Should We Stay In Iraq?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

We have a lot of topics around this subject but none on the current radar specificly discussing this.

Should we stay? Why?

Should we pull out? Why?

Specifics (without any g-d insults please) are always helpful.

[phee]

It is not as simple as staying or going I think...

But we should be trying to create cicumstances in which we can leave. That hasn't happened at all yet, maybe now that the government has actually been given an opportunity for at least some change in policy, that can happen now. And I really think the Rumsfeld getting out is a positive.

I would say in answer to the question "Yes" but I don't know anyone who would actually say "No" to getting out of Iraq.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Depends on how and on hwat time table and if we are going to announce that time table.

[Fierce Critter]

What I really want to know is how the men & women serving over there would answer this question.

I don't think my opinion means squat next to theirs.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I think its because its so complex , is the reason its so controversial. Recently i've been researching Vietnam and the parallels are amazing and helps to put the current conflict in some hardcore perspective.

First off the arguments about why we went in and if we were mislead and all that, while important political discussions arent relevant to the actual war. The stakes are too high for that to be an issue. We need to figure out whats best for our future and the future of the planet. Political BS needs to take a backseat when this much human life is at stake.

Its defiantly a different situation than Vietnam (worse i think) but in many cases almost the exact arguments for/against/middle are in essence the same. Substitute "Create More Terrorism" with "Lead To World War III" and "Terrorism" with "Communism."

The fact that its even MORE of a damn Bughunt as opposed to a standup fight than 'Nam was (to use an Aliens quote) really makes it a bitch.

The whole "lets just go in there and get those motherfuckers!!!!!" argument is similar now as it was in nam... that is.. theres not really any traditional target to just "go get", especially in the current conflict.

Even the whole "morale is fairly high.. the troops will stick it out if asked..." idea is the same then as now.

The homefront was summarizing 'Nam as some huge failure (which it wasn't) because it wasn't "happening fast enough" As if there is some global war clock that says how fast a war needs to be resolved.

I think the stakes of handling the current conflict properly are a lot higher than your average joe and/or soccer mom worried about jimmy coming back in a bag realizes.

Hell who knows if we handle it the wrong way it might (even though i think its nearly impossible due to the global nature of culture nowadays) very well, as Johnson Said: "Lead to World War III." There wont be a World War 4 unless 100 people throwing sticks and stones constitutes a war.

What i feel was a major hit to the U.S. credibility as we totally lied to our South Vietnam allies and cut and ran and left them holding the bag to get ass raped by the communitsts after we left, poor guys.

Which, is one outcome predicted if we pull out , that is... the Iraqis are not unified nor strong enough to stand on their own in that region .. much of which now thinks of them (the ones with loyalty to the USA) as traitors. There will be some serious payback if we aren't there to hold the line.

Then again... it might be a bit anti climax like our withdrawl from nam was and a BIGTIME waste of energy, money and human life. Nothing horribly global came out of our withdrawl , as was predicted by the hawks. (That is if we continue to feel that US lives are more important than others lives which is arguable honestly, not meant as a totally retorhical statement)

Ok there is my current "State of the Conflict" brief. But what the hell do i know. Dumbass goth crybaby.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

What I really want to know is how the men & women serving over there would answer this question.

I don't think my opinion means squat next to theirs.

I think thats noble critter, but honestly you , from a distanced perspective are probably in a better position to take all the factors into account more than somone that is "up against it" is. As harsh as that sounds. This is a long term, potentally global-fuck of a problem. The man on the street with a gun in his face probably is not the best source. If for no other reason than he is to damn BUSY to be weighing the pros and cons of the military action. He is following the civilian orders, with not a whole hell of a lot of time to study the global implications.

Although he sure is very important and should be supported.

Not being able to see the forrest for the trees is an age-old source of bad decisions.

[paradox]

no we should not. the only reason to stay is to feel good about ourselves.

did we make a mess of the country? yes we did. but thats no reason to hang around and make it worse.

it doesnt sound nice, but the sooner we leave and let them sort themselves out, the sooner things will start improving.

the world doesnt want us for a policeman, and we have better things to be taking care of at home.

[torn asunder]

it doesnt sound nice, but the sooner we leave and let them sort themselves out, the sooner things will start improving.

unless, of course, the civil war brings to power another man like saddam, in which case, things won't improve at all... i think we have a responsibility now to make sure the iraqi govt. has the best chance for success, and i think that will require our presence for a while. we do need to have a solid exit strategy, though...

