What would happen if we pulled out of Iraq?

[Poiuyt]

Everyone is saying that we can't just pack up and leave Iraq, that it would be a disaster. My question is why. What are the best guesses as to what would happen and more importantly, how would it affect us here in the United States?

[freetobegay]

1. Would be the start of Peace on earth, goodwill to mankind

eom

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freetobegay]

4. Yes.

Or else I would not have said it.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freetobegay]

12. It's embarrassing to want peace on earth?

What ever happened to make love not war?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freetobegay]

18. I did not say would cause peace on earth.

If you read the post it Say's "Would be the start of Peace on earth" And in one sense our soldier's would not be dying! It's a start!

[sangh0]

31. And what does "the start" of Peace on Earth lead to

if not "Peace on Earth"?

You're grasping here

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sniffa]

5. we'd appease the terrorists

same as if we vote out bush. :eyes:

[damnraddem]

30. Tough! We'd be better off.

As would the world. We CREATED the terrorism in Iraq. We just have to live with the consequences of that.

[greatauntoftriplets]

6. All hell would break loose.

Wait! It already has. Iraq is heading for a civil war with or without us. I say let 'em have a happy.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drumwolf]

8. another reason people don't want to leave Iraq.....

Many people are afraid that if the country descends into complete chaos, it could turn into another Taliban-era Afghanistan, i.e. a haven for international terrorists.

I myself had that fear at one point, but it's becoming increasingly clear that the country is descending into chaos even with us here anyway.

[belle]

51. It's still a consideration, though

and why I think Kerry is right to try and bring in the U.N. rather than just retreat.

that said, if that doesn't work, then i don't really know.

[Reverend_Smitty]

10. Because...

There is no infrastructure or workable government anywhere close to being put in place, which is why the June 30th deadline is such a sham. If we pack up and leave immediately, the whole country will fall into utter chaos and another leader will rise up and will be no better for the people of Iraq than Saddam was. This new person might *actually* fund terrorists that are of a real threat to the US. Thats basically the Readers Digest answer, there is much more that would go into why we can't leave immediately but I would say a new more dangerous leader of Iraq is probably the biggest threat. IMHO

[damnraddem]

33. That would be a fine answer if ...

we were not already making the situation worse every day that we are there. We created the mess -- we broke it. Not only did we invade Saddam's Iraq in the face of international advice that this would be counterproductive, we had already built Saddam up as the monster he was. Yes, a dictatorial regime might come about in Iraq; but at least we need not build it up as the threat that Saddam was by giving it weapons, including WMDs, and urging him on to attack Iran.

And guess what? Iraqis might just develop a better set of outcomes on their own. Yes, they are shell-shocked; they have been depleted by decades of dictatorship, war, and a decade of sanctions; they are split many ways. But they are also the inheritors of the world's oldest civilization, they do have resources, they have shown some genius for organizating (witness the Kurdish areas in the north that had considerable autonomy under the northern no-fly zone), they are uniting to some degree in opposition to us, and they have pride as Iraqis (not just as Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Turkomen, and so on).

[sangh0]

11. Shiites would fight with Sunnis which would lead to regional instability

Saudi Arabia would fall, leaving the two largest sources of oil out of the picture. The economies of nations around the world would fail, leading to instability all over the world.

But those who call for an immediate pull out will NOT discuss this.

[damnraddem]

34. Could be.

If so, it's because we caused the situation. Too bad for us.

[sangh0]

53. Wrong. It's "too bad on everyone"

I do believe I mentioned global instability.

[IrateCitizen]

37. And we're currently increasing stability in the region?

If Saudi Arabia falls, it will be more because of what the US has done to Iraq than what Iraqis are doing to Iraq. The Saudi regime is seen as totally corrupt by Saudis.

Your point on oil is well-taken, but I still fail to see how the US maintaining a military presence in a region that, by-and-large does NOT want us there would exactly help maintain stability in this regard.

The whole situation is a big shit sandwich. I've been a proponent of removing an overwhelming number of military personnel and instead focusing on getting the Iraqis the resources THEY need to rebuild their society, while utilizing the UN in setting up a provisional government. But the time for this kind of solution is rapidly ticking away.

What, exactly, do you propose to help stave off the seemingly inevitable bloodbath?

[sangh0]

54. No

You can talk as much as you like about how we're to blame, and you won't hear one word of disagreement from me. However, I'm more concerned with how to fix the future, than on who to blame for the past.

As far as the US maintaining a military presence, I also don't see that as helping to maintain stability. I want to see the US there for only as long as it takes for the UN to deploy there, and I want the UN in there PRONTO.

What, exactly, do you propose to help stave off the seemingly inevitable bloodbath?

The UN, with a large contribution of manpower from it's Muslim members, paid for by the US. Starting yesterday.

[IrateCitizen]

73. And the inevitable question is...

... what if the UN doesn't agree to go in? What if the US remains so insistent on maintaining control of the process that the UN will not commit international peacekeepers to the region?

