Will the Iraqis be Safer if We Leave?

[Annie]

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.

Agreed. We could have done much better and didn't for another 30 years or so. Even now, considering Putin and Saudi Arabia I'd say these kinds of actions are not our forte.

 

[Gunny]

There're a lot of things I haven't liked about our international meddling throughout the years. And it's been done by both Republicans and Dems alike, that's why I get so sick of hearing the "Bush lied" crap.

 

[Annie]

There're a lot of things I haven't liked about our international meddling throughout the years. And it's been done by both Republicans and Dems alike, that's why I get so sick of hearing the "Bush lied" crap.

Agreed. Both have sucked at doing what is right, though I think both thought they were. Whether FDR in WWII or GW last week.

 

[maineman]

RSR has spammed this same Harry Reid question bullshit on three different threads now.

And just like the other two, I will answer him and wait for an intelligent response.

"Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?"

possibly not. I think that when the US pulls out, the sunnis and the shiites will continue their sectarian struggle. I think that will happen if we leave in six months. I think that will happen if we leave in six years. I do not believe that the "government" of Iraq is capable of holding the country together with an army that will quickly devolve into warring sectarian militias the moment we leave.

Iraqis can chose to live in peace, but my guess is that they will not make that choice. That, however, is not our problem. Radical islamic fundamentalism is our problem and our enemy and we need to stop trying to referee a family feud in Iraq and start fighting our real enemy fulltime.

Every day we spend messing around with shiite militias or Iraqi sunni militias is a day we do not put our entire force to bear on our enemy.

 

[Annie]

RSR has spammed this same Harry Reid question bullshit on three different threads now.

And just like the other two, I will answer him and wait for an intelligent response.

"Do you think the Iraqi people will be safer with U.S. troops out?"

possibly not. I think that when the US pulls out, the sunnis and the shiites will continue their sectarian struggle. I think that will happen if we leave in six months. I think that will happen if we leave in six years. I do not believe that the "government" of Iraq is capable of holding the country together with an army that will quickly devolve into warring sectarian militias the moment we leave.

Iraqis can chose to live in peace, but my guess is that they will not make that choice. That, however, is not our problem. Radical islamic fundamentalism is our problem and our enemy and we need to stop trying to referee a family feud in Iraq and start fighting our real enemy fulltime.

Every day we spend messing around with shiite militias or Iraqi sunni militias is a day we do not put our entire force to bear on our enemy.

Funny, I thought you would have joined in the adult conversation.

 

[maineman]

is there something less than adult in my answer to the question posed to Senator Reid, or are you castigating me for merely engaging RSR in any way?

 

[Annie]

is there something less than adult in my answer to the question posed to Senator Reid, or are you castigating me for merely engaging RSR in any way?

How about engaging RSR instead of more recent posts?

 

[maineman]

I just got home from my saturday pilgrimage to the local CSA and read the first post of this thread and responded to it.

I really hate it when someone jumps in on the tail end of a thread and does not address the starting point. I guess you think the opposite.

 

[mattskramer]

Will they be safer if we leave? I am no fortune-teller. I don’t know.
Will they be safer if we stay? I am no fortune-teller. I don’t know.
Will we be safer if we leave? I am no fortune-teller. I don’t know.
Will we be safer if we stay? I am no fortune-teller. I don’t know.

I doubt that we can afford to continue to stay there. Are we to go to other nations and be bodyguards to citizens of other nations too? We killed Saddam. We helped them create a new government. In my opinion, we should move to the borders, isolate Iraq, bring many of our soldiers home – thereby forcing the Iraqi people to take care of themselves, and use the extra resources to improve our own border security and intelligence. We should be more focused on protecting ourselves.

 

[DeadCanDance]

There're a lot of things I haven't liked about our international meddling throughout the years. And it's been done by both Republicans and Dems alike, that's why I get so sick of hearing the "Bush lied" crap.

Why would that bother you? We aren't ruled by kings and demigods. Calling out leaders on their lies is a great american tradition, going back to the founding fathers and their ruler, King George.

Politicians lie. The very fabric of our democratic republic is to call bullshit on our elected leaders when we see it.

I'm not afraid to call Democrats liars. LBJ lied his ass off about the vietnam war. Liberals called him on it. Who do you think was protesting against the war in the streets? Conservative republicans? lol.

Clinton told his share of lies about Iraq. Saddam never kicked out the UN inspectors. Clinton forced them out, and attacked iraq. Fortunately, that wasn't too bad of an infraction- no americans died, and our strategic interests weren't decimated.

 

[Annie]

Why would that bother you? We aren't ruled by kings and demigods. Calling out leaders on their lies is a great american tradition, going back to the founding fathers and their ruler, King George.

Politicians lie. The very fabric of our democratic republic is to call bullshit on our elected leaders when we see it.

I'm not afraid to call Democrats liars. LBJ lied his ass off about the vietnam war. Liberals called him on it. Who do you think was protesting against the war in the streets? Conservative republicans? lol.

