What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Will the Iraqis be Safer if We Leave?

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Maybe you will answer the question Harry Reid refused to


Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper


What about the Iraqis?
July 12, 2007 1:50 PM

From today's press conference with the Senate Democratic leaders.

I tried to get an answer to what I blogged earlier today.

I did not succeed.

TAPPER: Senator Reid, what do you say to critics who say, "Look, the Senate voted, including two of you up on the stage, to authorize the president to use force in Iraq. Is there not a moral obligation of the United States to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe before the U.S. withdraws"? It's very clear that withdrawing U.S. troops might make U.S. troops safer, but it won't necessarily make the Iraqi people safer.

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID, D-NEV: As reported in the news this morning, 69 percent of Iraqis feel they are less safe because of the presence of Americans; 21 percent of the Iraqi people feel they're safer. That's pretty clear that American troops who are over there protecting the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds -- they're not welcome. That's the reason that they're doing a good job of protecting the Shias, Kurds and Sunnis, but they are all trying to kill our soldiers. That is a recipe to bring our troops home. And that's why the Levin-Reed amendment is so critically important. Â…It transitions the mission within 120 days, and by the first day of May of next year, our troops will be out of there, our combat troops will be out of there. They will be left to do counterterrorism, training the Iraqis -- continuing to train the Iraqis and protecting our resources. That's what the Iraqi people want and that's what American people want.

TAPPER: I'm sorry, if I could just follow up very quickly...Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?

REID: It is clear that the Iraqi people don't want us there. It is clear that there is now a state of chaos in Iraq. And it is up to the Iraqi people to make themselves safeÂ….We can't do it. It's time the training wheels come off and they take care of their own country. We have spent billions dollars. We're now spending $12 billion a month on Iraq. That's enough. In the last six months of the surge, six months, 600 more dead Americans, $60 billion more of American taxpayers' money. We, Democrats, unitedly believe that's enough.

TAPPER: With all due respect, Senator, you didn't answer my question.

REID: OK. This is not a debate.

TAPPER: Will the Iraqis be safer?

REID: We're answering questions. (calling on someone else) Yes, young man? Anyone else have a question?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/07/what-about-th-1.html
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
"Will the Iraqis be Safer if We Leave?"

March 2007 Poll of Iraqis:


**Question: “Do you support or oppose the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq?

-Strongly Support: 6%
-Somewhat Support: 16%
-Somewhat Oppose: 32%
-Strongly Oppose: 46%


**Question: “Do you think the United States is playing a positive role, or negative role in Iraq right now?”

-Positive: 12%
-Neutral: 11%
-Negative: 77%


**Iraqi Support for Attacks on US Troops

-Half (47%) of all Iraqis say they “approve of attacks on US-led forces”, including 88% of Suni, 41% of Shia, and 16% of Kurds (2006 PIPA poll)


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/poll/2006/01pipa.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Instead of posting a four month old poll - could you answer the question?

Or are you ducking it like Reid did?
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
Instead of posting a four month old poll - could you answer the question?

Or are you ducking it like Reid did?

I'd say it depends on what faction they fall in with, and which faction is winning/doing the most damage.

The Arab-backed Sunni's and Persian-backed Shia are going to continue their little civil war. When and if it's decided, they'll start looking at the kurds. All the quitters have no qualms whatsoever with leaving the latter to the wolves.
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
Instead of posting a four month old poll - could you answer the question?

Or are you ducking it like Reid did?

At this point, I'm not interested in spending billions of dollars and thousands of dead american soliders, on people who overwhelmingly have a negative view of us, and half of whom want us to be killed and attacked in Iraq.

You wanna fight for these people? Go over there and fight for them yourself.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I'd say it depends on what faction they fall in with, and which faction is winning/doing the most damage.

The Arab-backed Sunni's and Persian-backed Shia are going to continue their little civil war. When and if it's decided, they'll start looking at the kurds. All the quitters have no qualms whatsoever with leaving the latter to the wolves.