France actually has troops that are specially trained in peacekeeping duties who would be ideal for the current situation in Iraq. But do you honestly think that, given the ongoing deterioration of relations between the US and France (or the US and EU, for that matter), that the French will be quick to jump in and take this on?

What do we do in that case? I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, as it is a rough summary of what I have proposed in detail many times on these boards. I'm just pointing out the possible contingencies that might make it difficult to implement, in hopes of stimulating exchange over further options.

[sangh0]

77. Good point

what if the UN doesn't agree to go in? What if the US remains so insistent on maintaining control of the process that the UN will not commit international peacekeepers to the region?

Personally, I think the UN would go in just so long as the US is willing to cede authority to the UN. Under Bush*, I don't think that will happen. Kerry has already made doing so his official stated policy.

And to be clear, I'm not presenting this as a sure-fire solution. As You point out, there are many potential roadblocks here. Basically, it's the plan (or something like it) with the brightest prospects for success. IMO, we can either pursue a risky path such as this one, or we can wait for the perfect solution to show up. I don't think we have the luxury of waiting around. Unfortunately, we may have to wait until Jan 21, 2005.

[IrateCitizen]

78. Yeah, and that's a huge problem

I don't think we have the luxury of waiting around. Unfortunately, we may have to wait until Jan 21, 2005.

And my greatest fear is that the situation there will deteriorate into such violence by that time as to make a positive solution untenable.

[sangh0]

82. me too, IC

me too

[damnraddem]

43. Won't discuss it?

How about this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x488140? This is the safe, secure Saudi Arabia as it is now. And where did OBL and most of the 911 hijackers come from? Hey, we already have instability all over the world; and we caused a good deal of it. No not all; but the Bushistas have really added to the instability that was there. And they continue to make it worse every day.

[sangh0]

55. Why don't you go first?

So far, all I've seen you do is discuss who is to blame. I haven't seen anything from you about what might happen should we pull out immediately.

[dpibel]

65. At the risk of injecting fact into a perfectly good opinion-fest

I posted this as a thread which generated slightly more than zero interest. Seems to fit right about here.



Periodically, heated debate breaks out hereabouts over whether the US can/should withdraw its troops from Iraq forthwith. The two sides generally break out as (1) We can't withdraw, because there will be a horrible bloodbath as the Shiites set upon the Sunnis vs. (2) They are ravening after one another anyway, they always have, we can't change it, so let's get out of there and get the bloodbath over sooner rather than later. This is, of course, an oversimplification, but I think it fairly represents the majority of contending opinion.

It seems odd to me that the underlying premise never gets a second look. It's just received wisdom that the Shiites have always hated the Sunnis, and vice versa, from time immemorial.

Where did that information come from? To my mind, "Everybody knows" just doesn't get it.

The closest thing I've been able to find to an example of sectarian violence is the Shiite uprising in 1991. But that really wasn't a religious war. It was an oppressed group trying to overthrow an oppressor, not an issue of religion, because Saddam Hussein was a staunch secularist who, at most, identified as Sunni as a matter of culture, rather than a matter of religious devotion. In other words, that was more a matter of political power than religious affiliation.

I'm aware of no discussion of this issue in the mainstream media; it's the same story there as here: Start with the assumption of a sectarian bloodbath, and take it from there.

Perhaps it would be useful for those who argue that the US must stay to prevent the streets of Iraq from running red with blood as the Shiites slay the Sunnis to look at this:

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1829.cfm

The Next Lebanon?

Peter C. Valenti
World Press Review contributing editor
April 1, 2004

Arab writers, though alarmed by the March 2 bombings that killed more than 200 Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad and Karbala on the Shiite holiday of Ashura, are also generally suspicious of what they see as a U.S. government and media campaign that depicts the Iraqi situation solely through the lens of possible sectarian conflict. Many Arab writers fear that warnings about an Iraqi civil war along sectarian lines lends further justification for the occupation.

. . .

Others have tackled U.S. assumptions that these attacks are indicative of violent sectarian schisms between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites and that these attacks would lead Shiites to retaliate against their Sunni neighbors. In his March 11 op-ed for London’s pan-Arab Al-Hayat, an exasperated Muhammad Sadiq al-Husseini asked: “Why don’t we hear about the myriad visits that Sunni religious leaders made to Najaf, Karbala, and the holy sites of Shiites? Why don’t we hear about Shiite leaders who raise their voices in the face of occupation and loudly say, “We are with the people of Fallujah?’ ”

As a matter of fact, Sa‘d bin Tiflah argued in the March 6 Asharq al-Awsat, Iraqi history has been witness to relatively stable relations between the two religious communities, and neither wants to see this record of cooperation ruined. Both Shiites and Sunnis realize the attacks are intended to cause fitna, or civil strife, which Islam specifically encourages believers to prevent. Bin Tiflah declared that “those forces of oppression …are unable to remain and thrive in Iraq…except in circumstances of an outbreak of fitna.”

. . .