[paradox]

do you honestly thinke WE wont bring another man like saddam to power?

remember who put saddam there in the 1st place.

we have a responsibility to ourselves and to respect the sovereignty of other nations.

if we are so worried about dictators and weapons of mass destruction, why didnt we invade north korea years ago?

no, we did not act on noble intentions. we didnt go there to "save" the iraqi people. we went there to serve the political agenda of a handful of very short-sighted men. we have no plan to fix iraq and we never did.

our presense only exacerbates the insurgency. we dont have even a fraction of the numbers of troops needed to quell it (about 1 soldier for every 10 iraqi civilians), nor are we likely willing to put in the time needed to do it (at least a decade), or pay for it that long (in lives or dollars).

we had no business being there and we dont have any business staying there. we cant "fix" the middle east. not least of all because they dont want to be "fixed". let the iraqi people find their way to the govenment they want. not the one we wnt them to want.

[Msterbeau]

I think the big question here is: Does our presence help or hurt the overall situation? Our troops provide some security and stability but they also incite a lot of problems and violence. Will leaving simmer things down or will the Sunni's and Shites take the gloves off at that point? Hard to tell the future is...

And Troy... I understand your humanitarian reasons for wanting to ignore the politics of this, but tthe war is draining serious amounts of resources from this country. How can we ignore oversight on the reasons we got into it in the first place? It's our money being spent, the lives of this countries citizens being killed and this countries reputation on the line. We have a right to hold people accountable if there were hidden agenda's at play.

[paradox]

i dont think its that hard to see. there will be some civil war. it will suck and people will die. in the end, they will wind up back where they started.

sad but true. its possible something else might emerge, but i highly doubt it.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I think the big question here is: Does our presence help or hurt the overall situation? Our troops provide some security and stability but they also incite a lot of problems and violence. Will leaving simmer things down or will the Sunni's and Shites take the gloves off at that point? Hard to tell the future is...

And Troy... I understand your humanitarian reasons for wanting to ignore the politics of this, but tthe war is draining serious amounts of resources from this country. How can we ignore oversight on the reasons we got into it in the first place? It's our money being spent, the lives of this countries citizens being killed and this countries reputation on the line. We have a right to hold people accountable if there were hidden agenda's at play.

I agree with your point here. My point I think was a bit different than i think you took it as. I do think that for sure they should be held accountable for their actions.

We can burn the witches at the stake at our leisure. The actual war, the implications for the future, and all of that i think is at least to some degree, apolitical. There are too many asses (and not just american) on the line for the "who did what initially" to be an immediately useful subject. I think the "did we get bullshited on the way in?" type stuff should be viewed as a separate issue unless its directly relavant to our very immediate blood & guts type decisions that need to be made about our current and future plans for Iraq.

Don't take this as me trying to avoid holding anyones feet to the fire. Plenty of heads should roll eventually. Its just that we can only do so many things effectively at once, properly. Right now i think the specific day to day plan for Iraq is Job No 1.

Oh and thanks for actually reading my BS up there. Often i think people dont bother to read anything other than the headlines of a topic. =D

[Paper Hearts]

With the main difference in day-to-day life in the present Afghanistan being that where as police used to be able to stop you in public and beat you to death because (if you are a man) your beard was too short or (if you are a woman) too much of your wrists were showing, and the now police of Afghanistan only being able to jail you for those offenses to Islam, I am not confident that a "free and democratic" Iraq is very worthwhile. If a majority of people decide that people who do not follow Islam are criminals, it really doesn't equal freedom...more succinctly, democracy is potentially worthless, it is empty to concern ourselves with simply that. And freedom is a mere phantom if one recalls that Islam is the basis for the Iraqi constitutional document. -Being that the modern Iraqi army and police force are only there because there is no where else they can receive a paycheck is not particularly promising, either, especially not if one realizes that they are already responsible for operating torturous "death squads". It is most important to remember that there is nothing to cut and run from. And who are we protecting the current Iraqi “government” from anyway, other groups whom are similar to them but whom follow a slightly different brand of religious absolutism? -We’ve installed and fostered these types of governments in the past [reference Saddam Hussien’s Bathists and the Taliban] and have nothing to show for it. What a stupid, stupid war.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Oh and the short version:

Our presense over there has IMPROVED the situation , no question. Its far FAR harder for terrorists and just assholes in general to run large-scale asshole camps & training facilities than it was before we put a lazerbeam on the cockroaches over there. Whole swaths of citizens over there that never even had a slight idea of what real democracy is at least have a slight taste of it now. That seed will grow.

