Okay, okay. I know it’s a little more complicated than that. But, Bush doesn’t seem to think so. It’s seems like a personal thing with him, this idea of not turning and running. but, what’s so bad about that? I say it takes an intelligent person to know when to give up and a stupid one to keep fighting when the end result is not going to be good, for anyone. It’s a lose/lose situation. A civil war will start but maybe that’s a good thing. And they can work it out themselves. After all, will more Iraqi’s die than we have already killed? Of course they many decide not to sell us their oil. China is waiting in the wings for that oil. At this point we could never expect Bush to be honest with us instead of repeating the same 10 words over and over. I guess robotics hasn’t advanced that far. Do you ever get that he thinks we are unable to understand the complexities of the situation and that if he gets up there and talks about honor and nobility and god and pride, the hoards will be quieted? The bottom line is that he acts like he can do whatever he wants and we can lump it if we don’t like it. The majority of the country is now against the war and yesterday he announced he is sending thousands of more troops over to Iraq. What happened to majority rule?
If we leave :
1: We won’t have military bases in Iraq we can use to attack others.
2: We lose control over the oil.
3: Worst of all, it amounts to Bush admitting he was wrong, and that’s just unthinkable.
Besides, I doubt Bush has any idea how bad things are. The man is ignorant, stupid, and lives in a fantasy-world bubble. He doen’t care about the “reality based community” view of the war; he cares what his yes men tell him.
Sure…problem is that we aren’t at that point in Iraq yet. It would take someone who was remarkably good at fortune telling to KNOW that the end result of all this isn’t going to be good for anyone.
In YOUR opinion of course. And based on…what exactly? I mean, do you KNOW that the Iraqi’s won’t be able to ratify a constitution? Do you KNOW that they won’t be able to hold general elections at the end of the year? Do you KNOW that this new government won’t be able to start bringing things together? Do you KNOW that the new government won’t be able to reconstitute the Iraqi militiary, that said military won’t be loyal to the new government, that said military won’t be able to eventually put down the insurgency? Do you KNOW that the militia’s will eventually take control and fracture the nation?
Because I don’t know any of those things…and seems to me that depending on the outcome of them will determine if its a ‘lose/lose situation’…or not.
If what we have right now is bad, how exactly would a full scale civil war, likely to expand to encompass more than just Iraq be a GOOD thing?? Need some details because this sounds like ‘well, you have a broken leg…but if we chop it off it would be a good thing’.
Sure…in the same way that you could work out an economic transfer of money between yourself and the guy robbing you at gun point.
Um, yes. LOTS more. Do you have any idea at all what a full scale civil war would be like in Iraq? Do you know the difference between insurgent ambush and suicide attacks and pitched battles in the cities are? Its the difference between night and day.
They aren’t selling ‘us’ oil…they sell their oil on the international market. China is as likely to buy it as the US.
:rolleyes: I hope you are kidding here. Bush stood for re-election and won. THATS what happened to majority rule. You figure that Bush is the first and only president who was unpopular or supported a position that became unpopular in the US??
-XT
I cannot but feel nauseous at the callous indifference to suffering inherent in this statement.
I opposed the war too, demanding as I did proof via Hans Blix. But to simply run away from a civil war we caused if there is a chance that staying will prevent one is utter, craven cowardice.
Because the longer we stay the longer we delay Iraq’s civil war.
Whomever is in charge when that war fully erupts will be forced to take the blame for it.
It’s all about timing.
-Joe
Why would Bush care? I don’t see this as a compelling reason either for why we SHOULD stay or why we ARE staying.
I understand your sentiment SM and even agree with much that you’ve been saying about why we should stick it out there to at least give the Iraqi’s a chance to correct our fuckup. However, on this point I think you should realize that a lot of the anti-war folks (and even a lot of the pro-war folks) don’t really have a clue as to how bad it could be if a full scale civil war errupts in Iraq. I know that a lot of the anti-war folks actually think thats whats been happening for the last few years in fact, so they don’t think it will be any worse at all…and that it might be better if the US/UK just gets out. As if that will magically make all the problems go away, and the Sunni/Shi’ite and Kurds will then sit down together in joyful union now that the dastardly invaders are gone. Of course its fantasy and a great deal more complex than Iraqi’s simply hating American’s and wanting them to leave…but I don’t think its ‘callous indifference’…its genuine ignorance of the potential human loss of life and suffering in that region if the US/UK pulls out and leaves the Iraqi’s to face the music as things currently stand.
-XT
The reality based community in Iraq wants us there, they remember what it was like before. I saw a news reporter interviewing soldiers and Iraq solders, they were all positive about the war ending in freedom for them.
The attitude you display is the minority attitude. And that is reality. Don’t show me polls, I have never known any of them to be accurate.
Translation : Don’t confuse me with the facts. The war news has been heavily propagandized from the beginning. Why would you believe that the victims of an invasion would like us ? Do you think the Iraqi’s are masochists ? What “freedom” have we given them, really ?
And how do you know I’m in the minority ( or the majority for that matter ) if you ignore polls ? Crystal Balls ? Tea leaves ? Polls are hardly perfect, but - properly done - they are far more accurate than wild guesses.
Of course we could.
But if you are interested in a recent example of this type of situation, read up on Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal.
How many factions fought each other?
For how long?
How many civilians were massacred?
Did they ever achieve a stable govt even when the Taliban were partially in control?
It would certainly be worse than it is today for civilians.
Oh come now. Contrary to what some believe, Bush is not the end-all be-all of his party. This is bigger than him.
