"Right or wrong, we have to stay now..."

[kentuck]

Both Repubs and Dems say this. Why? If you find yourself going down a wrong road, do you keep going? If we can admit it was a mistake, why would we feel that we need to spend our national Treasury defending a "mistake"? Because if we leave, things will be worse than when we invaded? That's quite an admission. How could things get worse than Saddam Hussein?

And if it was a "mistake", who pays the consequences? Is it possible to make such a horrendous "mistake", where hundreds of Americans lose their lives and thousands of Iraqis lose theirs, and no one is asked to pay for the mistake? Quite the contrary, they are asking to be rewarded with another four years in the White House? It's rather like asking for a Purple Heart because you got scratched during a rape and murder...

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Because rich men want more money

As you gain in years, wisdom and knowledge, you will find that this is the answer to most questions beginning with "why?"

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[DuctapeFatwa]

55. The rule against mentioning God or peace is not listed

I'm assuming that was the problem, but if I am mistaken and it was the stuff about arithmetic, that's not listed either.

I think it would make things easier for moderators and posters alike if new rules could be announced as they are added and added to the readable rules page.

[Bucky]

44. Despite the war profiteers, we really do have to stay

Despite the war profiteers, we really do have to stay in Iraq for some time. Maybe part of the next president's job, whether it's Kerry or Clark or Dean or whoever, will be to take the profit out of the war for Halliburton, BP, Exxon, and GE. But we will have to stay for a while.

I'm not happy about it. There are about 300 American families who are a great deal more than "unhappy" with it. Their children or spouses or parents have died in this pointless war. There are the surviving families of about 15-20,000 dead Iraqis who are also "unhappy" with us ever going there in the first place.

But, sadly, part of the next president's job will be cleaning up the current president's mess in Iraq (and the UN, and Korea, and Syria, and probably Iran). There are lots of compelling reasons to stay. Part of the job of every president in the foreseeable future is to fight terrorism. And of course the best way to stop terrorists is to see to it that lots of people aren't ever motivated to become terrorists in the first place.

Unfortunately, the wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton currently known as the White House has created in Iraq a fertile breeding ground for terrorists. There are thousands of jobless, homeless, hopeless, pissed off orphans and widowers who are thinking about how can they strike back at the country that's currently drilling their oil. There are a lot of opportunistic, power hungry extremists in Iraq who see the people's resentment and will gain power by talking a lot into hating the US and a few into acting out this hate.

If we just pack up and bring all our soldiers home now, or in January of 2005, the ensuing chaos will certainly empower those haters. You can't just knock out a regime and leave a power vacuum and a lot of rubble behind. Who ever rises out of such a mess would be another Saddam or, more likely, another bin Ladin.

In a democracy, the people are responsible for the government's actions, even when the government itself acts irresponsibly. Even when the government is thoroughly corrupt, even when the guy you voted for lost, it's still our government. We own it entirely and it still works for us. If you owned a restaurant and the valet kept smashing your customers' cars, you would have to pay for the damage. You'd also fire the dumb unelected valet, but you'd still be on the hook for the damages.

Besides, legally the US is party to the UN treaty that says if you conquer a country, you're responsible for cleaning it up and running it right. Legally, we have to stay there for a couple of years. The sooner we're out the better, but for now we have no choices, only consequences.

[SharonAnn]

46. No, we just start figuring out how to get out and FAST!

That's what will work. Believing that we're hog-tied by this administration into a longer-term occupation is the wrong approach.

You have to start from the premise that the objective is to get out fast and then you start thinkinhg about ways to do it.

Define the goal and then begin developing the solutions.

[DuctapeFatwa]

48. There is no question that leaving would deprive rich men of more money

And it is very unlikely that rich men who are put into prestigious positions by other rich men will turn around and effectively take money from the pockets of their top contributors, whether those contributions are made directly, through AIPAC or other PACs or even more indirectly.

It would be possible, and remarkably easy, to simply write a blank check while packing up all the Crusaders, all the swords, and leaving any plowshares, and giving that blank check to every non- US/UN affiliated NGO on earth, and let them, with the help of Iraq's neighbors, tackle the immediate humanitarian catastrophe, and stay the hell out of other countries and put that energy to work cleaning up the looming humanitarian catastrophe in the United States and with luck, maybe beat the clock and disarm and regime change and offtoHague with the PNACers before you have to look out of your window and see your quiet street run with blood.