The ultimate reason for Shiite restraint, explained Ala Muhammad al-Muttarid in his March 18 op-ed for Iraq’s Azzaman, is the sage leadership of religious leaders and the nature of Iraqi society. Al-Muttarid pointed out that tribal affiliation is a major part of Iraqi identity, and sectarian diversity exists within the tribes themselves, as some contain both Shiite and Sunni members. According to Al-Muttarid, many families have both Shiite and Sunni members. Al-Muttarid opined that in any outbreak of civil strife, despite all the sectarian media hype to the contrary, Iraqis would be more apt to line up along tribal and familial affiliation than sectarian lines.

(end quotation)

This article is a collection of current commentary from various sources in the Arab press, including a newspaper in Britain.

For those who believe that such sources are inherently suspect (although I have a hard time understanding the naughty goal that might be represented were these articles intentionally misleading--unless, I guess, the authors intend to lull the US into a false sense of security so the bloodletting can begin), I would commend to you the following:

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iqtoc.html#iq0020

This is a Library of Congress resource entitled, "Iraq - a Country Study." It is an exhaustive, albeit sadly somewhat out of date (most entries current only as of 1988), account of the history of Iraq. The site creates temporary files for subsections, so I can't bookmark particular chapters, but I'd particularly recommend the post-Ottoman sections in Chapter 1, and the section of Chapter 2 called "Sunni-Shia Relations in Iraq."

I have looked for a history of sectarian violence in this Library of Congress study, and have found none in the 20th century (note that the limiting language is not to hide earlier sectarian violence; it's just that I haven't looked at the earlier history, so I don't know). There's considerable history of jockeying for political power and the tensions attendant on that, but no history I could find of sectarian violence.

Indeed, the "Sunni-Shia Relations in Iraq" section says, among other things:

(begin quotation)

Nonetheless, the theory of sectarian strife was undercut by the behavior of Iraq's Shia community during Iran's 1982 invasion and the fighting thereafter. Although about three-quarters of the lower ranks of the army were Shias, as of early 1988, no general insurrection of Iraq; Shias had occurred.

Even in periods of major setback for the Iraqi army--such as the Al Faw debacle in 1986--the Shias have continued staunchly to defend their nation and the Baath regime. They have done so despite intense propaganda barrages mounted by the Iranians, calling on them to join the Islamic revolution.

It appears, then, that, however important sectarian affiliation may have been in the past, in the latter 1980s nationalism was the basic determiner of loyalty. In the case of Iraq's Shias, it should be noted that they are Arabs, not Persians, and that they have been the traditional enemies of the Persians for centuries. The Iraqi government has skillfully exploited this age-old enmity in its propaganda, publicizing the war as part of the ancient struggle between the Arab and Persian empires. For example, Baathist publicists regularly call the war a modern day "Qadisiyah." Qadisiyah was the battle in A.D.637 in which the Arabs defeated the pagan hosts of Persia, enabling Islam to spread to the East.

(end quotation)

Obviously, I cannot state whether a sectarian bloodbath would ensue upon the US departure from Iraq. Perhaps it would. But it seems to me that statements of the inevitability of such a thing fly in the face of both history and current opinion in the Arab press.

It at least seems to me worthwhile to examine the source of one's certainty when one is making arguments for or against continued occupation based on the absolute knowledge that carnage is inevitable.

[LunaC]

66. Good Point!

"The fighting Iraqi factions" may very well be a propaganda myth that we're all too quick to swallow. Definitely worth further consideration.........

[sangh0]

79. Thank you for that

However, in evaluating the odds that Iraq would erupt into a sectarian civil war, it's important to look beyond the history of the specific nation being examined, and look for other historical situations that are analagous to the one being studied.

I would pick Yugoslavia, a nation that, under Tito, had not experienced any sectarian strife (either religious or ethnic) in many decades. However, after Tito (like Saddam, a secular authoritarian who actively repressed his people) sectarian strife broke out leading to ethnic cleansing.

Like you, I cannot conclusively state whether or not there would be a sectarian bloodbath should we pull out from Iraq. However, in examining the possibility, I think one should look at more than the history of Iraq.

[dpibel]

85. I'm not at all sure why

"In evaluating the probable American reaction to a terrorist attack, it is important to look beyond American history. I choose Britain, which has a recent history of high-profile terrorism."

Why would it be more important to look for an analog, when you can look at the history of the particular people, their particular cultural background?

If you decided to predict American behavior based on British behavior, you'd have got the reaction to terrorism all wrong. If you looked at American history, you'd have had no problem accurately predicting that dropping bombs would be the most likely reaction.

I question your analogy to Yugoslavia: The various chunks of territory that were cobbled together into Yugoslavia were, quite recently, actual countries, with histories as separate entities. I submit that the strife in that area had as much to do with reasserting nationalism as with anything else.

If you read both of the sources I provided, there's still no indication that Iraq will inevitably, or even more likely than not, follow the course of Yugoslavia. The recent past of Iraq indicates that there is a national identity between Shiites and Sunnis that supersedes sectarian identity.