The Defeatocrats are right in one area. Iraq will be like Viet Nam if they get their surrender wish

The bodies wil be stacked much higher in Iraq then they were in Viet Nam after Amercia left - and Pol Pot started his slaughter
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
At this point, I'm not interested in spending billions of dollars and thousands of dead american soliders, on people who overwhelmingly have a negative view of us, and half of whom want us to be killed and attacked in Iraq.

You wanna fight for these people? Go over there and fight for them yourself.

Been there, done that ... got the t-shirt, medals and sleepless nights.

How is it you liberals can be so damned "compassionate" and concerned over the plight of criminals who enter this country illegally; yet, you'll hang just as many innocents out to dry in Iraq?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Been there, done that ... got the t-shirt, medals and sleepless nights.

How is it you liberals can be so damned "compassionate" and concerned over the plight of criminals who enter this country illegally; yet, you'll hang just as many innocents out to dry in Iraq?

The people of Iraq can't donate money to them or vote for them in elections
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
Been there, done that ... got the t-shirt, medals and sleepless nights.

How is it you liberals can be so damned "compassionate" and concerned over the plight of criminals who enter this country illegally; yet, you'll hang just as many innocents out to dry in Iraq?

I find the "compassion" argument to be wholly unconvincing, and in fact a desperate way to grasp for "justification" for this war.

If it was compassion that was driving us, we'd be babysitting civil wars and genocides in Sudan, The Congo, Sri Lanka, etc.

I see no reason to baby sit a civil war in iraq, spend tens of billions more $$$, and kill more american soliders, in a country where half the people approve of attacks on us, and the overwhelming majority view us negatively.

The Iraqi Prime Minister - their top leader - said yesterday that Coalition forces can "leave anytime", and the Iraqi Army and Police will be able to keep the peace - with logistical support and weapons from us.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I find the "compassion" argument to be wholly unconvincing, and in fact a desperate way to grasp for "justification" for this war.

If it was compassion that was driving us, we'd be babysitting civil wars and genocides in Sudan, The Congo, Sri Lanka, etc.

I see no reason to baby sit a civil war in iraq, spend tens of billions more $$$, and kill more american soliders, in a country where half the people approve of attacks on us, and the overwhelming majority view us negatively.

The Iraqi Prime Minister - their top leader - said yesterday that Coalition forces can "leave anytime", and the Iraqi Army and Police will be able to keep the peace - with logistical support and weapons from us.

OK, skip compassion. Let's look at vital Western interests in the ME. Where better as a base than Iraq? It doesn't matter regarding al Qaeda, they proclaim that anywhere we are on 'Muslim lands' is cause for them. (They also say, which is ignored, that all lands should be Muslim).

So where better? In our interests?
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
OK, skip compassion. Let's look at vital Western interests in the ME. Where better as a base than Iraq? It doesn't matter regarding al Qaeda, they proclaim that anywhere we are on 'Muslim lands' is cause for them. (They also say, which is ignored, that all lands should be Muslim).

So where better? In our interests?

Dissapointing.

This would mean Bush and his supporters lied to us from the very beginning, about disarming and removing saddam's regime, and then leaving the country after they had their own government.


BTW: we've already got bases in the region, in muslim countries that acutally want us in their countries: bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Dissapointing.

This would mean Bush and his supporters lied to us from the very beginning, about disarming and removing saddam's regime, and then leaving the country after they had their own government.


BTW: we've already got bases in the region, in muslim countries that acutally want us in their countries: bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait.

That's not a logical answer. I said put aside compassion. Now you cite where we 'are' which does not remove the said cause of violence.
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
That's not a logical answer. I said put aside compassion. Now you cite where we 'are' which does not remove the said cause of violence.

The iraqis largely, don't like us, and are attacking us, and are using us in a cynical way to baby sit their civil war and to use our troops to take out rival militias. Our very presence is both stupid, and highly inflammatory.

We've never been attacked in kuwait, bahrain, or Qatar. Their citizens overwhelmingly want us there, and are not attacking us. Our presence in those countries is at worst, a minor irritant in the muslim world. They are tiny countries with no where near the religious significance as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
The Defeatocrats are right in one area. Iraq will be like Viet Nam if they get their surrender wish

The bodies wil be stacked much higher in Iraq then they were in Viet Nam after Amercia left - and Pol Pot started his slaughter

UUuuummmm..... you REALLY need to brush up on your talking points history.

Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia had nothing to do with the US involvement in Vietnam.

Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam comprised French Indochina until after WWII and French colonial power was broken. Vietnam and Iraq have more than a couple of similarities.

For one thing, rather than recognize a civil war for what it was, Cold War politics dictated us taking sides against the "Domino Principle" -- the spread of cummunism. In doing so, we backed a ruthless, corrupt regime that was not supported by the people simple because Diehm claimed to be democratic. What he really wanted was to perpetuate the old French Colonial class system where the have's controlled the have not's. Ho Chi Minh's nationalist views, and socialist ideals didn't fit in with that at all.

In Iraq, you have Arab-backed Sunni's fighting for control of Iraq against Persian shia. IMO, the majority of Iraqi's support one or the other of those factions and not the government.

In both instances, we were the ducks sitting between two peoples shooting at one another.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
The iraqis largely, don't like us, and are attacking us, and are using us in a cynical way to baby sit their civil war and to use our troops to take out rival militias. Our very presence is both stupid, and highly inflammatory.

We've never been attacked in kuwait, bahrain, or Qatar. Their citizens overwhelmingly want us there, and are not attacking us. Our presence in those countries is at worst, a minor irritant in the muslim world. They are tiny countries with no where near the religious significance as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Our most serious threats are not in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's those that put us there. That is what you are failing to acknowledge. The US/Western presence you are citing in other Islamic lands is commercial and there have been attacks and threats. Perhaps not by the citizenry, but that's not where the threats are from Iraq either originally.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
UUuuummmm..... you REALLY need to brush up on your talking points history.

Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia had nothing to do with the US involvement in Vietnam.

Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam comprised French Indochina until after WWII and French colonial power was broken. Vietnam and Iraq have more than a couple of similarities.

For one thing, rather than recognize a civil war for what it was, Cold War politics dictated us taking sides against the "Domino Principle" -- the spread of cummunism. In doing so, we backed a ruthless, corrupt regime that was not supported by the people simple because Diehm claimed to be democratic. What he really wanted was to perpetuate the old French Colonial class system where the have's controlled the have not's. Ho Chi Minh's nationalist views, and socialist ideals didn't fit in with that at all.

In Iraq, you have Arab-backed Sunni's fighting for control of Iraq against Persian shia. IMO, the majority of Iraqi's support one or the other of those factions and not the government.

In both instances, we were the ducks sitting between two peoples shooting at one another.

We took over Vietnam from the French, after we really had failed in Korea. The Korean loss along with Vietnam were direct results from our failed China policy during WWII, when we failed to recognize the work Minh did for the Chinese as opposed to Chiang Kai shek who took US dollars but did nothing for the people, whom the Japanese brutalized. Minh realized the necessesity of doing the 'now' and dealing with communist philosophy later.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
I find the "compassion" argument to be wholly unconvincing, and in fact a desperate way to grasp for "justification" for this war.

If it was compassion that was driving us, we'd be babysitting civil wars and genocides in Sudan, The Congo, Sri Lanka, etc.

I see no reason to baby sit a civil war in iraq, spend tens of billions more $$$, and kill more american soliders, in a country where half the people approve of attacks on us, and the overwhelming majority view us negatively.

The Iraqi Prime Minister - their top leader - said yesterday that Coalition forces can "leave anytime", and the Iraqi Army and Police will be able to keep the peace - with logistical support and weapons from us.

First off, before we go any further, you are once again trying to pick a fight on a topic by assuming what I know, think or feel, and it's pretty-much the same general topic.

I find the "selective compassion" argument quite valid, since it is a fact. True compassion is the same for everyone and not based on political stance.

By no means did I make my statement in the context of, nor for the purpose of, justifying a war.

Just so we're clear ... I have stated in every thread on this argument on this board for the past 3 years, I did NOT agree with the decision to invade Iraq. Between Saddam and two or more religious factions fighting for control of some prime ME real estate, I considered Saddam the lesser of two evils.