[Jacobin]

2. Hey, that's the same excuse we used in Vietnam!

Worked then....NOT

[Mairead]

26. Yep. The gambler's fallacy, warmongers' edition

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. You don't send good money after bad money.

The wealthiest people in this country know this, yet they're willing to sacrifice our children as if they're leverage. What do they have to lose? Nothing. What do we have to lose? Everything that means anything to us.

[nolabels]

43. You mean like this

Nobody does anything for nothing, but rich people have learned how to get poor people to do too much for not enough since just about forever. If you ask me, I would say the hired mercenaries they sent over there are working too cheap. The mercenaries should raise their price by X10, it would make everything more efficient and lower the cost to the US empire in the long run <sarcasm off>

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=10
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=1375
Firms get ready for business in Iraq

by Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor, The Guardian
October 14th, 2003

About 100 private companies, mainly from Britain and the US, gathered in London yesterday to discuss investment opportunities in post-Saddam Iraq.
The companies, mainly oil and banking, are being invited by the US and British governments to move in as soon as security is restored. The fast-food chain McDonald's, which has a branch in most parts of the world, was predicted by the conference organisers to open in Baghdad next year.

Brian Wilson, Tony Blair's special representative on trade and reconstruction in Iraq, told the conference: "A major drawback for companies wishing to visit Iraq is, of course, the continuing problems with the security situation."

He added that the bombing of the Baghdad Hotel on Sunday had "provided another grim reminder of the dangers which exist".

But he said the British government would send trade missions to Iraq "when the time is right".
(snip)

[speckledgator]

4. Can't

change horses in midstream, right?
If my horse is drowning I am bailing!!

[LittleApple81]

5. I have to put this quote here because it comes from another

thread (covering a book review)

The preventive war against Iraq was a war of President Bush's choice. It was not, as World War II was, forced upon the United States. It was not, like the Korean War, the first Gulf War, and the war against the Taliban, a response to overt acts of aggression. Nor did the US drag itself incrementally into full-scale war, as in Vietnam. The professional military kept its enthusiasm for a war on Iraq well under control. There was no popular clamor for the war. If the US had never gone to war against Iraq, most Americans would hardly have cared, or even noticed. It took one man to decide for war and promote it, sending many thousands of troops there while most other nations doubted that a war was justified.

snip...

The triple role also resurrects the imperial presidency. Again there are warnings from the American past. On February 15, 1848, during the war with Mexico, a young Illinois congressman sent a letter to his law partner pointing out the constitutional and practical flaws in what we now call the Bush Doctrine. "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion," Abraham Lincoln wrote William H. Herndon,

and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.... If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."
The Philadelphia convention, Lincoln said, had "resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

more...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16677

________________________

My comment: we allowed him and his Repug controlled congress and now we are stuck. WHY? is not going to get answered.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. How long will we give it though. I want an exit strategy

no longer than 2 yrs. I just don't see things getting better there.

[sattahipdeep]

7. I see old dead Men

Men that should be dead are being
kept alive by heart pumps and other
medical Technology.

They are out of touch with Reality.

Cheney Kissinger Negroponte Baker Kean

9/11 Widows Speak Kristen Breitweiser
Kristen Breitweiser of New Jersey, whose husband Ronald was
killed at the World Trade Center, said an aggressive commission
would have issued subpoenas by now. "I don't understand why this
commission is being run in such a polite fashion," she said.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/911widows.html

[maha]

8. "How could things get worse than Saddam Hussein?"

Oh, my dear, they could be a LOT worse. Saddam had been contained for more than a decade. We've learned he and his regime were so dysfunctional he may not have known he didn't have WMDs; his scientists were just pretending about the WMDs to keep him happy. Plus it was a secular regime, which means he didn't have ties to the Muslim extremists who are are REAL worry.

Now that he is gone and we are there, however, Iraq is being swamped with Muslim extremists and jihadists, and the power vacuum makes it very easy for younger, more effective, and more dangerous leadership to move in.

