iraqi people want us out. Yes it now appears to be a civil war in which we can only make things worse by pursuing our current policy.

But, don뭪 we owe the Iraqi people something now? Hundreds of people being slaughtered every day because of us. Don뭪 we owe those people something?

I don뭪 know what the answer is and I do believe that more of the same can뭪 possibly be an answer, but I would like to hear Dems talk about how we can help Iraq if and when we do pull out. We have to talk now beyond our own immediate interest and this must include oil and stability in the region.

What if our withdrawal causes a horrific genocide way beyond anything that Darfur has ever seen?

Perhaps a Mid-East summit in which we can pull in a number of Arab peace keeping forces? I do believe they would have to be Arab. I don뭪 know뾲hat뭩 just an idea.

We have been a bull in a china shop. And now, we just walk away from our damage without looking back? People might say 밷ut it was Bush and not us." But we, everyone of us, upon election (or granted, selection) of this idiot, became complicit in this nightmare.

Again I, in all seriousness ask, do we not owe the Iraqi people somthing beyond an apology?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Duer 157099

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:46 PM
Response to Original message

1. I genuinely share your concern

This mess is so complex, it doesn't lend itself well to our sound-bite culture.

I'm tending to think that our presence is actually hindering any other efforts (as you suggest, a pan-Arab solution) -- not to mention that almost any "pan-Arab" solution could likely not be in the best interest of the U.S.

It is beyond infuriating that BushCo has created this massive mess that others will be left to clean up for generations. But that's his whole life pattern then isn't it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

abburdlen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:48 PM
Response to Original message

2. The only certainity

is that while this administration is still in power the region will be a complete mess no matter how many troops remain there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:49 PM
Response to Original message

3. A lot of people share your concerns.

This is an agonizing problem. No one wants to inflict more harm on the Iraqi people. No one wants that country to become an even more violent and dangerous place. But, it may be that the US is not the ones to fix what we have broken. A lot of people who believe in a withdrawal do so because they believe that the US is not the glue holding Iraq together, but a presence that itself sparks more violence and danger.

The Bush Administration has brought us to this: we are left with picking through to find the least immoral of choices. All our choices are bad, all are immoral. We have to pick the least bad one. That is beyond awful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DuaneBidoux

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #3

35. As the OP I read your writing and agree. But I look at those picture and want to sob for them.

It is agony to think that history will say that their blood is on our hands. It is agony just to look at those people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TayTay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #35

42. It is.

It is almost beyond the ability of words to respond. I look at the worst of the pictures, read the stories about the people who are suffering and am lost. This war is horrible.

There are no good choices. If there were, the Bush Admin, and the Republicans enabling them, would have taken them by now. All choices now lead to death and suffering; we are left to try and pick out which ones lead to the least amount of death and suffering.

All the choices are immoral. Yet we must choose. That is the tragedy of this time. That is the path that these war criminals in the White House have left us. We can only choose among the least immoral of actions and pray that we are right. That is beyond awful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Raven

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:49 PM
Response to Original message

4. We owe them an orderly withdrawal. We owe them an

international replacement of US troops with peacekeeping personnel. We owe every Iraqi who wants to leave because of their support for US a safe haven in the US. We owe continued funds to rebuild what we have destroyed or screwed up. We do not owe them our continued destructive presence in their country and they do not want us to stay.

In turn, their own govenrment owes them the pledge of full time work (no vacations!) to achieve peace and reconcilliation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Fresh_Start

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message

5. The problem is that we can't help

because we are part of the problem.
Bushco won't let those they disagree with help (like Iran)
Others won't help while Bushco is in power since Bushco will sabotage efforts they don't like.
For example Kurds meeting with Iranians. Bushco captured Iranian diplomats in spite of those diplomats being in place at the express request of the Kurds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Old and In the Way

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:51 PM
Response to Original message

6. A clear majority Iraqi's want us out....thanks democracy in action.

Let's honor their wishes. Yes, there will be plenty of destabilization after we leave...but there can be no resolution until we leave. After our exit, and probably after this criminal administration is out of office, we can start to reimburse the government and people of Iraq for the damages we have wrought on them.