You seem to be making the argument that countries which suffered under authoritarian regimes inevitably follow a certain course. But all of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was under some form of totalitarian rule for 50 years or so. The minority of those countries erupted in violence--sectarian or otherwise--after the fall of the USSR.

To say "strongman here, strongman there" proves little to me. The issue is what the history of the people is, and Iraq, as near as I can tell, has no history of vicious Sunni/Shiite conflict.

[sangh0]

86. Here's why

Because if you only look at the one nation, you will be in danger of not paying attention to important factors (such as the role an authoritarian leader plays in repressing sectarian hostilities, and what happens when the leader is no longer in power) merely because they have not yet had a chance to play out in the nation being studied.

And I didn't say it's "more important" to look at other nations. I said "it is important to look beyond...."

I question your analogy to Yugoslavia: The various chunks of territory that were cobbled together into Yugoslavia were, quite recently, actual countries, with histories as separate entities. I submit that the strife in that area had as much to do with reasserting nationalism as with anything else.

Which is exactly why you ought to examine the history of other nations. In some ways, they are different, and in others, they are the same. It's for each of us to decide how important those similarities and differences are, but you can't even make that decision if you don't even consider the history.

If you read both of the sources I provided, there's still no indication that Iraq will inevitably, or even more likely than not, follow the course of Yugoslavia. The recent past of Iraq indicates that there is a national identity between Shiites and Sunnis that supersedes sectarian identity.

Which is why I would not do any more than raise the possibility that things would play out the same way in Iraq. There are arguments to be made on either side of this question.

To say "strongman here, strongman there" proves little to me. The issue is what the history of the people is, and Iraq, as near as I can tell, has no history of vicious Sunni/Shiite conflict.

Then you haven't gone back far enough in Iraqi history. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember some pitched battles between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and they happened right in Iraq, which is where the split first occurred, if I'm not mistaken. I'm talking about a time long before Iraq existed as a nation.

[hedgetrimmer]

63. Hypothetics... the chances of that happening without the

U.S. government being involved is at what percent?

Leave the fucking people alone... this is not liberation, this is not peace... stop raping our children's coffers and killing mass amounts of people while raking havoc upon our environment... the multi face cost of war far exceeds the the pretty little hypothetic you toss out... "Bring it on!"

[sangh0]

80. So you're willing to risk innocent Iraqi lives?

How noble of you.

[hedgetrimmer]

88. They're being risked right now. That is not hypothetical.

[seabeyond]

13. besides women losing fundamental rights

that they are use to in their education and freedom they have had .........

the greatest i see is a civil war between shite/sunni against kurds. and there will probably be mass exodist from northan iraq to turkey, and then turkey army would have to crack down on border, so could be mass killing of kurd that have been abused, well hey always

those are just a couple easy ones, not going into so many more created

[IrateCitizen]

14. I used to think that it would degenerate into civil war...

Now, given the alliance between the Sunnis and Shias against our forces there, I'm not entirely certain. Furthermore, how could it possibly be any WORSE than things are right now.

Recent actions by the US occupation authorities in Iraq have undermined any perception that we are there for the good of Iraq. That damage to our standing is something that cannot be undone -- rather, dissatisfaction and hatred will only grow the longer that we stay.

[Reverend_Smitty]

17. Thats a good point

when a year of occupaion by the US causes two arch enemies (Sunnis and Shias) to join forces to oppose us, you know someone F'ed up pretty badly...I'm looking at you Mr. Bush...

[seabeyond]

21. what about the kurds in the north

?

[IrateCitizen]

26. The Kurds in the North have been autonomous for over 10 years

They would most likely remain that way, as there would be no strong central power under which to unify them with the rest of the country formerly known as Iraq.

Of course, the whole bogeyman in this equation is Turkey. The last thing they want is an independent Kurdistan on their Southern border, given their history of ethnic cleansing against their own Kurdish population.

[sangh0]

32. And the USSR united the Afghan factions and tribes

but as soon as the USSR withdrew, guess what happened?

Civil War

[IrateCitizen]

35. And this has what exactly to do with the Kurds being autonomous...

... for the past 10+ years?

[sangh0]

56. The Northern Alliance was also fairly autonomous too

The point is that when faced with a foreign presence, people who are normally enemies often put their differences aside to unite and fight against the foreigners. Then, once the foreigners are expelled, they return to fighting amongst each other.

[IrateCitizen]

72. So basically, you're acknowledging that they'll fight either way...

I'm not discounting your post above regarding UN involvement and such, I'm just asking exactly how we go about STOPPING the fighting. Can we stop it? Can anyone?

What concerns me is that we are rapidly passing the point at which we might be able to help facilitate some kind of real stability in Iraq by the Iraqi people. The more that violence is incited and carried out, the harder it becomes to pull back from the cycle of violence for all parties involved.

[seabeyond]

75. basic human ness

iraqi's rightly dont trust bush and are angry

the military has turned iraqi's to animals

lack of respect and honor and honesty the last year has absolutely created what you talk i agree

a mess. bush really bad poor horrible leadership

[sangh0]

81. re: "Can we stop it?"