So our brilliant leader Shrub basically took a difficult but manageable situation and turned it into a disaster. If we are not VERY careful, we will have traded a paper tiger for a real one.

[arcane1]

21. one way they are worse off: by all this luring of al Qaeda into Iraq

isn't that what they are telling us now? That they are deliberately luring all the terrorists into Iraq, so that they will commit their evil deeds on the Iraqis?

How does that make them better off than when Saddam was in power, and there was NO al Qaeda in Iraq?

:shrug:

[maha]

42. It's not just what they are telling us now.

It's what's happening, and it isn't what they planned. The Bushies are just rationalizin' at this point.

[HFishbine]

9. With Respect

May I suggest that you oversimplify the argument? Perhaps I can illustrate with an analogy.

If I break into your house, I have committed a wrong. The best thing for me to do would be to leave immeadeately. If, as I turn to go, I knock over a kerosene lamp and your house begins to burn, should I still leave, or should I stay, rouse you from bed and help you escape? The point being that the circumstances that defined my actions as wrong to begin with may change once my initial actions have been made. While my initial act was still wrong under the cirucumstances when I committed the original act, new circumstances may dictate that I stay a while longer to avoid another wrong.

That said, if the US presence can be replaced with a truely international force, that would indeed be the better option, just as it would be better if, as your house started to burn, I was able to run next door to the firehouse and direct professional rescuers to the scene. Absent that though, it would compound my wrongs to leave you in harm, just as it would compound the harm done to Iraq if we were to leave the country to anarchy.

[kentuck]

11. Exactly the response we need to hear...

That the situation could deteriorate to a much more serious matter... than when Saddam was in power. Let's admit that it was a mistake. But if we leave, matters will be much worse. Let's just make sure we frame it in an honest manner.

Let's have an accounting of every penny of taxpayer money that is to be spent. But under no circumstances do we reward such a blunder with another appointment to the WH in 2004. He must pay a price for this "mistake".

And who are the "professional rescuers" that we should call to put out the fire? Do you call more arsonists or do you call the fire department? Do you call for more US troops or do you call for UN assistance? Just because your second act was with good intent does not excuse your responsibility for the first. Someone must be held responsible.

[welshTerrier2]

12. Fine ... Here's My Analogy

suppose you break into my house ... you should leave immediately ... but you knock over a kerosene lamp and start a fire ... then you go to another room and knock over another lamp and start another fire ... soon, i come to realize that you are there not to steal but rather to burn down my house ...

should i invite you to stay in the hope that you will help me extinguish the flames?

you see, analogies do little more than remove us one level from the truth ...

it is indeed a pretense to assume our presence in Iraq is doing anything but setting more fires ...

[HFishbine]

15. Well

I take your point, but I see us at the point of the third act at this moment. Am I going to go to another room and start another fire, or am I going to immeadately proceed to help you or get outside help?

I'll willingly admit that, given what we know about Bush, we may indeed be on our way to setting more fires. It certainly seems unlikely that we are going to get outside help to any meaningful degree. If, as events play out, all we seem to do is set more fires, my opinion will change. I don't think we are there yet.

What seems to be shaping up is a scenario where we are setting fires as we clumsely move to rouse you and rescue you. I see it as a race to the end. Will we set so many fires along the way that a safe and sane escape becomes impossible for both of us, or will we both get out before we are consumed with fire. Right now, there is still the possibility that Iraq may be better off in the end, and given the certainty of chaos should we leave a power vacuum by withdrawing immeadiately, it's a chance we must take -- for now.

[welshTerrier2]

18. Iraq is Not the Only Measure

Reuters reported last week that enlistments in Al Queda are way up since we occupied Iraq ... our continued presence on Iraqi soil is doing little more than fanning the flames of international terrorism ...

Many have focussed only on whether we will or will not help the Iraqis "rebuild" their country ... let me give you a hint: take a look at Afghanistan ... why aren't we making the same commitment to help that country rebuild ?? we've all but abandoned Afghanistan ... and in the end, regardless of how it's spun, we will abandon Iraq ...

