What would happen if we pull out of Iraq tomorrow

Great Debates
21

Do you have any evidence of that - and not in the north, where Saddam had no control.

That’s my point; you were the one claiming the war would produce cheaper oil.

What in the world are you talking about ?

Outside of the relatively trivial oil for food scandal, any evidence for any of this ? Iraq is worse off and less free than before the war. All we’ve done it kill people and destroy things. Frankly, it appears we don’t know how to do anything else.

Perhaps they don’t want one; pehaps thanks to us, to them “democracy” means “invasion, rape, torture, murder, destruction, chaos”.

22

Quite understand conservatives, used to be one. Recovered nicely, thank you.

But what, pray, is remotely “conservative” or “liberal” about these issues? Its like suggesting that there a “feminist” physics. The only reason conservatives are hooked on this issue is a desperate need to have thier faith in a fool justified.

Of course, one must make a distinction between honest conservatives, with whom I respectfully disagree, and Bushiviks, whom I do, indeed, wish lived in a different universe. The honest conservatives are bailing, they’ve been had, and they don’t like it. Bushiviks cling to failed mythology, like the vanished dream that the “vast stockpiles” of WMD were somehow spirited away. Clinging like a shipwrecked sailor to a drifting spar. Desperate, sad, and delusional.

So long as you persist in believing that no solution offered by your political opponents is acceptable by reason of its source, you are stuck with offering some variation of the Bushivik Mantra: stay the course, and pray for a miracle.

23

Your equation seems curiously free from the Iraqi side of things.

i.e.

What is the cost difference in Iraqi lives between chaos and civil war and a stable and democratic Iraq?

200,000 is nice and round (and very conservative) number. Would you be willing to chance 1000 american troops for the lives of 200,000 Iraqi on a 30% chance of success? Is that worth it?

The fact is that the cost in Iraqi lives (most likely way above 200,000), etc., in case of failure to reach a stable Iraq, would be so massive that the percentage you set on success would have be absurdly low for it to be a fair argument to leave. Unless you price American (and allied) troops much higher than Iraqi civilians.

We’re on the lions back. (There’s a small contingent of Danish troops too, if it makes any difference to you) We all knew that from day one. Lets not pretend otherwise. Any quitting before having given it a sustained and very throughout effort is just so massively unfair to the Iraqis. And it’s still early in the day. Lets see in five years time.
2,000 or 4,000 deaths doesn’t make for a pyrrhic victory by any stretch of the imagination, seen as it is a historic term - and even the US has been involved in several battles that killed more within the first day of fighting. 2,000 for reducing an enemy army and 2-3 years of fighting is in fact a historic low number.

24

Was refering to the north, you think a terrorist camp in a uncontrolled area is a good thing?

By increasing supply.

Pretty obvious, I am not conceding the point that S.H. had no WMD, I find it highly unlikely that he had none, also he had access to material that can be made into WMD including IIRC several tons of Uranium in variouse states of enrichment.

Um yes that’s what the military does, did you think otherwise?

What Iraq would you rather live in, the today Iraq or Sadam’s Iraq?

2 issues here, if they don’t want one it will eventually fail and become another form of gov’t. The other is a fabrication of the media IMHO, which is really hurting the effort to create a free state. I really suspect the terrorist are laughing their asses off when they hear about outrage when a enemy combatiant is forced to wear woman’s underware on his head while sawing a infidel’s head off.

God willing you will relapse :smiley:

25

As long as our troops are there to do the fighting and dying for them, the Iraqi’s will not fight.
Why should they?

26

But, as to what would happen, if by some miracle all US troops were home tomorrow? Here’s my two bits worth, with the caveat I’m only very, very smart, not omniscient.

Civil war. Brief, loud, and conclusive. The Sunni have no chance, none, of prevailing over the Shia. At best, they might be able to sustain a fight long enough to gain some minor negotiating advantage. Most of the Muslim world has come to grips successfully with the Shia/Sunni breach, as has the Xtian world come to accept the Protestant Reformation. I expect the larger Muslim world will move to act, probably by way of the UN, to establish a peacekeeping force. Possible extra upside: the discrediting and destruction of the extremist Wahhabbi-type Sunni extremists. Like ObL, just for instance.

The Kurds will establish Kurdistan, this is almost a given at this point. The Shia will get the oil-rich south and the marshlands. The Sunni will get whats left, which is pretty much diddly squat. And so it goes. The Turks wont like it, and the Sunni wont like it, but can probably do very little about it.

Displacement as ghastly as the India-Pakistan partition is possible, but I am hopeful it won’t be as extreme. Note the operative word: “Hopeful”. Sunni who cannot live under Shia domination will be displaced, as will their counterpart Shia. But here’s the kicker: tolerant and secular Islamists will have an advantage, being able to adapt and communicate. Precisely the people we most need to foster and nurture. Secularism becomes a Social Darwinist advantage.

The oil? Will be sold, whoever sells it. There is no point in keeping it.