We are only there to protect the oil interests of the Republican Party. Those interests do not serve us or the Iraqi people. We need to confront this fact as that explains why this administration is willing to sacrifice American soldiers for as long as it takes to get the oil out of Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

koopie57

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:52 PM
Response to Original message

7. It is a difficult decision

but IMHO I think we should pull our troops out as quickly and as soon as we can. We will be leaving a mess, but when the country and area is so angry with us, staying will not solve anything. By staying we are keeping the chaos going. They are not a stupid people nor are they incapable of taking care of themselves. Why do we think we are the only country with intelligent people?

I think we should leave and instead of causing death and destruction, start funding the country with money that they will use to rebuild, put their people to work and let them be in control of what is theirs. Maybe even fund an Iraqi army in some way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rurallib

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:52 PM
Response to Original message

8. Bush has created nearly the perfect storm. All answers are bad answers

So what do you do? There is simply no good answer. If we pull out in 15 minutes or 15 years there will be a huge civil war with large loss of lfe. Any gradation of a pullout simply makes the eventual outcome makes it happen in slow motion.
The chances of ultimately having a US friendly regime in the end are probably now long gone unless we stay forever.
And of course this is not the only front that is so fucked up by this admin that there are no good answers or at least some very painful answers. The economy for example.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tubbacheez

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 12:57 PM
Response to Original message

9. Tough question.

It turns out that Saddam's tyrranical regime was actually keeping all this bloodshed in check.

One might want to restore things to pre-occupation conditions, but that would imply installing a nasty dictator. So that idea quickly loses appeal.

One might want to set up a fair government, but this is getting close to Bush's goal of installing a full-blown representative democracy. Trouble is: the sects will resist. They're not after fairness right now. They're busy getting revenge on each other for either supporting or fighting the American meddling. I think it will take a while, perhaps a long while, before cooler heads will prevail.

There is also the possibility, not having a reliable crystal ball, that this same type of civil warring would have occurred anyway if Saddam died of old age and his successor lost his grip on the country. Anytime a cult of personality runs a country, there's always a chance all hell will break loose once he's gone. Watch Cuba closely.

I agree that fairness dictates something beyond an apology. In civil cases between private citizens, monetary damages and court orders are the tools of compensation. But even they don't fully satisfy every situation. There are certain situations in life where nothing would help.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Commie Pinko Dirtbag

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #9

30. "It turns out that Saddam's tyrranical regime was actually keeping all this bloodshed in check."

Tito redux.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

KingofNewOrleans

(650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 01:00 PM
Response to Original message

10. What's going on right now in Iraq--ethnic cleansing

and we really haven't made an impact on that at all. If we left, then the ragtag "Al-Queda" elements in Iraq would evaporate, so that a plus. Still, the best way out would seem to be some kind of tri-partition of Iraq. Something along the lines that Biden has promoted. However, it's a plan that should have been implement 6 months or a year or 18 months ago. Whether it or our military is still viable when a Dem takes office in 2009 who knows.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sinkingfeeling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message

11. Yes, we all feel like we 'owe' the Iraqi people something. But first of all, there is not now , nor

will there ever be, a military solution. The USA's troop presence is a trigger point. You have the Sunni insurgents fighting against the US that they believe is siding with the Shiite majority and helping to 'ethnic cleanse' the area. The Shiites would probably prefer we leave so that they can consolidate their power and start enforcing a more religious regime. The Kurds are the ones who are most grateful to the USA and are looking to breaking away from the coalition government set up by us in Iraq.

There must be a political solution to end the sectarian violence. The Sunnis must either be given a greater part in the government or an area away from the Shiite majority, but still receiving a proper ratio of any oil profits in the future.

To reach such an agreement would require a great reduction in our troops, followed an by a true international negotiation meeting with all key players to bring about a truce. Then allow the UN specialists back in to help with curbing the corruption within the Iraqi ministries and to gently advise the building of an acceptable government. Let the Iraqi army and security forces enforce the truce with UN troops to oversee.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Lobster Martini

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message

12. Regretfully, have to agree with the above posts.

There simply is no good solution at this point. This is an imperfect analogy--I'm still working on it--but it's Milton's Paradise Lost. God (Bush) casts Satan (Saddam Hussein) into pandaemonium, where he manages to corrupt mankind. More briefly, Bush sends Hussein to hell and all hell breaks loose.

Of course that means that Hillary--the only female running--will eat from the tree of knowledge and be doomed. One term.