And it's not just that the Iraqis have not "welcomed us as liberators" ... we are occupying a sovereign nation ... who the hell do we think we are? do you think this is sitting well with other countries in the middle east? how about our good friends in Europe? How much damage is our presence in Iraq doing to american prestige? this is important ... we are invaders ... we are occupiers ... you break into my house and destroy things and now you want to help me redecorate ... get the hell out of here ...

You pointed out that, in the end, Iraq may be better off if we stay ... to that i respond that there's always hope this will be true ... but i see the corporate graft being peddled to bush's friends ... i see bush doing all he can to block accountability as to how the funds are spent ... i see oilmen taking over some of the richest oil fields in the world ... i see an occupier sitting on the doorstep of syria and iran ... do i hope things get better for the iraqi people? yes, i do ... do i trust that bush plans to use the funds to help the iraqis? no, i don't ... i think we should get the hell out of there ... we're not there to help anybody but bush's friends ...

president assad of syria must be certain by now that we will be invading his country ... and, if you'll pardon my really bad pun (although i think it's just great !!), we'll not only be stuck in iraq ... we'll be stuck between iraq and assad's place !!

my heartfelt apologies to those who suffered through this pun ...

[alcuno]

10. Alright, I'll say it, "It's because they are men."

Now I'm not talking about all men, but it's a personality trait that many men are unable to keep a lid on. Yes, we've heard it a million times, but that's because it's true. When they take a wrong turn or get lost, THEY WON'T ASK FOR DIRECTIONS. They just continue on the wrong path and hope for the best.

[maha]

13. LOL!

Not only men, but arrogant men who think that nobody knows anything but them, and micromanaging men who are incompetent managers.

This all goes back to your basic psychopathic personality. Psychopaths don't trust anybody, so they want to have absolute control of everything around them. And the more they screw things up, the more determined they are to keep control.

Normal people usually want help from others when the things they are working on do not go well, but not psychopaths.

[alcuno]

14. I love men and I don't mean to bash them, but we all sit around

and pretend that we don't understand why these men are acting like this when in fact we do. As for women in Congress, many of them are like the wife or the girlfriend sitting in the passenger seat; steaming because you are lost but if you say anything, he jumps down your throat.

This inherent need to dominate, rule, and takeover causes problems AS IT HAS DONE THROUGHOUT HISTORY.

[Cocoa]

19. but Carol Mosely-Braun has expressed this

she said at one of the debates, we can't blow the place up and leave it blown up.

She has also expressed what you said about men screwing things up. :-)

[alcuno]

20. I think I heard her. And all the men chuckled and rolled their

eyes. For the most part, they don't mean to screw things up.

[9215]

16. Pathetic pandering for political

profit.

What if the politicians had said that about Vietnam?

Nice quote: It's rather like asking for a Purple Heart because you got scratched during a rape and murder...

[Donna Zen]

17. Not just arrogant dead men but

creepy arrogant dead thieves. I understand as part of the minority that the wacko majority have gotten us into a fine mess. The problem with the 87 billion is that does not represent a solution. In fact it represents more of a problem.

Now our debt to our grandchildren has grown larger, and we still have no solution by way of a plan. To make matters worse, the people who now control this borrowed 87B are crooks who don't even hide that fact. The f**king no longer give two shits about what we think.

So while I appreciate international law, something the administration has never seemed to worry their cadaverous heads before, I want a detailed bill and a plan. My great-grandchildren expect me to yammer for at least that much.

[library_max]

22. Ethical or practical question?

Ethically, what we should do is go to the UN, apologize profusely, transfer authority to them with ample funding from us in the form of reparations.

But, since Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress, this is not going to happen. Not right now, anyway.

So that brings us to the practical question. What is the best of our options? Block or whittle down expenditures in hopes that the situation will blow up real good? Maybe that's what the Bush administration deserves, but it's not what millions of Iraqis deserve. And we as a nation are the aggressors here - it's not okay for us to try to fix our political problems on the backs of the Iraqis, making them horrible examples of the manifest unfitness for office of Bush & co.