Clinton told his share of lies about Iraq. Saddam never kicked out the UN inspectors. Clinton forced them out, and attacked iraq. Fortunately, that wasn't too bad of an infraction- no americans died, and our strategic interests weren't decimated.

Liberals did not call LBJ on it, Republicans, esp. Goldwater did. Your recent history leaves as much to be desired as LBJ's did, way back when.

 

[maineman]

of course liberals called LBJ on it. Why do you think he did not chose to run in '68? It was because the liberal wing of the democratic party hated the war in Nam and Gene McCarthy was gaining momentum.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Liberals did not call LBJ on it, Republicans, esp. Goldwater did. Your recent history leaves as much to be desired as LBJ's did, way back when.

Considering how many times you've been wrong about Iraq, I'm suprised you would chirp in from the peanut gallery about someone's knowledge.

Newsflash: LBJ was an incumbent Democratic president, who decided not to run for the democratic nomination for prez in 1968, because his support was cratering all around the country - including with democrats.

Contrast that with Bush and Iraq. Bush could have, and should have, stepped down in 2004 instead of running for re-election. It was clear by then his management of Iraq was on a par with LBJs management of Vietnam. Yet, republicans stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush, re-electing him. Not even bothering to put him through a primary challenge.

You just told me that we're in Iraq now to establish bases. When I said back in 2004, that was Bush's goal, NeoCon posters said I was a tin foil hat wearing kool aid drinker. I guess I was right all along, huh? You said we're there for bases.


BTW: the most famous congressional challenge to LBJ's vietnam war, was from Democratic senator Fullbright. Who started atacking the need for the war as early as 1966. And as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Fullbright held numerous hearings and real oversight on the Vietnam war - something the republican Senate refused to do with bush when they held the senate.

 

[Annie]

Considering how many times you've been wrong about Iraq, I'm suprised you would chirp in from the peanut gallery about someone's knowledge.

Newsflash: LBJ was an incumbent Democratic president, who decided not to run for the democratic nomination for prez in 1968, because his support was cratering all around the country - including with democrats.

Contrast that with Bush and Iraq. Bush could have, and should have, stepped down in 2004 instead of running for re-election.

Except it was clear for LBJ that he was going to lose. OTOH not so much for GW, which he won.

It was clear by then his management of Iraq was on a par with LBJs management of Vietnam. Yet, republicans stood shoulder to shoulder with Bush, re-electing him. Not even bothering to put him through a primary challenge.

not so. Actually there were and are lots of reasons to think that GW's choices are working. That you disagree doesn't make that fact.

You just told me that we're in Iraq now to establish bases. When I said back in 2004, that was Bush's goal, NeoCon posters said I was a tin foil hat wearing kool aid drinker. I guess I was right all along, huh? You said we're there for bases.

I believe my examples were hypotheticals, but in any case you may have been correct. So?

BTW: the most famous congressional challenge to LBJ's vietnam war, was from Democratic senator Fullbright. Who started atacking the need for the war as early as 1966. And as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Fullbright held numerous hearings and real oversight on the Vietnam war - something the republican Senate refused to do with bush when they held the senate.

Let us not forget that the genocide did not begin with US withdrawal, but rather with the congressional action to agree not to reenter regardless of what happened.

 

[maineman]

are you suggesting that Pol Pot would not have created the killing fields in Cambodia if we had stayed in Vietnam?

that is a stretch.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Except it was clear for LBJ that he was going to lose. OTOH not so much for GW, which he won. not so.

1) Public support for the Vietnam war was about the same in 1968 (the year LBJ stepped down) as support for the Iraq War was in 2004:


” Nearly half say the war in Iraq was a mistake -- a finding similar to the public’s assessment of the Vietnam War as measured by the Gallup Poll in 1968“ (from a 2004 Iraq Poll)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/opinion/polls/main614605.shtml

2) In the most basic, strategic respects, Iraq in 2004 was worse than Vietnam ever was. Maybe not from a tactical battlefield point of view. But, in terms of the overall security and strategic situation:

By the mid-2004, there was virtually nowhere in Iraq outside the green zone (and maybe Kurdistan) where an American could walk unarmed, unescorted, and alone. Not without taking a risk of being abducted, beheaded, or killed. Almost all of Iraq was dangerous for any American civilian, journalist. There’s nowhere for an off duty soldier to go to relax, and enjoy some R&R. The only relatively safe place would be on a base. Which are subject to mortar attacks, nonetheless. As a civilian, or off-duty soldier, you definitely cannot just hop in a car and drive around, or hit a few bars.

Contrast that with Vietnam. An american civilian, journalist, or off-duty solider could walk around Saigon, Da Nang, and numerous other south Vietnamese cities and towns in relative safety. The overall security and threat status to the american civilian or individual american soldier in Vietnam, was nowhere as bad as in Iraq.