Hey, I said it was an imperfect analogy!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

beachmom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

13. The Democratic plan does NOT just pull out of Iraq

It leaves troops there for the following three things:

1. Training Iraqis
2. Counterterrorism
3. Force and American Asset protection

It is also coupled with massive diplomacy we have not seen before. It would involve all the Iraqi parties, all the countries in the region, the EU, the U.N., NATO, and the U.S. The 3 sectarian groups in Iraq will not have a political reconciliation if they feel each can win. They are hit with thinking they can win by the Americans being there:

1. The Shi'ites overall like us there because we kill Sunnis for them. True, al Sadr and the Mahdi militia hate America but the other Shi'ite faction like us there. The Shi'ites are using us to kill Sunnis for them for the time being, but also calculate with their superior numbers that they will win.

2. The Sunnis figure we're leaving soon, so they also think they will win once we leave. Staying merely hones their skills in fighting a superior enemy, skills they figure they'll use to finish off the Shi'ites.

3. The Kurds, well, they just want to be left alone, but they love America and want permanent American bases in Kurdistan.

We have to leave; this war is draining us of blood and treasure, while producing no results. And the only possible way to have peace in Iraq LONG TERM, is to remove our troops. Sadly, there will probably be war in Iraq for years to come UNTIL each side figures out they have no chance in winning and sue for peace. For that, we must remain engaged diplomatically.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ripple

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #13

48. Thanks for pointing that out. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

HardWorkingDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 01:39 PM
Response to Original message

14. GREAT article discussing just this.....

Give this article a try......it might ease your mind a bit....

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0703.dreyfuss.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Enthusiast

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #14

28. Great article!

Makes more sense than anything I've heard yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Igel

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #14

31. His assumptions can be questioned.

AQ is not just a few foreign fighters, even though they're the ones that make the headlines and stir things up. There are a number of Iraqi tribes allied with them; currently AQ/ISI are taking on a few fronts at once, the most important being other Sunni tribes that are tired of being told to join up or submit.

However, once the US is gone it's likely that the Sunni Arabs will not just look at their internal problems; the "Army of the Pure" will most assuredly, with other Shi'ite groups, take the fight to their enemies if they don't submit. At that point, it will just be Sunni against Shi'ite. Each side currently is convinced it's the superior force; neither bothers with conventional warfare.

If one's of a mind to be critical of the article, its thesis dissolves into a sea of unwarranted assumptions, just as does the RW thesis. Thing is, you can only make partial predictions that have any chance of being right; which predictions your biases allow to be made determines how you view the war. I always apply a bigger dollop of forced critical thinking to articles I want to believe; they're the ones whose bad assumptions or incomplete facts I'm more likely to not spot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

iconocrastic

(627 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 01:56 PM
Response to Original message

15. You're goint to inflame a lot of people here with that kind of talk

Even Pelosi wants us out now, damn the torpedos, full speed astern.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

iconocrastic

(627 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #15

16. What happens with Hillary in 2008 if she doesn't have us out by Feb 2009

Rumble in the jungle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

pampango

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #16

22. I have seen speculation that Bush is trying stall any major withdrawal,

so that it takes place under another, probably Democratic, administration. That way, under the theory, that administration (especially if it is Democratic) can be blamed politically for "losing Iraq", if and when chaos ensues.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sampsonblk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message

17. Absolutely right

That was one of the big problems going in: if we break it, we bought it. Well, we broke it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Commie Pinko Dirtbag

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message

18. Here's what you owe them:

- A ridiculous amount of money. Think Versailles Treaty reparations level.
- Convincing less hated countries to (a) broker deals between the warring parties there, and (b) form a UN peacekeeping force.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GeorgeGist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:25 PM
Response to Original message

19. Yes ...

we need to get the bull out of the china shop. And then pay the Iraqi's for cleaning up the mess. Kapisch.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message

20. We Owe the Iraqis much! But until we get the Bush administration

to change the strategy, they are only being promised a "Surge".

Calls for Withdrawal (will withdraw X amount of Troops by X time) without a well thought out sound political/economical/military overarching long range strategy is a political soundbyte meant to excite the Out of Iraq Now American primary voting base, and little else; a cheap trick with many dire consequences not yet being thought about by many of the politicians.

One place to start is by supporting the VoterVets Group's new ad coming out as we speak. What this ad does is promote the fact that George Bush's current strategy has got to go, that he isn't listening to those who would know what to do, and that is strategy has not made America, our troops or Iraq safer.