We as a nation owe Iraq. It's no good to say that this is all Bush's fault and duck responsibility. In foreign policy, a degree of continuity is needed even in democracies that change leaders every four years. The fact that Bush ditched that continuity is no excuse for us. World opinion matters. I'm not saying that we should remain committed to Bush's stupid bellicosity, "Bring 'em on!" et al. But we are obligated to clean up his mess, because it's our mess too.

Unfortunately, that means a military presence as well as rebuilding the infrastructure. There is no government of Iraq at this point, no civil authority, no police authority, no security. It would be better if it was a UN presence or a NATO presence, but we can't get that until after 2004 at the earliest. Meanwhile, if we just pull out, Iraq is going to slide into the dumper.

The model for Iraq in the dumper is Afghanistan (which, by the way, is still a basket case because our attention is diverted in Iraq). No central authority, duelling warlords, religious extremism having free reign, women being beaten to death for letting their hair be seen in public, etc.

Were we right to invade? Hell, no. But now that it's done, we have to deal with the consequences. We can't "un-invade" simply by pulling out.

[welshTerrier2]

24. Practicality versus Realism

you stated your position very well, library_max ... but i don't agree with most of what you said ...

here's why ... first, i do agree that we have an obligation to help the people of Iraq ... where i disagree, however, is in how that help should be provided ...

you stated: Unfortunately, that means a military presence as well as rebuilding the infrastructure. ... there is this sense by those making this argument that we will stay as long as necessary until the Iraqis are able to heal the differences that divide them or at least have a military / police power to restrain the weaker elements ... i can't see why civil war in Iraq is any less likely one year from now, five years from now or ten years from now ...

what i do see is that continued american presence has very high costs to this country in terms of american lives, american prestige and the massive spending that we're doing there ... i believe our invasion AND our continued presence there is tearing the global community apart ... and i'm not at all convinced that bush is one bit committed to this mission ... Max Cleland, appearing on C-Span last week argued that we either need to withdraw or send in more troops ... the current troop level will not be able to achieve the stated goals ...

imagine the amount of aid we could provide directly to the Iraqis if we didn't have to maintain our troops there ... we could take a portion of the $67 billion and all of the $20 billion and spend it directly on humanitarian aid ...

anyway, i'm for getting the U.S. out of there now and trying to turn things over to the U.N. ... i think whatever civil unrest will occur between the different factions in Iraq will happen now or it will happen when the U.S. finally leaves ... at best, i think we're postponing the inevitable ... and we're doing so at devasting costs ...

[library_max]

25. I agree that we have to have an exit strategy

I don't think it's possible for us to have a good one while Bush is in the White House and Republicans control both houses of Congress.

We need to internationalize the military presence, then wean Iraq away from all direct foreign intervention. But we can't do that by just pulling out.

And you make a good point, there's an excellent chance it will all eventually go to hell in a handbasket no matter what we do, now that we've done what we've done. But I believe that we have an obligation to try.

[Donna Zen]

28. An exit strategy

...any strategy at all in exchange for 87 B would have been nice. I understand the premise of why we can't just walk, what I don't understand is why the congress got nothing for the people in exchange for our grandchildren's future. This is a huge debt.

Of course I do understand all too well. The repubs and the MIC control congress, but it does tend to piss one off.

The summer before the war Clark testified that this operation would cost a minimum of 246 B and last at least 5 years.

I think he is wrong. I think this is forever.

[welshTerrier2]

29. Foreign Aid = YES, Occupation = NO

I don't think it's possible for us to have a good one while Bush is in the White House and Republicans control both houses of Congress.


no disagreement there ... but this means we would have to stay in Iraq for at least another 15 months (until a democrat could take office) and perhaps for months after that to allow for some type of transition ... you could be talking about two years or more ...

and it's no small argument to recognize that there are many americans going without adequate healthcare ... our education programs are badly underfunded ... the american infrastructure is in disrepair ... and the funds for Iraq exceed the entire remaining balance of our foreign aid budget ... our response is radically disproportional ...

it would be interesting to hold a national referendum in Iraq to determine the will of the Iraqi people about the U.S. military presence ... it would be interesting to provide media coverage to any Iraqi who wanted to speak on the subject ... of course, there's no way the U.S. would do that without rigging the outcome ... i, for one, don't believe the iraqis want their "liberators" to remain ...

i agree with your call for internationalizing the military presence ... but a near-term timetable for this must be established ... and bush has no interest in doing this ... my position is that we should cut-off funds for bush's war NOW and tell the U.N. that our military is gone in six months ... we'll provide all necessary funding but our military will be withdrawn ...

with reasonable terms and a real turnover of control, i think the U.N. would support some type of transition role in Iraq ... absent that, internationalizing the military presence is not an option under bush ...