Actually there were and are lots of reasons to think that GW's choices are working. That you disagree doesn't make that fact. I believe my examples were hypotheticals, but in any case you may have been correct. So?

So? You don’t mind if Bush did lie about his intent with respect to Iraq? I would be incredulous if you didn’t care. I was called a kook years ago for suggesting bush wanted permanent bases in Iraq. You keep changing your reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. First, WMD, then human rights, then Democracy, then stopping a civil war, then “compassion” for Iraqis, then permanent bases.

There’s a word for someone who keeps moving the goal posts, and changing their argument and reasons: That person is spinning. Desperately grasping around for any reason to justify their failed war. As one reason is flushed down the toilet, they grasp for a new reason. And there’s only one reason someone would be this committed to level of spin, rather than finally see that the blooshed and chaos they caused was unneccessary: that person puts party loyalty over and above loyalty to country.

Please note: The american people want out of your war - the majority of congress wants to start getting out - and the Prime Minister of Iraq says his Army and Police can take over security anytime we want to leave.

So why are we waiting to begin redeploying?

Let us not forget that the genocide did not begin with US withdrawal, but rather with the congressional action to agree not to reenter regardless of what happened.

Its truly amazing that you made that joke about my knowledge.

Newsflash: There was no genocide in Vietnam. Yes, there was repression. People were sent to internment camps. Certainly some political foes of the Hanoi government got executed, I presume. But there was no genocide. You minimize, and do a disservice to the word “genocide” by even suggesting it happened in Vietnam. Its a slap in the face of the victims of true genocides.

Genocide did happen in Cambodia. Newsflash: The US was not involved in the civil war in Cambodia. That happened independently of our conflict in Vietnam.

 

[Annie]

1) Public support for the Vietnam war was about the same in 1968 (the year LBJ stepped down) as support for the Iraq War was in 2004:


” Nearly half say the war in Iraq was a mistake -- a finding similar to the public’s assessment of the Vietnam War as measured by the Gallup Poll in 1968“ (from a 2004 Iraq Poll)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/28/opinion/polls/main614605.shtml

2) In the most basic, strategic respects, Iraq in 2004 was worse than Vietnam ever was. Maybe not from a tactical battlefield point of view. But, in terms of the overall security and strategic situation:

By the mid-2004, there was virtually nowhere in Iraq outside the green zone (and maybe Kurdistan) where an American could walk unarmed, unescorted, and alone. Not without taking a risk of being abducted, beheaded, or killed. Almost all of Iraq was dangerous for any American civilian, journalist. There’s nowhere for an off duty soldier to go to relax, and enjoy some R&R. The only relatively safe place would be on a base. Which are subject to mortar attacks, nonetheless. As a civilian, or off-duty soldier, you definitely cannot just hop in a car and drive around, or hit a few bars.

Contrast that with Vietnam. An american civilian, journalist, or off-duty solider could walk around Saigon, Da Nang, and numerous other south Vietnamese cities and towns in relative safety. The overall security and threat status to the american civilian or individual american soldier in Vietnam, was nowhere as bad as in Iraq.




So? You don’t mind if Bush did lie about his intent with respect to Iraq? I would be incredulous if you didn’t care. I was called a kook years ago for suggesting bush wanted permanent bases in Iraq. You keep changing your reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. First, WMD, then human rights, then Democracy, then stopping a civil war, then “compassion” for Iraqis, then permanent bases.

There’s a word for someone who keeps moving the goal posts, and changing their argument and reasons: That person is spinning. Desperately grasping around for any reason to justify their failed war. As one reason is flushed down the toilet, that grasp for a new reason. And there’s only one reason someone would be this committed to level of spin, rather than finally see that the blooshed and chaos they caused was unneccessary: that person puts party loyalty over and above loyalty to country.

Please note: The american people want out of your war - the majority of congress wants to start getting out - and the Prime Minister of Iraq says his Army and Police can take over security anytime we want to leave.

So why are we waiting to begin redeploying?




Its truly amazing that you made that joke about my knowledge.

Newsflash: There was no genocide in Vietnam. Yes, there was repression. People were sent to internment camps. Certainly some political foes of the Hanoi government got executed, I presume. But there was no genocide. You minimize, and do a disservice to the word “genocide” by even suggesting it happened in Vietnam. Its a slap in the face of the victims of true genocides.

Genocide did happen in Cambodia. Newsflash: The US was not involved in the civil war in Cambodia. That happened independently of our conflict in Vietnam.

Sorry, can't be followed, you might wish to edit and correct.

 

[red states rule]

I just got home from my saturday pilgrimage to the local CSA and read the first post of this thread and responded to it.

I really hate it when someone jumps in on the tail end of a thread and does not address the starting point. I guess you think the opposite.

Or asking you direct questions

 

[red states rule]

are you suggesting that Pol Pot would not have created the killing fields in Cambodia if we had stayed in Vietnam?

that is a stretch.

Liberal logic makes a figure eight look like a straight line