The asshats had free-reign basicly previously. They do NOT now, no matter how hard we try to spin it otherwise. Im not saying we did the best thing, but there is certianly a whole different mindset over there now. They know the world is watching. Before they figured we didnt give a shit as long as we go our oil (which was actually true =/)

Thats not to say im sure at all if our >continued

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

We did not put Saddam in power. The Baath party took over Iraq in the late 60's. Saddam took over in 79 when the old tyrant retired. We sold him arms in the early 80s, but we did not put hi in power.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

We did not put Saddam in power. The Baath party took over Iraq in the late 60's. Saddam took over in 79 when the old tyrant retired. We sold him arms in the early 80s, but we did not put hi in power.

Even if we did put him in power that really wouldnt be a factor in making a well reasoned response to the current situation. Random negative thing sure, but not particularly relevant to what we need to do now.

[Paper Hearts]

As the 9/11 Commission concluded years ago, there was no link between Iraq and terrorism, no terrorist training camps, etc. The hundreds of these style groups now in Iraq (without training camps) (our gift to the Iraqi people) will definitely attack us on our own soil as well as in Iraq. There is no backbone which we can militarily snap, so far as these groups are concerned--is the goal to return Iraq to the "peaceful" and terror-free state it once was, as before our invasion? In fact, we do the recruiting for these terrorist groups with our presence there, all they have to be able to afford are lessons on flying jets and a few box cutters, at absolute most and we can have the same results again, only now we have many more of these groups each day, to try to deflect.

[Paper Hearts]

Even if we did put him in power that really wouldnt be a factor in making a well reasoned response to the current situation. Random negative thing sure, but not particularly relevant to what we need to do now.

You are completely mischaracterizing this war. Iraq has nothing to do with "terrorism". We choose Iraq as the place to host our war, a war which has nothing to do with Iraq, because Iraq housed a convenient scapegoat named Saddam Hussein. While we realize that our very presence in Iraq means greater unrest in that place with each day, we meanwhile talk about bringing stability and peace to that region, and while we realize that our war needlessly murders hundreds of innocent Iraqi's each month we meanwhile speak of the evils of civilian killing terrorism. -Ironic that we should talk of "freedom seeds", considering that Iraq is merely a third party host to a war which has nothing to do with it.

[phee]

You are completely mischaracterizing this war. Iraq has nothing to do with "terrorism". We choose Iraq as the place to host our war, a war which has nothing to do with Iraq, because Iraq housed a convenient scapegoat named Saddam Hussein. While we realize that our very presence in Iraq means greater unrest in that place with each day, we meanwhile talk about bringing stability and peace to that region, and while we realize that our war needlessly murders hundreds of innocent Iraqi's each month we meanwhile speak of the evils of civilian killing terrorism. -Ironic that we should talk of "freedom seeds", considering that Iraq is merely a third party host to a war which has nothing to do with it.

That is pretty much my impression as well

[ssid67]

Billions of dollars and thousands of lifes destroyed.

I personally think the oil is the reason were over there in the first place. The pending oil shortage that is on the horizon things are going to get sticky. The entire region is unstable has been for a very long time. Iran is its next door neighbor. They are developing nucs and they hate us. Something about keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

You put together this puzzle and in my humble opinion the only way to get out of this whole situation safely and with the grace of JFK is this.

1. Make Iraq an official state of are great nation.

2. Dump tons of resources into this state

a. Money and personall

b. rebuild

c. provide jobs

d. provide more education

3. where are we gonna get the money?

a. the oil

4. create a secure place that people want to live

It used to be Babaylon for christ sakes (no pun intended)

You pull out now with all the instability and we look like a bunch of asses. If thats what we are going to do we should have done it after we kicked there asses then we would have been cool. Now will just look like a bunch of pansies that don't know what the fuck were doing.

Are elected officials decided ya "lets go over and destroy the old russian tanks and outdated technology. Twice, we have fucked with this situation. Now we run the block. Make it a State. Set up shop I'm sure if a vote was held the majority of the people there would say yes.

Make it a beckon of the free world and a big fort in the desert.