[KoKo]

23. Ha! Because it's what they all say when we hop into the muck! Viet Nam!

Viet Nam......Viet Nam........

[Mairead]

27. How to end it

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn't they?

They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maj.Gen. S. D. Butler, USMC (Ret)

[welshTerrier2]

32. Beautiful !!!

i have read no finer observation on our military madness ...

one group pushes for war because it benefits them ... their profits go up ... they look like heroes to their stockholders ...

and another group pays with their lives ...

Butler's proposed fix of this disparity should solve that problem very nicely ...

[library_max]

33. Sure. That'll happen.

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

30. If I had a child...

...and I told that child NOT to play with matches - and he did - and burned down a house...

I wouldn't say "I'm not responsible because the child had no business playing with matches in the house in the first place!"

Well, at least not if I were a responsible parent.

I would say, "He broke it, now I gotta fix it."

The child Bush broke Iraq. The parent America has to fix it.

But ooooooh is that kid gonna be punished!

[NNN0LHI]

31. If it was my house your kid burned up you would not fix it

I would choose who would fix it and send you the bill.

Don

[wyldwolf]

35. Same thing, though...

I would be responsible. In effect, I would indirectly be fixing it by paying for it. It would be on me to do - and the child might spend a little time at the YDC!

[welshTerrier2]

39. Not At All the Same Thing

there's a very important difference between the two scenarios ...

the U.S. has an obligation to pay for reparations in Iraq ... we do not have the right to occupy their "house" and keep control over the "repair" process ...

we need to get our military people out of there and yield control of the post-war process to the U.N. ... our obligations for what "our children" did over there are financial in nature ... not military ...

[wyldwolf]

40. OK, sorry, I missed the original point..

...I thought this thread was about the $87 billion, not the occupation. My bad! :)

[maha]

47. There's a critical difference between Iraq and Vietnam.

Lots of similarities, too, but I don't see anyone on this thread who's picked up on the most important reason why it was OK to cut and run in Vietnam but not Iraq. As simply put as I can put it:

When we evacuated South Vietnam the power vacuum left behind was quickly filled by Ho Chi Minh. Uncle Ho was a very smart and strong leader, and his goal was Vietnamese nationalism. Under Uncle Ho, North and South were unified into one functional nation relatively quickly. Under Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam was no threat to other nations, as he had no intention of spreading any aggression or terrorism beyond his borders, and we all knew that all along.

(And the next question might be, why were we there? This is as good a brief explanation as any.)

The point is, by leaving Vietnam there were no bad consequences to the United States except in the minds of the hawks who promoted the war, and they were idiots.

So, fast forward to Iraq. There is no smart and effective Ho Chi Minh standing by waiting to take over when we pull out. Instead, we have a massive power vacuum. And instead of the relatively benevolent Uncle Ho, we could easily end up with a dictator (or a collection of regional warlords) who would make Saddam Hussein look like a boy scout.

And you got extremist Shiite mullahs who want to move in from Iran and take over; you got extremist Wahabi Sunnis and their terrorist networks, including al Qaeda, who want to move in and take over. And the Shia want to fight the Sunnis, and vice versa, and the Kurds want a separate state, and the Turks want to take over the Kurds. And most of these people dislike the United States a whole lot.

And, to make the situation even more interesting, several surrounding nations DO have weapons of mass destruction, some of them nuclear, and some those nations are not terribly stable, either. (Remember, the Vietnamese conflict spilled over into neighboring nations, such as Cambodia, to Real Bad consequences. Imagine a Pol Pot with access to nukes.)

In other words, we could be walking away from a mess that could easily conflate into a massive regional war, if not a nuclear war, if not World War III.

That's why walking away from Iraq isn't as simple as walking away from Vietnam.