As for being a complelling reason as to why we SHOULD stay, hell, I never said it was. Sacrificing American and British troops simply to delay a bloody war (that I believe will happen whenever those troops leave whether it’s tomorrow or decades from now) is not a reason we SHOULD stay.
However, I do believe it’s the reason we ARE staying.
-Joe
I never said Bush was the end-all be-all of the party. 
He does seem to be the one in the drivers seat atm though, and I’m not one of those convinced he has puppet strings attached to all his vital parts. And I don’t see why he would care about delaying a civil war so that someone else gets the blame. IMHO he still thinks it will all work out…and thats a more compelling reason for HIM to stay than the one you gave.
In addition, I think the 'Pubs have every expectation that they will win the next presidential election and probably gain a few more seats in the house (whether they are right or not is a debate in itself), so unless you figure they are planning on keeping the lid on so they can dump it all on the Dems for 11 years I’m not seeing it as a viable strategy either way…if things generally stay as they are today for 11 years (not that I can conceive of us being there even past the end of Bush’s term if there isn’t an improvement) passing the blame to the Dems would be the least of their worries.
-XT
That’s not at all obvious. If the US props up an unviable government for years, they’ll still have their revolution when we leave. If we never leave, we might prop up an unviable government, but we’ll never attain a peaceful Iraq.
And it’s a pretty simple set of alternatives.
In one possibility the USA will stay forever with guns pointed at Iraqis to keep them good.
In the other the USA eventually leaves.
My money is in the USA not propping up an Iraqi government forever. One way or another the impetus will be for us to leave. Personally, I don’t see Iraq as being a happy little state. Ever. Maybe once it disintegrates.
Then it’ll be a whole different set of problems, of course.
-Joe
Persanally I think thats precisely why we should stay because it’s our actions that caused the current climate in the first place. I wish it were without the enevitable loss of lives of our troops. But like it or not it’s our obligation now.
Well, I don’t really feel callously indifferent. I feel sick every time I read the number of soldiers killed and wounded; the Iraqi police blown up by the thousands; the burned and injured children; the ruined businesses and homes; the officials killed for trying to do something about the carnage. I feel it’s hopeless right now. I don’t believe that if a constitution is actually completed that it will ever be successful. Never. There are educated people in the cities, but there are millions in the rural areas who have no idea what the hell a constitution would mean and will fight because of very old, very bitter religious and ethnic differences; and they will continue to fight long after you and I are dead. Democracy is not for every country. Let’s just take one very small aspect: how do you propose to stop women being killed over family honor? Yeh, that fits into the democratic picture. So, we can make ourselves feel good by killing more young men and women, destroying our economy in the process, degrading our way of life and leaving in wake of the war bitter parents, wives and husbands, children who won’t be marching in the fourth of July parades. Yes, we can feel we sacrificed this generation for a good cause. I’m not personally willing to do it. How about a little compassion for the people who are actually living in your neighboorhood, in your town, in your state and country? Old people freezing and dying in New York because they can’t pay their heating bill? Where are these people who want to sacrifice so much for the Iraqi’s and nothing for those around them? Hurling curses and accusations and lying and distorting. How nice that Cindy Sheehan is called a “media whore”. How about that compassion from those brave, good Americans? As I said; the terrorists got more than they ever hoped for. And we are not going to “win” in any way, shape or form for the Iraqi’s or ourselves. Look how well Vietnam did after we cut and ran? Now, there’s an example!
It will certainly be worse for the civilians than it is today, whether we stay or leave. The die is cast for those poor devils, the only difference will be how many more Americans are killed before the Iraqis lurch into the grave we have dug for them.
“Never” is a pretty strong word, lekatt. I guess that means that you don’t think the 2004 election was accurate, too, huh.
And yet you don’t hesitate to quote them when they serve your narrow agenda:
Can we deduce from your statement that this poll is inaccurate, and no one believes in the afterlife or God?
I’m not defending contradancer’s point of view, but I have serious doubts at this juncture that further American military presence in Iraq is capable of bringing about a good outcome for anyone. It would be our moral obligation to stay, if by so doing something positive could come out of it. But let’s face it: Iraq’s borders are a seive. Fresh “insurgents” can pour in from both the East and the West, and we’re powerless to do anything about it without expanding the war beyond Iraq’s borders. The enemy fighters have proven they need little in the way of sophiticated technology, just the endless supply of Kalashnikovs, RPGs, ever-more-clever IEDs, and martyrs, to kill American soldiers by the dozen on a weekly basis, and recruitment is at a critical low.
Without a draft, a decade-long military presence in Iraq at anywhere near our current levels is not a serious possibility, no matter what the Chimp says. Looking at other ME struggles, like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I’m convinced that our methods of warfare cannot succeed. To keep Iraq together requires a brutal authoritarian state, such as Saddam’s Baathist dictatorship, or perhaps an oppressive theocracy such as in Iran. What are the viable alternatives that we can provide that would prevent a civil war later, if not now? Frankly I don’t see it. We have choices between bad and worse, and I’m not even certain which one is which. But it seems to me that, if some sort of partitioning or loose federation is inevitable, fewer people will probably die if we simply extricate ourselves from the situation as soon as possible, and throw our resources behind human relief efforts to help clean up whatever unavoidable mess lies in the near future.
To the OP. The reason we can’t cut and run is because our reputation is at stake. Not in a artificial way, The issue is does the US mean what it says. If it’s no then we will get little international respect. If we stand behind what we promise, the emeny might not like us, but they will respect us, and that’s just what a superpower needs.