And if anyone has anything to say about it screw em' were the USA.

I fear the future.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Paper you kind of made my point, just came to the reverse conclusion in a sense. The war, as it stands now has alot to do with terrorism. It may not have started that way. But, the combatants over there fighting "against" us are using terroist tactics and will for sure use them wholesale once we leave. (and maybe we dont care, lets just let em fight it out) In a anecdotale sence they have been fighting over there for so long its insane. The middle eastern warring started out "There Once was a man named Abraham and he had two sons..."

Maybe it was sold to us incorrectly at the beginning, but really there are to many asses on the line (and not just american asses) to spend to much time finger pointing right now. We can do that at our leisure.

The reality of the situation as it stands (nowhere said it was "only about terrorism" made a very longwinded speech explaining my concerns a few posts above) what its effects globally are and wont bother to rehash it again.

I think we need to realize its not just about america, not just about Our Boys, it is, now, pretty much a global issue. What to do about it right now, is more important than burning the heretics atm. Our credibitly worldwide and our effect on the globe is extremely visible right now. Depending on how we handle this it could be the biggest decision of our generation (how we handle things right now in iraq)

Being THE global power, what we do right now could have serious repercussions globally for ages to come. That should be the key decision factor. What is the situation now, and what to do about it should be the issue. Not any partisan internal U.S. wrangling. We can do that later (and i think we should) but its not particularly useful atm and is at least partially a separate issue.

I'm not saing i even know what to do. But the "cut our losses and run" to me, generally does not seem to be a response that has particularly well reasoned (global) thought behind it. Which i think should be the key factor. We live in the world now, protectionism and isolationism are not realisic concepts anymore.

Maybe cutting & running is the best answer, but the reasons i usually hear for that plan of action are fairly ... lets say, emotional or partisan, rather than trying to do whats best given the current state of the situation.

[Paper Hearts]

What I really want to know is how the men & women serving over there would answer this question.

I don't think my opinion means squat next to theirs.

I feel that this is a decent mindset, but I would differ somewhat: military people get to vote every election year just like the rest of us, after that, the military is a tool of the people and not the other way around--most everyone realizes that when they enlist.

What I would suggest instead, is that everyone who feels that it is noble for the United States to go around setting up and nurturing neo-Islamist governments in the name of fighting wars on any other nation's soil than our own, no matter if that nation is involved with our enemies or not, should seek a military recruiter~

No excuses. It doesn't matter if you have a family, or a bad back, or you feel too old, just go to the recruiter and see if they will take you--it never hurts to try. By this point in the war, they may even take some of the people from this board.

Request infantry and request duty in Iraq. See if you have what it takes to hack it.

Until then, you are bloodless suggesting that anyone else should fight.

As for me, I've done my part, I carried a rifle for the Marines for four years. And I know a person who died in Iraq, it took them two weeks to recover his body and when they finally did, it was in several pieces. While there is not much else I would enjoy more than witnessing a bunch of neocons getting sliced to ribbons, I do not support this war continuing. People who support this war should enlist.

[Paper Hearts]

Paper you kind of made my point, just came to the reverse conclusion in a sense. The war, as it stands now has alot to do with terrorism. It may not have started that way. But, the combatants over there fighting "against" us are using terroist tactics and will for sure use them wholesale once we leave. (and maybe we dont care, lets just let em fight it out) In a anecdotale sence they have been fighting over there for so long its insane. The middle eastern warring started out "There Once was a man named Abraham and he had two sons..."

Maybe it was sold to us incorrectly at the beginning, but really there are to many asses on the line (and not just american asses) to spend to much time finger pointing right now. We can do that at our leisure.

The reality of the situation as it stands (nowhere said it was "only about terrorism" made a very longwinded speech explaining my concerns a few posts above) what its effects globally are and wont bother to rehash it again.

I think we need to realize its not just about america, not just about Our Boys, it is, now, pretty much a global issue. What to do about it right now, is more important than burning the heretics atm. Our credibitly worldwide and our effect on the globe is extremely visible right now. Depending on how we handle this it could be the biggest decision of our generation (how we handle things right now in iraq)

Being THE global power, what we do right now could have serious repercussions globally for ages to come. That should be the key decision factor. What is the situation now, and what to do about it should be the issue. Not any partisan internal U.S. wrangling. We can do that later (and i think we should) but its not particularly useful atm and is at least partially a separate issue.