I can't answer that question with certainty. The best I can do is indicate what I think is the most promising path. I have no sure-fire solutions. In situations like this, I think we have an obligation to do what we can.

What concerns me is that we are rapidly passing the point at which we might be able to help facilitate some kind of real stability in Iraq by the Iraqi people

I have the exact same concern. There may come a time when nothing will work. In fact, I suspect that Bush* wants that.

[seabeyond]

61. they were autonomous cause u.s.

was bombing and making sure saddam understood the northern line he wasnt allowed to go into. saddam isnt there to keep his people out of there. are we going to continue to protect the new kurdistan when we pull out the rest of the country. and who is going to keep the oil there. think the sunni's and shiite are going to let them have it. and as i said above, turkey isnt going to like a mass exit when there is war, and they arent going to like the kurd nation cause they are concerned their own kurds will demand it

[IrateCitizen]

71. Capital letters and good grammar are your friends...

I acknowledged the situation with Turkey in the above post. Sadly, that seems to be the only part of your post that is grounded in the realities of the region.

You said, "saddam isnt there to keep his people out of there. are we going to continue to protect the new kurdistan when we pull out the rest of the country."

"His people"??? This premise makes your argument completely fall apart. There is no centralized power in Iraq right now. However, in Kurdistan, there IS a centralized government, and has been for quite some time. There is nothing to unify the Sunnis into an invasion of Kurdistan right now, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. The Kurds, with their existing centralized political organization, are better equipped to deal with a civil war between the various ethinic factions of Iraq than either the Sunnis or Shias.

However, if you're worried about civil war in Kurdistan, there IS the possibility that it WILL break out -- between the two competing political organizations in the region as the result of a power struggle turning bloody.

You said, "and who is going to keep the oil there. think the sunni's and shiite are going to let them have it."

Do you really think that they're going to go in and take it from them? See my point above.

[seabeyond]

76. the kurds is a wonderful example for the rest of iraq

and i listened to citizens talking about embracing the kurds and what they accomplished, working up to invasion and at the beginning of restructure. i heard people in baghdad looking admirably at the kurds.

most recently in iraq i have heard that kurds participated in battle at fallujah with u.s. the voices in baghdad dont see that as a good thing. they express worry for kurds participation

never have i heard anyone speak that the kurds could defend themselves against the rest of iraq. except you, lol. it has been constant that they would be in danger

so do i know what ability they have to protect themselves, i dont know. if so, that would be the coolest and one less issue for me in walking out of the country.

i do know trukey has issue and wont allow. maybe something can be worked out there. turkey isnt shy about saying they would invade that area if we created a kurdistan.

personally i am a believer changing administration will create a shift. and the people of iraq are hungry to bring a stop to all this. get our installed government out, give them the jobs and fire halliburtan, and bring the religious leaders together and let them decide, not us.

it has to be iraq doing

[ConcernedCanuk]

16. personally, I think Iraqis would then WELCOME other countries

.
.
.

to assist them.

sort of their version of ABB.

Lets face it, hatred for the USA increases every day they remain there

and for every Iraqi they kill,

which now stands over 17,000

more enemies (insurgents) are created.

Since when did killing people make friends.

IF the USA had been able to "kill the bad guys" without killing so many innocent people, they may have had a chance.

But the USA decided that "collateral damage' was OK.

The Iraqis disagree.

ABB for America

ABB for Iraq.

JMHO

[Reverend_Smitty]

19. How about

A UN peacekeeping force...that way nobody is occupying Iraq unilaterally.

[ConcernedCanuk]

23. If they'd done that a year ago alot more Americans and Iraqis would

.
.
.

still be alive.

But yes, that would be an improvement,

but the USA is DETERMINED not to get out

and let's face it, the USA has the guns.

(sigh)

[wasichu]

20. americans would stop dying for a lie

also Iraqi civilians would stop being killed and raped.

[CabalBuster]

22. Iraq will be truly free and will prosper

Contrary to what the Bush admin states and which Kerry constantly echoes, the Shiites and Sunnies, et. al., will not engage in civil war against each other. They will find the way to compromise and live in peaceful manner as the violent legacy of the U.S. occupation will act as a powerful deterrent. The myth that a civil war in Iraq will be imminent if the U.S. leaves, only serve as an excuse to those who don't want to give up geopolitical control of the region (Bush and Kerry). Kucinich has said it plainly before, the UN can play a role in easing the transition and allowing the Iraqis the right to govern their own nation, free from foreign interference. As I am anti-imperialist, this positive vision does not seem so far fetched.

[robertpaulsen]

24. The entire Middle East would tumble like a stack of dominoes.

If Iraq falls, then Jordan would fall, Egypt would fall, every country would be at the mercy of the terrorists. The commu... excuse me, terrorists are part of an international conspiracy to take over the world. That is why we must stay the course and pacify the region.

Sarcasm with a side order of disdain, please.

[damnraddem]

38. Yeah, just like happened after we were booted out of Vietnam.

Yeah, the domino theory really worked, didn't it? Yeah, China took over all of Indochina, hten Indonesia, then India -- right?