It distracted us from hunting down terrorists, and I would not unnecessarily open up a second front before achieving victory on the first one.

Had I decided to depose Saddam, I either would have used a much better strategy, or just run him and his government to ground and left.

All of which is irrelevant to the fact that I was not consulted on the matter; therefore, none of my options employed, and we ARE there.

If the Iraq government says they can handle it, then I see no reason for us to be there.

The only real difference between you and I on this topic is you just have a hardon for pointing a finger at Bush; which, IMO is bullshit.
 

DeadCanDance

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
127
Points
48
Our most serious threats are not in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's those that put us there.

I agree that going after al qaeda in afghanistan was justified.

As for going into Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, the USS Cole, the african embassy bombings, etc.:

*CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence, September 2006:

-Conclusion 4: "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq . There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."

-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi

-Conclusion 1: "Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

That is what you are failing to acknowledge. The US/Western presence you are citing in other Islamic lands is commercial and there have been attacks and threats. Perhaps not by the citizenry, but that's not where the threats are from Iraq either originally.

Bush promised he wouldn't stay in iraq. He said he would disarm saddam, let the iraqis elect a government, and then leave. Iraq's PM said they are ready to take over security right NOW if neccessary. I would be severly dissapointed if you are suggesting Bush and his supporters lied for four years: that we did all this to have bases in Iraq.

Staying in iraq is highly inflammatory. Not only to much of the arab world, but to most iraqis themselves. They have established entire insurgent and militia armies to kill us. Some Iraqi police and troops are killing us too. Isn't that nice?

Our presence in the tiny gulf countries of kuwait, bahrain, and qatar is not anywhere close to being that inflammatory. It makes far more sense to maintain bases there. Iraq and Saudi Arabia are large, important arab countries, with huge religious and cultural significance among arabs and other muslims. It just plain stupid to inflame muslims more than neccessary, when we already have bases where we are largely welcome, and do not act as significant magnets for terrorist recruiting.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
We took over Vietnam from the French, after we really had failed in Korea. The Korean loss along with Vietnam were direct results from our failed China policy during WWII, when we failed to recognize the work Minh did for the Chinese as opposed to Chiang Kai shek who took US dollars but did nothing for the people, whom the Japanese brutalized. Minh realized the necessesity of doing the 'now' and dealing with communist philosophy later.

ITA. Minh came to the US for help against the French long before he went to Russia. Another stupid political decision. Rather than support the right person, we had to hold hands with our useless WWII ally that we had to once again give their country back to, just because Minh was a socialist.
 

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I agree that going after al qaeda in afghanistan was justified.

As for going into Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, the USS Cole, the african embassy bombings, etc.:





Bush promised he wouldn't stay in iraq. He said he would disarm saddam, let the iraqis elect a government, and then leave. Iraq's PM said they are ready to take over security right NOW if neccessary. I would be severly dissapointed if you are suggesting Bush and his supporters lied for four years: that we did all this to have bases in Iraq.

Staying in iraq is highly inflammatory. Not only to much of the arab world, but to most iraqis themselves. They have established entire insurgent and militia armies to kill us. Some Iraqi police and troops are killing us too. Isn't that nice? It's not nice, but not unexpected consider they 'deputized' many, for good reason. They killed a few the other day.

Our presence in the tiny gulf countries of kuwait, bahrain, and qatar is not anywhere close to being that inflammatory. It makes far more sense to maintain bases there. No it doesn't. They are less inflammatory there for the simple reason that the jihaddis have gone to Iraq. Pull out of Iraq, they will go here. Al Qaeda made it clear, the 'West' must get out of Islamic countries, notice however there is no 'call' for Islamics to return home? Iraq and Saudi Arabia are large, important arab countries, with huge religious and cultural significance among arabs and other muslims. It just plain stupid to inflame muslims more than neccessary, when we already have bases where we are largely welcome, and do not act as significant magnets for terrorist recruiting.

You're trying to ride the tiger, it won't work.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$295.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top