What Happens If We Withdraw?

[Annie]

A reasonable question:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/...media-is-ignoring-consequences-of-withdrawal/

video.

Wow, a upi reporter that 'gets it.' She also says the MSM is ignoring what's going right.

 

[trobinett]

A reasonable question:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/...media-is-ignoring-consequences-of-withdrawal/

video.

Wow, a upi reporter that 'gets it.' She also says the MSM is ignoring what's going right.

Ya know, I've often wondered, why is it so "hip" to close your eyes to the obvious, yet "pull" the party line to the sorrow of the country, and those you say you support.

As the evidence grows, that what we are doing in Iraq, is the "right"course, the left, steadfastly adheres to their doctrine of Bush is wrong, at any cost.

I find it sad, and totally at odds to the national good.

 

[William Joyce]

PAM HESS, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight.

What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

So what's the question? I think the better question is, "How do you define a 'win' in Iraq?"

 

[manu1959]

if we withdraw, we lose the battle .... the war will continue.....

if we do not withdraw ... victory will be defined when the level of terrorist activity is no greater than that which Israel experinces.....however, even then the war will continue.....

the terrorist kill because they can and will never rest.....

 

[trobinett]

PAM HESS, UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL: I think it's gotten caught up about it, and the debate about it is actually all wrong. What reporters know and what Martha says is that 20,000 really isn't that big -- isn't that big a jump. We're at 132,000 right now. It's going to put us even less that we had going in going across the line.

What we're not asking is actually the central question. We're getting distracted by the shiny political knife fight.

What we need to be asking is, what happens if we lose? And no one will answer that question. If we lose, how are we going to mitigate the consequences of this?

It's so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It's on the cover of "The New York Times" today, what this means for the '08 election. But we're not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you're carrying Bush's water. There are national security questions at stake, and we're ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.

So what's the question? I think the better question is, "How do you define a 'win' in Iraq?"

A question that I've asked a number of times, and one the left seems to ignore, and by doing so, puts the nation at risk.

No matter the power of this country, it can't keep losing wars.

Once we pull out, it will be too late to change our minds, I don't see leaving Iraq as an OPTION.

This country needs to be pulling together, not pulling apart.

 

[ErikViking]

This country needs to be pulling together, not pulling apart.

I totally agree.

 

[Avatar4321]

This country needs to be pulling together, not pulling apart.

But sadly we are falling apart. This is exactly why I think we will see another civil war in our lifetime. I don't want it. But if people dont change at a fundamental level in this nation and come together, I think its almost inevitable.

 

[Emmett]

If we pull out we do in a sense lose eventually!

The only thing that kept Iran out of Iraq was Saddam. He is doing the celestial dirt nap now and no longer a factor. I believe if we left, Iran will over a 6 to 8 year period establishment control over Shiite controlled Iraq. The Sunni's will probably suffer a fate much like the Kurds did under Saddam. The will probably "play ball" a little more than Sunni's and be the last sector eliminated by the Shiite's.Either way, Iran will win.

Now, if we were to drop a few bombs on Iran first, then leave, that might (or mnight not) affect that. I like the idea but I don't like the idea of hurting innocents. There is a large % of Iranians that have nothing against Americans at all. It is alot more than we are allowed to think.

Political angle: If we leave now, the lefties basically take credit for the instant positive reaction, on the other hand if properly worked and kept in the news, the dem's will be subjected to the blame when all hell breaks loose and it WILL. Timed right, it could ensure a GOP win in 2008, timed wrong it could result in a DEM blowout in 08. Should be interesting.

I still like the "give em one" idea. This would at least allow Iran to see a side they have never seen. That is our ability to render them absolutely helpless. I think they "might" change their toon a little. I do think their people would be more apt to discourage this juvenile behavior of their leaders (even religious) ones.

If my finger was on the button, they would be glowing. I'm glad it isn't my decision!

 

[Hamiltonian]

If we pull out we do in a sense lose eventually!

The only thing that kept Iran out of Iraq was Saddam. He is doing the celestial dirt nap now and no longer a factor. I believe if we left, Iran will over a 6 to 8 year period establishment control over Shiite controlled Iraq. The Sunni's will probably suffer a fate much like the Kurds did under Saddam. The will probably "play ball" a little more than Sunni's and be the last sector eliminated by the Shiite's.Either way, Iran will win.

Now, if we were to drop a few bombs on Iran first, then leave, that might (or mnight not) affect that. I like the idea but I don't like the idea of hurting innocents. There is a large % of Iranians that have nothing against Americans at all. It is alot more than we are allowed to think.

Political angle: If we leave now, the lefties basically take credit for the instant positive reaction, on the other hand if properly worked and kept in the news, the dem's will be subjected to the blame when all hell breaks loose and it WILL. Timed right, it could ensure a GOP win in 2008, timed wrong it could result in a DEM blowout in 08. Should be interesting.

I still like the "give em one" idea. This would at least allow Iran to see a side they have never seen. That is our ability to render them absolutely helpless. I think they "might" change their toon a little. I do think their people would be more apt to discourage this juvenile behavior of their leaders (even religious) ones.

If my finger was on the button, they would be glowing. I'm glad it isn't my decision!

I don't think that bombing Iran is a good solution. I have been encourage by the recent activity in Iran by the parliament against Ahmadinejad, and the protests in the country. I think that bombing them will galvanize support for the government and against the West, and destroy the political positions of those who are favorable to the West. In essence, I see it as being a big setback as Iranians will conclude that maybe Ahmadinejad's criticisms of the West are not so crazy after all.