The cost? More than we would wish, less than we dread. But the kicker? It will almost certainly happen regardless of how long we subject our best and brightest to this pointless misery.

With reluctance and grave apprehension, nonetheless: Out Now!

27

…apart from a camp on the border that had more to do with Iran than Iraq, I do not believe this to be true. Cite?

28

Let me suggest that there is something working here beside a brief and violent Shia-Sunni civil war and an independent Kurdistan. We also have Turkey and the very real possibility of a war in the north to erase and independent Kurdish state. We also have the 800 pound gorilla of Iran and the religious radicals in Saudi. How can they be kept out of the Shia-Sunni conflict? Does any one think that Syria will pass up the chance to fish in troubled waters? Does anyone really think that the remaining Islamic / Arab states will be in any position to put Humpty Dumpty back together again? I fear that we have tromped right in to the quagmire some predicted and others dismissed by saying we would be welcomed with flowers, much like the American army’s welcome to Paris in 1944.

Given that in a moment of candor some Administration official said that the whole WMD / Terrorist Connection / Stronghold of Democracy thing was a mere marketing ploy and that the real reason for the invasion and occupation was to have a military presence in the oil fields that was not dependent on the House of Saud, the idea that this Administration will pull out is just wishful thinking. Some might say that we are stuck to the Tar Baby, others might think that we wanted to get stuck.

The bad news is that the Stay the Course strategy will probably just serve to delay and intensify an ultimate reckoning that will likely inflame the whole region. This is not a “we broke it, we have to fix it” thing. This is a matter of holding on until the region isn’t important any more. That means a permanent occupation until all the oil is gone. In the meantime it means that the United States is likely impotent, over extended and unable to deal militarily with a crisis in any other region – absent conscription and a massive sales campaign to rally public support. I expect that there will still be US troops in Iraq 20 years in the future just because it will be too dangerous to get out.

So much for an unnecessary and reckless foreign adventure.

29

Ah, to have blind faith. Who needs reason?

30

For us, it was. It gave us another excuse to invade.

Then why didn’t he use it ?

Saddam’s. It was far superior compared to the oppressive, chaotic hellhole we’ve created.

31

Was it worse or better under Saddam? Was there any way he could’ve been “removed from power” without it becoming a civil war; as if, what if we had gotten Saddam and just left? How bad would the civil war that ensued be? How would it end? Would it help any at ALL if the UN went in?

32

Coalitionis interruptus, of course.

sorry

33

That does not fill us in. That is not a “thought process.” It is a set of conclusions, with no clear indication of what thought process, other than automatic acceptance of the Administration’s line, produced them.

34

As to how wretched things were, or are, all opinions are colored by agenda.

Life under Saddam was unspeakable, made living under Idi Amin Dada look like a picnic, minus the cannibalism. Roving bands tossing hand grenades into schools and hospitals, unspeakable horror on a daily basis, etc.

From here, it looks no better and no worse than any of a number of dictatorships we have, or will, maintain kissing cousin relationships with. We have smoochy relations with Pakistan, who not only developed nuclear weapons but sold the tech on the open market, earning a severe “tsk! tsk!” from the Bushiviks. And Pinochet, Batista, Trujillo, Duvalier? The less said, the better. Their shadows caused flowers to grow tumors.

Really, folks, who’s zooming who?

35

Then, raise taxes and hand out some money to these ill, starving, freezing, senior citizens you feel so sorry about. See…you don’t have to have people get killed in the process. But maybe you feel that lower taxes for healthy, well nourished younger citizens is also worth the cost?

That’s indeed a despicable argument in support of this war.

36

Speaking as someone who supported and continues to supprt the war, I concur.

Kanicbird, you are coming perilously close to saying that the war was justified since it’ll save Americans money. Please stop.

37

If you read that from what I said you haven’t understood what I meant.

Funny you should select singular, because that is the reason. He didn’t have many of them and is going up against a force which could launch unrestricted conventional, chemical, biological and radiological warfare agaist your country. You know that chances are that the US won’t use NBC’s if you don’t, it is to your advantage to not use them, and also becasue you are not suppose to have them and can’t defend yourself conventionally either, it is to your advantage to get rid of them ASAP by destroying them, burying them in the backyard, shipping them out of the country.

Um no, what you are doing right now is blind faith, following the liberal view of conservatives to such a point that you are not understandable on the conservative side.

Assume conservative thinking from the conservative side.

I would have to think about physics, but science IS influnced by politics, issues like origins of life and human’s ability to change global climate come to mind, and basic assumptions usually fall on political lines.

38

For what purpose ? Even he had nothing more than one artillery shell of something nasty, why not use it while he can ? He’s going to be exiled/imprisoned/dead anyway. In other words, cite ? Evidence ?

When it is “influenced”, it stops being science; Lysenkoism being a classic example.

39

This is a whoosh, right?

40

IIRC he really did, sealed by UN inspectors. I’ve heard people use that to point out why the “Nigerian yellowcake” forgery was so silly; why smuggle what you already have ?