I'm not saing i even know what to do. But the "cut our losses and run" to me, generally does not seem to be a response that has particularly well reasoned (global) thought behind it. Which i think should be the key factor. We live in the world now, protectionism and isolationism are not realisic concepts anymore.

Maybe cutting & running is the best answer, but the reasons i usually hear for that plan of action are fairly ... lets say, emotional or partisan, rather than trying to do whats best given the current state of the situation.

What losses would we be cutting? Militarily, we've accomplished everything possible: it is impossible to fight terrorism on "battlefield" because by nature, terrorism is impossible to achieve from a "battlefield". The resistance we meet is specifically aimed towards our occupation, when we leave, it stops. The civil war there we have no way of stopping, not even if our administration hadn't blundered the operation from the beginning. It is time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government and say "ride, you motherfucker, yes, ride." It is unfair to ask someone else to die for a mistake--that issue is between your president and History, it is not my concern.

I see a lot of able seeming men and women from ages 20 through 40 who pay utterance to supporting the Iraq war, many of them the most rabid neocons you'll ever want to meet, yet for all the tons of lonely rifles our military assuredly has, I only see stupid yellow ribbon magnets on the bumpers of cars:

Yellow ribbons are useless--they don't make the war look any better, they only make your car look worse.

We could make this thing go much faster if people who support the war would just go and get a rifle--join your brothers or your boyfriends, your wives and your daughters, Christ, it is not so difficult to get the US military to give you a rifle. I'm not sure what notion people have about that.

I mean for Fuck's sake.

[Steven]

I do not support this war continuing. People who support this war should enlist.

this simple statement was well said.

and I tend to agree.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

What losses would we be cutting? Militarily, we've accomplished everything possible: it is impossible to fight terrorism on "battlefield" because by nature, terrorism is impossible to achieve from a "battlefield". The resistance we meet is specifically aimed towards our occupation, when we leave, it stops. The civil war there we have no way of stopping, not even if our administration hadn't blundered the operation from the beginning. It is time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government and say "ride, you motherfucker, yes, ride." It is unfair to ask someone else to die for a mistake--that issue is between your president and History, it is not my concern.

I see a lot of able seeming men and women from ages 20 through 40 who pay utterance to supporting the Iraq war, many of them the most rabid neocons you'll ever want to meet, yet for all the tons of lonely rifles our military assuredly has, I only see stupid yellow ribbon magnets on the bumpers of cars:

Yellow ribbons are useless--they don't make the war look any better, they only make your car look worse.

We could make this thing go much faster if people who support the war would just go and get a rifle--join your brothers or your boyfriends, your wives and your daughters, Christ, it is not so difficult to get the US military to give you a rifle. I'm not sure what notion people have about that.

I mean for Fuck's sake.

this simple statement was well said.

and I tend to agree.

Just as a random comment "cutting losses" is a phrase that means "stop incurring more direct losses". Noting deeper meant by it.

Anyhow all of the quoted above are very debateable points, debated by many intellgent people. If it was as simple, there would not be so much controversy. I've definetly done my homework (and still doing it). I dont even start typing in this section of the board if i feel like im pulling anything out of my ass. I want to do whats "best" (whatever that is) and i have no hidden agenda , i just want good stuff to happen if possible. Thats not a simple problem.

The problems over there wont just go away if we go away. That doesnt mean we shouldnt pull out, i think there are very strong arguments as to that being the best course of action. (we cant, pull out wholesale though no matter what happens thats not realistic... hell we are still in germany , korea and 'nam)

I just think that all this stuff needs to be definitively sorted out , that would be the starting point to come up with the "solution". There are a whole lot of gigantic question marks around "what will happen if we do X or Y." Simplification is nice, but rarely acurate.

Many of the question marks are raised by people that cover this stuff for a living and have studied the subject in depth as a full time job. Not the armchair quarterbacking we are doing here. I think its a mistake to assume anyone that disagrees with our own personal viewpoint must have a hidden agenda or is a moron that hasnt done their homework.

I have dead realatives in every american war prior to Iraq I. So what? That in no way makes my opinion any more or less valid, nor does it have anything to do with finding the right solution to the current problem.

Also we dont nesssiarly have to be over there "as an army" there are plenty of other options. There is no way we will ever just but a big black wall up all arouind the middle east and hope nothing bad comes out of it. We'll be over there for decades, just in what form is more the issue than "if".