I just received an email from the group via Clark's WesPAC....
http://www.votevets.org/

Today, we're launching a massive, half-million dollar ad blitz, featuring -- for the first time on the paid airwaves -- George Bush's former commanders on the ground in Iraq. In the ads, they challenge the notion that the President listens to commanders, and another featuring retired General Wes Clark and an Afghanistan veteran, makes clear that the war in Iraq has not made America more secure.

The first in the series of three ads features VoteVets.org Advisory Board Member, Major General (ret.) John Batiste, who was commanding general of the 1st Infantry Division from August 2002-June 2005. During this time frame, he conducted combat operations in Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Batiste twice voted for President Bush and is a lifelong Republican. If you like this ad, then you're going to love what we have coming up in about a week, from Major General Paul Eaton. And, then the ad featuring General Clark after that. That's fitting, because it is General Clark who paved the way for other retired brass to speak out.

Here's the deal, though. We're pouring a half-million dollars towards airing these ads in states and districts where Senators and Representatives are very close to abandoning the President on Iraq. We're going to pull out all the stops to ensure they start to support the troops. If you like what you see, then please donate so we can raise enough to air these ads on networks, nationally. We're going to need to raise another $100,000 to get all of our ads on the air nationally, and really hold lawmakers' feet to the fire on the war.

For too long, the President has maintained that he's just listening to commanders on the ground, which is utterly false. These ads set the record straight, directly from the mouths of those men. The President isn't listening, he hasn't listened, and he hasn't shown an interest in listening to commanders on the ground in Iraq. If the President won't listen to commanders, then Congress must. They must force about a surge in diplomacy, and not allow a war without end.

If you're with us, then help us raise the necessary funds to get these ads up on the air.
https://secure.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizations/iavapac/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1383&t=GoodNewOne.dwt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hell Hath No Fury

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message

21. The only hope for the Iraq situation is...

three ethnic zones and an international peacekeeping force on the ground.

That's it.

And making sure that was inacted is the sole reaon I could think of for keeping US troops on the ground for one more millisecond.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:44 PM
Response to Original message

23. Who is saying just pull out?

The Democratic plan is for extensive diplomacy now in parallel with handing the front lines stuff over to the Iraqis.

Iraq is in civil war - and our invasion and subequent occupation triggered it. However, we can not fight stop a civil war. They are killing each other and our soldiers. Who is the enemy? For over a year, the majority of the violence is Iraqi vs Iraqi. We can not be on either side - we are in the middle.

What people like Feingold and Kerry have said for over a year is we need to jolt the Iraqis into seeing that their self interest is to work out their differences.

Once we are out, I would assume that we owe it to them to give them aid where needed - and wanted. I agree that we are responsible for their situation. Not just since the invasion, but in the 12 years when we had sanctions in place. They were in awful shape even from that time period - though that time probably looks like heaven in retrospect.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BeFree

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #23

44. That's the plan

The plan our Dem leaders have developed. While it may not be perfect it is adaptable. And organized by people we know we can trust.

Read this whole thread and you are the only one, Karyn, to bring up the fact that we have a plan... it just needs to be implemented. Nobody else even suggested that our leaders have a clue!

First thing is that we take the power out of the hands of the republicans, then we'll begin to see results.

I railed against the plan when first passed because that's what you do when it doesn't do everything you want, but now it's time for us to unite behind our leaders and make it happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bdamomma

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:44 PM
Response to Original message

24. we owe them to get our a$$es out of there.

we are committing genocide out there already.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

coalition_unwilling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:45 PM
Response to Original message

25. We owe the Iraqi people reparations and an international

war crimes tribunal for BFEE and its cronies.

The peace-keeping force needs to be a mixed Arab - Persian force. Of course, that would require negotiating with the Iranians and the Syrians . . . and Moqtada al Sadr. Even if BFEE were so inclined, I just don't see much incentive for Syrians and Iranians and al Sadr to negotiate with us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bamacrat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:48 PM
Response to Original message

26. Pulling out is always a good idea.

Oh out of Iraq, yeah that too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

liberal renegade

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #26

36. GHWB should've pulled out

we wouldn't be in this mess if he had.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Nicholas D Wolfwood

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 02:54 PM
Response to Original message

27. Yes, but are we doing more harm than good right now?

I agree with your sentiment, 100%. Unfortunately, I feel that having our forces in Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, is not doing anyone any good. We can, and should help on a humanitarian basis. We can, and should hand over the controls of said humanitarian mission to the UN. We can, and should be ready to step in if there's genocide that occurs. But to continue the course, I don't think we'd be doing anyone any favors.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Prophet 451

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 04:09 PM
Response to Original message

29. Of course you do, but...

As a nation, you're caught between the devil and the deep blue here.