One more note: the Vietnamese could forgive us and forswear revenge in part because of the Confucian/Buddhist foundations of their culture. Unfortunately not too many Confucians or Buddhists in the Middle East. Plus, unlike Vietnam, Iraq never was a nation. It's a bunch of tribes shoved together inside a common boundary drawn by Europeans after World War I.

[welshTerrier2]

50. non-Military Obligations

not sure why you responded to my post with your analysis of VietNam compared to Iraq ... i had made no mention of VietNam ...

i have no problem with your fundamental analysis but i can't see how you can condone the U.S. maintaining a military presence in Iraq ... you did an excellent job highlighting the probable instabilities that would result if the U.S. were to withdraw now ... but you failed to show how maintaining a U.S. presence for what, about 5 or 10 years, is likely to soften the conflicts between the various factions inside Iraq ...

we are uninvited guests ... according to a recent Reuters article, Al Qaeda enlistment is sky high since the U.S. invaded ... we are seeing suicide bombings, attacks on our puppet governors, attacks on american troops ... Israel has been dealing with this type of instability for 50 years ... what makes us think we can do any better ??

it's not that i disagree with you that there are tremendous risks if we were to withdraw ... it's just that i don't see those risks dissipating over time ... should we stay there forever bankrupting our treasury, losing more troops and alienating the rest of the world even further?

we have responsibilities to the Iraqi people ... i just don't believe we can fulfill them by occupying their country ...

[maha]

51. Nothing lasts forever.

"not sure why you responded to my post with your analysis of VietNam compared to Iraq ... i had made no mention of VietNam ..."

You hadn't, but others have. And it's a useful comparison.

"i have no problem with your fundamental analysis but i can't see how you can condone the U.S. maintaining a military presence in Iraq ... "

To keep a lid on until multinational forces (either UN or NATO, or both) can take over. There will be no significant number of multinational forces there for at least a year, and it will probably take longer than that, under the best of circumstances. We will need to maintain a presence there even after, as part of the UN or NATO or whatever occupation. However, I am afraid occupation is necessary in the immediate future.

Remember that I discussed power vacuums? Do you need that explained?

"you did an excellent job highlighting the probable instabilities that would result if the U.S. were to withdraw now ... but you failed to show how maintaining a U.S. presence for what, about 5 or 10 years, is likely to soften the conflicts between the various factions inside Iraq ..."

I believe there is a middle ground to be found between "cut and run" and "eternal occupation." That middle ground will be a handing over of the situation to multinational forces, and eventually leaving a stabilized Iraq to be governed by Iraqis. But, as I said, that's going to take a while.

"we are uninvited guests ... according to a recent Reuters article, Al Qaeda enlistment is sky high since the U.S. invaded ... we are seeing suicide bombings, attacks on our puppet governors, attacks on american troops ... Israel has been dealing with this type of instability for 50 years ... what makes us think we can do any better ??"

It was a colossal mistake to invade to begin with, but we did. My argument is that cutting and running would just compound that mistake. Retreat will have to be done in stages, over a period of at least two or three years, and with much cooperation from the other countries who will take over the occupation.

"it's not that i disagree with you that there are tremendous risks if we were to withdraw ... it's just that i don't see those risks dissipating over time ... should we stay there forever bankrupting our treasury, losing more troops and alienating the rest of the world even further?"

It's not even a matter of tremendous risk; it's a damn near certainty that leaving Iraq to a power vacuum would result in regional conflagration. That's why there has to be occupation by SOMEBODY until there is some kind of functioning civil authority in place.

It may be that there is no good solution to this mess Bush made. But what we have is CERTAIN disaster with the cut and run approach, versus at least a POSSIBILITY of a pretty good outcome with a handover to multinational occupation, and the multinational occupation lasting only until stable civil authority is established.

That being said, it's pretty clear that the Bushies are NOT working toward a multinational goal. They are working at selling Iraq off in pieces to the highest bidders. I don't expect any real progress to be made toward a handoff of authority as long as the Bushies occupy the White House. So the first step has got to be to pry the Bushes out of the White House, and then we can work toward turning Iraq over to the UN or NATO or whatever.