Let's see, Cambodia and Laos 'fell,' with the killing fields in Cambodia. Of course, there had been no prospect of that before Nixon involved them. Yeah, our military intervention paved the way for Pol Pot's regime. But it went no further than that even within Indochine. Within a few years, Vietnam invaded Cambodia, in response to attacks from Cambodia, and ended Pol Pot's genocide against his own people. China invaded Viet Nam. Border wars flared for a while; then the region settled down. Thailand was secure throughout, at least from Communist threat.

You quote domino theory at me and I yell all the louder: 'bring them home now!'

[robertpaulsen]

48. Thus the sarcasm with a side order of disdain, please.

Disdain for Bush for spending Vietnam in a dentist's office in Alabama. Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat it.

Oh well. As Richard Pryor said, "Fuck em if they can't take a joke, and joke em if they can't take a fuck!"

[KansDem]

25. We've heard this crap before...

Vietnam

Why is it that we get sucked into a regional conflict only to have the "we can't pull out now, the ____ (insert name of "enemy of the US/democracy/freedom" here) will take over!" crowd chanting the need to stay, after it's obvious the whole situation is a big-time f**k up?

Sure. We'll stay because "we can't pull out now!" And how many more American soldiers and Iraqi citizens will die???

We've seen this all before. This time, millions of people in the US and around the world tried to tell the Bushistas it wouldn't work. But they HAD to take out Saddam because of 9/11 (???) and now we're in a quagmire.

[damnraddem]

39. Dubya's exit strategy from Iraq:

helicopters from the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Hello, KansDem. Where are you in Kans? I'm in Wichita.

[noonwitch]

27. The Shiites and Sunnis will continue to slaughter each other

We can leave, but we have to get a mult-national force together, preferably one with more arab countries represented. This is where Bush is failing-he should have sought a better diplomatic relationship with Syria, and they would be our ally (like in the Gulf War) instead of our enemy.

[eridani]

60. Right at the moment they are united

against American occupation.

[sangha]

62. The Afghan tribes were also united against the USSR occupation

but once the USSR left, Afghanistan went through 25 years of civil war.

[Dark]

28. If we pull out, there is one thing for certain:

there would be no central government. I hate seeing casualties, but we created this mess, and its our responsibility to clean it up. We should, however, bring in the UN. Some say that the UN, because of the scandal, could not work. I say two things to these people:

1) How come the UN can't be involved successfully if they had an oil scandal with Iraq, but Halliburton can?

2) How could they make it worse?

Pulling out will leave no central authority. There WOULD be a civil war in Iraq just as there has been in every other country whose federal government fell. Warlords would spring up and try to take over the country, causing even more death.

Going in was a big mistake. Pulling out now would be an even bigger one.

[damnraddem]

40. I understand the 'we must clean up the mess we made' argument.

But WE CANNOT CLEAN IT UP. We are not trusted. An American tank in the streets of Iraq runs directly over the heart of every Iraqi. Going in was a big mistake; staying in would be a massively bigger one. We SHOULD learn the lessons of Vietnam.

Deja vu all over again -- I was active in the movement against the Vietnam War, and again against US involvement in Central America, and here it all is again.

[damnraddem]

29. A number of things:

1) We would no longer be making the situation worse by the presence of our troops.
2) We could return to improving our international diplomacy, rebuilding our military that the Bushistas have deteriorated, and so on.
3) Iraq might collapse into chaos with active fighting -- just like now.
4) A dictator or dictatorial regime might take over -- just like before.
5) The UN or some other international body might step in and help clean up the mess we've created.
6) We might have trouble extracting the last of our troops -- unlikely, given the respecting of white flags when our troops retreated last week.
7) We might be hated for our invasion and the damage we did and deaths we caused in consequence and since -- we deserve it.
8) We might be perceived as weak, as unable to stay the course, as 'paper tigers,' for giving up rather than staying the course -- too bad, we've earned it, and in any case it's better than being perceived as the unthinking thugs that we have been.
9) We might be respected for finally terminating an idiotic policy and, hopefully, for partially atoning by contributing resources and diplomatic effort to the rebuilding of Iraq.
10) We would have our troops out, and our young people would no longer be dying in Iraq for Dubya's lies and Bushista greed and will to power.
11) As a country, we could try to get a life.

[kiahzero]

36. Civil war.

Which would lead to regional instability, leading to:

Easy bases for terrorists (national security threat).
Higher oil prices (economic instability).

[damnraddem]

41. In other words:

it wouldn't change a thing from the situation as it is now -- except that young Americans would no longer be dying, and killing, in Iraq.

[kiahzero]

45. No, it would make things much much worse

Not only that, but there'd be almost no hope of eventually having a democratic Iraq.

I'm of the mind that we should try and make the best of the situation Bush has put us in.

[RapidCreek]

69. Frankly...who cares?

You have to crawl before you can walk. No one can make you walk...that is a decision which is yours alone to make. Then again our occupation ain't about insuring a democratic Iraq. It's about setting up wide open markets for American and British carpet baggers, while keeping a strangle hold on Iraqi's, who rightfully find such shit truly offensive. The simple fact that we have not hung Ahmed Chalabi from a lamp post is proof positive of that. Jesus H. Christ WE are still inflicting this felonious, treasonous, lying piece of shit on the citizenry of Iraq. WHY? It is not a civil war which concerns the powers that be...it's destruction of the intentionally engineered carpet bagging governmental facade which can't be allowed. Let's face it...if Sunnis and Shiites are going to murder each other it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if US troops are present or not. They will do what they will do. There is NOTHING we can do about it...or the UN can do about it or anyone but Iraqi's can do about it. It's quite simple really....the longer other countries fuck around in Iraq, the more soldiers from those countries will die and the more Iraqi's will die AT THEIR HAND....and that folks, is the problem. The more Iraqi's that die at the hands of soldiers from other nations the more Iraqi hostility will be propagated against those nations. The more Iraqi hostility which is propagated the more attractive an answer terrorism becomes....

Why is it, that Americans assume everyone wants to live in a Democracy? If everyone wanted to live in a Democracy then everyone would. Before Democracy can be even remotely considered as a governmental foundation for a nation, it's citizenry must first embrace and promote their respective individuality. Democracy cannot be had in a nation comprised of tribes, religious factions which seek to exact political power over other religious factions, or behind a gaily painted facade hiding a corporate run fascist regime which insures it's success through militarism. All three of these things are alive and well in Iraq...and until they are absent Democracy shall be a mirage. All the soldiers, guns, bombs and bullets in the world can't change this simple fact. I find it rather odd that this escapes most americans....particularily those who habitate this board. Has it occurred to any of you that Iraqi Sunni's and Shiites may not be as ignorant as you think they are? Indeed...maybe they have decided that they WOULD like to live in a Democracy. You see they are working together...which clearly indicates their willingness to dispense with the desire to dominate each other. In other words they have come to appreciate each others individuality and they are demonstrating a common goal...to destroy the biggest impediment to establishment of a TRUE Democracy....that being the gaily painted facade hiding the corporate run fascist regime which AMERICA is attempting to impose upon the citizens of Iraq. What would serve Americas interest more, Iraqi religious factions fighting with one another or religious factions acting in concert to achieve self determination? Americas answer to that is rather clear....the nationalism of Iraqis must be stamped out with prejudice. They must be assimilated. They must understand that resistance is futile.

I get a real charge out of those who attempt to compare Iraq with Afghanistan. How idiotic. It's on the order of comparing the United States with Panama. Iraq was, before we rent it asunder, the most highly developed, well educated nation in the middle east. The people who created that nation are still there....and I would suspect fully capable of making it what it once was. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan. Anyone with a 9th grade education should be able to make that distinction.

It is not a sign of weakness to leave Iraq to its own devices....It is a demonstration of our confidence in the appeal of Democracy and in the Iraqi citizenry to create one of their own. Staying in Iraq...in any capacity, is the sign of weakness. It shall lead to the demise of any interest Iraqi's have in a Democratic form of governance. Attempting to impose Democracy on a nation negates the very precepts which define it. It's sad those who live in one have forgotten this simple fact or so aggressively seek to deny it.

RC

[Zorra]

42. One thing is for sure:

If there were no Americans in Iraq, then no Americans would be killed or wounded in Iraq.

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, this would make me very, very happy.

[damnraddem]

49. Here's a plan for President Kerry next February: surrender.

Sue for peace in Iraq. Offer a conditional surrender: with conditions that American troops, other Americans, and Iraqi toadies, and anyone else who wishes be allowed to leave the country.

The issue for June 30, 2004 is to whom the Bushistas would surrender sovereignty. That is unlikely to be resolved. But what about a U.S. surrender? Might that not draw Iraqis together to create an entity to which the U.S. could surrender?

Oh, yes, I know that no U.S. politician could be so honest about the likely outcome in Iraq -- even the Fall of Saigon was 'the Fall,' not 'the Surrender.' But it's nice to fantasize now and then about being honest about what is taking place in international affairs. Dubya has set the US up for a big fall in Iraq; I'd like that fall to be called by a worthy name.

[Zorra]

58. Heck, since Bu$h was not elected,

he does not represent the people of the US in the first place. It was his decision to attack Iraq. We can cut and run honorably after Bu$h is deposed. We don't need to surrender, we just need call for a truce, and leave Iraq.

We can apologize to the Iraqis and tell them that our government was hijacked by a dishonest, evil, and insane dictator and his handpicked psychopathic fascist thugs, who arbitrarily decided to attack Iraq for no justifiable reason and without the consent of the majority of the American people.

[Disturbed]

44. Leaders in Iraq?

The only two I can think of at this time are al Sistani and al Sadr.
Seems to me that al Sistani is more moderate and the best choice for the interim leader. If he included al Sadr as a party leader and a prominant Sunni or Kurdish leader as VP and have a Parlimentary style Govt. such as the UK and Canada perhaps civil war could be avoided. In 90 days Bushco is determined to turn over some power to Iraq. If Sistani can manage to pull an interim govt together and the US draws down it's troops and abonandons the idea of 14 Military bases in Iraq this might work.

[damnraddem]

50. The UN is calling for an outcome like this, ...

without naming names.

[0rganism]

46. It would hasten the inevitable civil war

They'll have it eventually. We guaranteed it by toppling Saddam.

Right now, the Sunnis and Shi'ites have our soldiers to fight, and the Turks don't want to invade Northern Iraq. Once we leave, which will happen someday, they will go back to fighting one-another.

'Course, the lack of stable central government will pave the way for all kinds of crazy shit, but stable central governments don't get established by foreign occupation, either.

[CabalBuster]

47. Civil war, more terrorists, blah, blah, blah, the Neocon mantra

It's amazing how many DUers really believe this piece of crap.

[belle]

52. You think it'll all be roses if we leave right now??

Just because the neocons created this mess and in denial about how bad it is *now* doesn't mean they aren't correct about how bad it will be if we leave it as is.

[Pastiche423]

57. Saddam would have eventually died

Most likely sooner rather that later since he has cancer.

Whether he died or we invaded, the outcome would have been the same - there will be or won't be a civil war.

I am of the opinion that the civil war fear is simply the occupiers' excuse for staying and reaping the spoils of war.

I am also of the opinion, that neither whistle ass or Kerry will do the right thing.

* Saddam has been captured
* There were no WMD

There has to be an excuse as to why the fuck we are still there. Bringing democracy was and still is bullshit, which is being proven every day. And w/more dying every day for what?

[TexasMexican]

59. Civil War

obviously.

Maybe we should just carve it up and give it to the surrouning nations. Give the Kurds thier independence too.

[RapidCreek]

70. Yea we should do that with Mexico too...

RC

[IranianDemocrat]

64. All hell would break loose.

Sunnis killing Iranian backed Shiites, turkmen killing kurds killing turkmen killing baathists and so forth.

[NuttyFluffers]

67. well...

if vietnam and the region didn't collapse after we left...

and afghanistan did have civil war because we seeded the area with as much terrorists as we seeded laos with land mines...

why don't we pull out and see what happens to iraq? we, and no other nation we know of is actively funding terrorist radicals to flood the area (they are kinda just sprining up - they see recruiting opportunity). this is another war of nationalism, like vietnam, so we will pull out in the end be it now or 30 years from now (filled with guerilla warfare). there is no way to win their hearts and mind, we've already lost that by this first year.

we have bases in saudi, and other nearby nations have solid militaries. and with such a large oil field no one wants a political vacuum, whereas afghanistan is such a mediocre prize no one cared.

i really don't think it'd collapse immediately. why don't we just do 'the liberal panacea' - run away and throw money at it :evilgrin:

seriously though, if we left it to them, with only start-up terrorist recruiters, and devoid of cultural warlords, i really think the iraqi people are savvy enough to not have a civil war. they were at one time approaching 1st world status. if we showed that we really don't want their country, and left, but left the door open to them for inexpensive purchases of construction/infrastructure equipment they might actually sit down and not blow each other up to smithereens.

and if they don't want our goods, a la marshall plan, tough. we tried. at least none of our kids are dying. they'll figure it out.

so many people already said this process is going to be decades long. that means decades long of guerilla warfare, with an eventual withdrawal on our part, or decades long of watching them to see whether they tear each others throats out - or not. funny, one choice is a given, the other has hope... hmm, hard choice.

[sangh0]

83. Viet Nam and the region DID collapse after we left

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge tried to bring Cambodia back to the YEar Zero. It involved killing thousands and thousands of innocent Cambodians for "crimes" like "wearing glasses"

[IrateCitizen]

84. Much of Cambodia's collapse was precipitated by our bombings...

... which, in turn, destroyed what civil society Cambodia had.

WRT Vietnam, I am partial to Chomsky's assessment -- even if we couldn't defeat them militarily, we killed off such large numbers of their population, destroyed what public infrastructure they had, and unleashed such environmental devastation that our mission, in effect, was accomplished. We set them back so far that it was virtually impossible for the nationalist/communist government to be successful.

[sangh0]

87. True, but haven't we also bombed Iraq?

Havent we also destroyed a good bit of Iraq's civil society?

I'm not saying the situation is precisely the same, and I'm not going to make any predictions certain, but there is a reason to be concerned about the possibility of a civil war, don't you think?

And IMO Chomsky was right about that.

[Lone_Wolf]

68. What would happen? The exact opposite of what the deceivers tell us...

*, Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz have been right exactly zero times about anything having to do with Iraq. They are now telling us that it would be dangerous for us to pull out of Iraq. From their track record, if anything, pulling out of Iraq would make the world safer.

[Zynx]

74. It would look like Sudan did a little while back, chaos.

However, it is kind of like that now, so I'm not sure that there's a difference.