If you pull out, the country probably slides into uncontained civil war (assuming it isn't there already which is open to question); you might very well have that spill into a religious war which drags the surrounding nations into the fray; you'll almost certainly end up with an Iraqi government highly hostile to the US (and probably UK as well) and the nation of Iraq is still a broken corpse.

If you stay, the nation is still broken and won't get fixed either because the funds end up in Dick Cheney's wallet (via Halliburton) or get sabotaged by the insurgents; the insurgency is aggravated by the presence of the hated Americans; you may well get caught in the middle of an uncontained civil war anyway (making the above assumption) and there's a distinct possibility that Chimpy will use it as a staging post to invade Iran or just install some murderous dictator (ala Pinochet).

Damned if you do, damned if you don't (which at least might make some Americans stop hating the French for daring to say "no").

On balance, I'd go for pulling out but on balance, it's a shame Poppy didn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

goodhue

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 05:21 PM
Response to Original message

32. We owe them a lot, which we will not be able to repay until we end occupation

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Joey Liberal

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 05:22 PM
Response to Original message

33. But, don뭪 we owe the Iraqi people something now?

No. We've given them over 3,000 American lives and billions of dollars. That's enough in my book.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AtomicKitten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message

34. I can't keep thinking we are occupying a sovereign nation & need to leave - period.

n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Donald Ian Rankin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 06:32 PM
Response to Original message

37. It's like having a tiger by the tail, with the proviso that you can't outlast the tiger.

And that it's running through the jungle battering you worse and worse.

When the Americans leave Iraq, it *will* go to hell in a handcart in ways that make the present situation look very calm indeed. But that will be truer the longer they stay there, and while they're there they are inflaming the situation and taking losses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

primative1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 06:48 PM
Response to Original message

38. Without sounding too Bushevic ...

I kind of agree ... But here is what I think we owe them ... Diplomacy. With it its possible to get a truly multinational force in there to back up whatever government they will someday get to freely choose. The neighbors in that region will not sit back and let the place burn once we leave, but while we are content to frustrate ourselves they will do nothing but watch.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dave_p

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 07:08 PM
Response to Original message

39. What they're not owed is occupation

"Hundreds of people being slaughtered every day because of us" kind of suggests it's time to leave them alone. That goes for other "peacekeeping" forces too - in the unlikely event that anyone might volunteer to police the mess.

As for Darfur, the killing in occupied Iraq already dwarfs what's happened there. It's no use pointing to a separate conflict as case for staying when you've already presided over far worse.

The only options for anything approaching a political restoration of Iraq are ones that no US Administration would contemplate: wind up the present government, break up the sectarian militias and get the old army back together again. Since that won't happen, the US is of no use to Iraqis.

The US owes Iraq massive reparations for a criminal aggression. It should finance reconstruction on a hands-off basis, with the UN assessing the damage and the money going to an inclusive Iraqi government after it's proved its worth by managing to stay in power for two years without a single foreign soldier in the country or a cent of military aid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

IndianaGreen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 07:21 PM
Response to Original message

40. The only thing we owe the Iraqi people is the arrest, prosecution, conviction, & punishment of Bush

and all the other war criminals of his regime, followed by war reparations and compensation to Iraq for all the harm we have caused (including the long-term effects of depleted uranium munitions).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

MadMaddie

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message

41. Unfortunately....this debacle has gone beyond the point of

the US being able to help militarily...

The UN and other Middle East countries will and MUST take the lead in helping the region to recover...

First you must understand the regions History....the tribes have been warring with each other for hundreds of years...Saddam and the previous Dictator in power by the British Empire in the 1920's....they were scabs placed over the warring factions

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/iraq.htm

Here are a couple of steps that the US and the United Nations could take to help the region....
-Work with Syria and Iran and other willing Middle East Countries to help stablize the region
-Turn over all American War Criminals (*, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Tenet, Gonzalez) this will show the world that the US is willing to improve relations around the world.
-Let the UN no matter how inefficient they are

That's a few first steps...No matter what this will be the biggest Military blunder in the worlds History. Iraq will take decades to recover....The US can give them money to rebuild and that's it...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Morgana LaFey

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 09:33 PM
Response to Original message

43. There is no known way to win (or even just avoid chaos) in this

situation. All opportunities for a reasonable resolution are long gone, if they ever existed -- and that's doubtful (plenty of experts said No prior to the war).