"we have responsibilities to the Iraqi people ... i just don't believe we can fulfill them by occupying their country ... "

We sure as hell can't fulfill our responsiblities by leaving their country with a power vacuum, either.

[Art_from_Ark]

56. Um, Ho Chi Minh died in 1969

six years before the fall of Saigon.

[maha]

57. Oops! Good point!

That's why I like to discuss complex issues on message boards. If I'm wrong about something, someone will let me know.

Thank you.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. I remember hearing of Ho Chi Minh's death at the time

And American pundits and administration people were speculating that his death would weaken the resolve of the North Vietnamese to continue fighting.

[leesa]

34. If we don't leave it will be far worse. This will never get better

because it is morally wrong. Just like Vietnam, we are wrong and the whole world knows it. It will continue to throw soldiers into the garbage disposal, it will destroy US trade around the world and it will sap what little money we have left that the Bush Crime Family has not already looted. It's a complete lose/lose to stay in Iraq.

[maha]

49. I have to disagree with you.

There are critical difference between Iraq and Vietnam, explained in Message #47.

[Darranar]

36. US OUT, UN IN!

[goddess40]

38. With US paying for it

We made the mess we should have to pay for it.

Our only plan is to rip them off for as much wealth as we can get away with.
By we I mean the wealthy of this country.

[nolabels]

52. The UN don't have much more credibility than the USA at this point

after running roughshod over international law allowing US and British military to perform enforcement of the arbitrary "No Fly Zone". While trade embargos and other B.S was done in the name of whatever Freakin stupid inane thing the War Mongers could make up. No dought they also created Saddam and egged him on or supported him when it was convenient and then set him up a fall with Kuwait when they needed a new boogie man.

It will be a long time before there is peace in that part of the world, but even longer with a bunch of western Anglo mercenaries running around afraid of even children while they hold some of the deadliest weapons ever devised in their hands. This truly is the definition of paranoid.

Being paranoid is the rational part, thinking that people that put them over them over there really ever had a rational ideal about why they were doing it, is the irrational kernel of it all.

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=1420
Why Iraqis abroad are reluctant to return

Three sisters left their homes in the US to help rebuild Baghdad, but they may not stay
by Peter Ford, Christian Science Monitor
October 17th, 2003


BAGHDAD - It is hard to slip a word in edgeways when Hind Rassam and her two sisters get together. They work in offices only a few hundred yards from each other, but they are so busy they can go weeks without meeting, and they have a lot to catch up on.

Hind, Amal, and Shamim Rassam are an unusual trio of Iraqi-American sisters who have returned to Baghdad since Saddam Hussein's fall to help rebuild their country. There are an estimated 3 million or more Iraqis living abroad, of which at least 500,000 are fellow exiles waiting and watching but still reluctant to come home.

With most of Iraq nowhere near back on its feet, the Rassam sisters understand the hesitation gripping Iraqi émigrés worldwide.

"Most people's relatives here are telling them to wait", says Shamim. "The ones abroad can send a few hundred dollars a month to their families: if they come here they won't be able to find work."
(snip)

[SharonAnn]

45. No, we have to find ways to get out - and fast!

It's a "sunk cost" and we shouldn't throw lives away, throw international relations away, or throw our economy away.

If you follow this logic we'll be able to find ways to get out and the world, as well as the USA, will be better off.

[youngred]

53. because going back creates a worse situation

Just think about the power vacuum at work there. Syrians, Iranians, Saudi's, Al Qaedea, Baathists, Kurds, Sunni's, Shi'ites...it would be such a disaster.

Somebody has to be there for a little while

[GalleryGod]

54. There were NO OIL WELLS in Vietnam!

:shrug: When one hears hoofbeats-think "HORSES" not "ZEBRAS":think:
We are there for greed,power over non whites and OIL!

[maha]

58. We were in Vietnam for a hell of a long time.

Not counting the prolonged "military adviser" stage, the Vietnam War lasted eleven years -- 1964 (Gulf of Tonkin) to 1975 (fall of Saigon). And, of course, we'd been meddling around in Vietnam for many years before that.

So I don't see your point.

Oil wasn't an issue in the 1960s, anyway.