Our best alternative is to simply get out, stop the loss of our own lives and treasure, and let the Iraqis sort it out themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftofthedial

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 10:09 PM
Response to Original message

45. we owe them something alright.

staying is no part of what we owe them.

we owe them our expedited departure

Then we owe them debts that can't be repaid, but we should try

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

calteacherguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #45

50. Define "expediated." nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftofthedial

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-10-07 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #50

51. noon tomorrow

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

calteacherguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-10-07 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #51

52. I'm certain that will not happen.

Edited on Thu May-10-07 12:37 AM by calteacherguy

We need to wait at least through the summer. Is is politically impossible to force withdrawing troops until at least waiting until the "surge," "escalation," (call it what you will) is complete.

You can want whatever you want, but certain things have a chance of happening and other things have 0% chance of happening.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftofthedial

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-10-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #52

53. I also am certain it won't happen

both political parties want the chaos to continue through the 2008 elections

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

calteacherguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-10-07 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #53

54. I'm not certain I agree with you on that. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftofthedial

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu May-10-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #54

55. other than Kucinich, is there a presidential candidate

with a more aggressive timeline?

uhh, no.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 10:16 PM
Response to Original message

46. It's really re-deployment vs. "pulling out"

Edited on Wed May-09-07 10:18 PM by zulchzulu

Moving the troops out of the middle of a civil war that unfortunately will have to make claims as per what has been happening for a couple thousand years is part of re-deployment to outer regions of the quagmire.

Face it...Bush let the genie out of the bottle. Now an autocratic regime has to fill the void as has been done there for a couple thousand years. As long as there are battles and blood feuds based on religious differences, there will never truly be ANY peace there and in the World.

The US troops will not leave the region. That's a given. They will be in Kuwait, Qater, Oman, Turkey and in the Persian gulf ready to come back into the internal mess as needed.

If anyone actually thinks that all the troops are just coming home and no US troops are going to be in the region, then they should really put down the bong.

The Middle East is far too important for the multinationals to ever truly leave.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ripple

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message

47. That has been a concern of mine in the past

but I've come to the conclusion that the genocide is going to happen either way. We can either look at 50-100 people dead each day in a genocide that lasts 10 years, or a mass bloodbath that lasts six months or so.

Either way one looks at it, our nation's presence is merely a band-aid on a huge, festering sore. And our presence is a large part of the poison that keeps it festering.

If it were at all possible, I would like to see us secure the borders, talk to the surrounding nations, and at least allow refugee status for those who fear for their lives in a post-US occupied Iraq. Unfortunately, I think even that is unrealistic at this point.

I feel your pain and I felt the same way for a long time. Now, I feel like we're fucked no matter what we do, as are the Iraqi people.

I'm someone who marched, protested, wrote my legislators, and did essentially everything in my power to stop the war before it happened- largely for humanitarian reasons. With a heavy heart, I've finally concluded that it's time to relinquish the people of Iraq to their war-begotten fate. There is simply no way to make it better while we are still there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

calteacherguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed May-09-07 10:48 PM
Response to Original message

49. I share your concern.

Edited on Wed May-09-07 10:52 PM by calteacherguy

Here is where I am at right now, as far as Democratic policy-making goes.

1. We must give this "surge," "escalation," whatever (the word choice is just politics, and meaningless) a chance to work, even if we think it has no chance of working. That means September/October or this year by the administration's and General Patreus' own admission. There is supposed to be a "report" of some sort on how things are doing at that time.

2. Depending on "how things are going" in September/October a series of benchmarks must be set for the Iraqi government to meet. We should also make clear now that certain benchmarks are expected to be met by that time, because there is no way this military escalation can help in any way unless there is a political "surge" as well. There is no military solution. Continued support for their government would be contigent upon meeting these benchmarks. We must make clear will not stay there as cannon fodder in a civil war.

3. We need to work with other countries in the region to help stabilize Iraq. It is not in their interest to have an unstable Iraq. We support Iraq with aid, dependent on the progress made.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:23 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC