Getting back to the original question, I'll tell you exactly what will happen if we withdraw from Iraq: Obama & the Democrats will be blamed for anything bad that happens in the Middle East from that point on, and for not "seeing Bush's vision" through to the end (it would have worked, if only we hadn't "surrendered")....
? What would happen if we withdrew from Iraq?
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
uscitizen
Villified User
Ohh some variation of that is inevitable whether we leave or stay.
Now that is what I call some serious clairvoyance. I think Onceler has just foretold the future here.
Epicurus
Reasonable
I was sure that Repubs would have tried that in '04 and '06, but I honestly think this has now dragged on so long it would be a hard sell.
only if we leave we have the worst attack on American soil since 9/11 and the people including the 90% of democrats want to again go to war.
uscitizen
Villified User
That same group of at least 27% that have a favorable opinion of the Chimp.
uscitizen
Villified User
yeah the ones with a mental problem.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here is what would happen...
1. Iraq falls into chaos from various factions fighting for power.
2. Our Muslim allies in the region would immediately turn against us.
3. Our Muslim enemies in the region would cheer and applaude us.
4. Price of oil skyrockets because of the trumoil in the region.
5. alQaeda throws a Victory Party.
6. Mass executions in Iraq for all who supported Western-style democracy.
7. Iran nukes Israel.
8. Israel nukes Iran.
9. Oil production is disrupted due to nuclear radiation.
10. US is target of terror attacks from groups we haven't ever heard of before.
In addition, the worst aspect will be, we can't turn back. Once we have made this decision there will be no return. We will never again be able to gain confidence of any nation in the middle east, and for generations to follow, we will be criticized for bailing on the people of Iraq. Meanwhile, the pinheads who decided to take this road, will be screaming and bitching about the gas prices, which should be around $20 a gallon by then, if you can find it. They will also be screaming and moaning about the thousands of lives being lost daily to terror attacks around the country. But the good news will be, the UN is there to protect us!
1. Iraq falls into chaos from various factions fighting for power.
2. Our Muslim allies in the region would immediately turn against us.
3. Our Muslim enemies in the region would cheer and applaude us.
4. Price of oil skyrockets because of the trumoil in the region.
5. alQaeda throws a Victory Party.
6. Mass executions in Iraq for all who supported Western-style democracy.
7. Iran nukes Israel.
8. Israel nukes Iran.
9. Oil production is disrupted due to nuclear radiation.
10. US is target of terror attacks from groups we haven't ever heard of before.
In addition, the worst aspect will be, we can't turn back. Once we have made this decision there will be no return. We will never again be able to gain confidence of any nation in the middle east, and for generations to follow, we will be criticized for bailing on the people of Iraq. Meanwhile, the pinheads who decided to take this road, will be screaming and bitching about the gas prices, which should be around $20 a gallon by then, if you can find it. They will also be screaming and moaning about the thousands of lives being lost daily to terror attacks around the country. But the good news will be, the UN is there to protect us!
Might've been a good idea to mention that back when Saddam's statue fell & you were calling us all pinheads for being all "doom & gloom" and daring to suggest that things might not go so smoothly for your little democracy project over there.
Not that I agree with any of it, but we do seem to agree that it's a fine pickle you war cheerleaders have gotten us into....
hahaha, Remember all the WMD they had? Its a good thing we took out those degraded munitions that had been burried in the sand for over 20 years.
Dixie, I am sooo glad you are back.
Who are you supporting for President?
Hilarious.
If only 1/3 of this pessimism on getting out of Iraq were around when going into Iraq we wouldn't have to deal with this issue in the first place.
"Its a good thing we took out those degraded munitions that had been burried in the sand for over 20 years. "
I loved it when Santorum came out with that big press conference that 'we found the WMD's!' based on that. No wonder he got clobbered. Of course, Dixie trumpeted that one for awhile on the FP board, as well.
Doesn't matter to Dix, though. Saddam had them, because we can never definitely prove that he did NOT have them. That's Dixieworld.
I loved it when Santorum came out with that big press conference that 'we found the WMD's!' based on that. No wonder he got clobbered. Of course, Dixie trumpeted that one for awhile on the FP board, as well.
Doesn't matter to Dix, though. Saddam had them, because we can never definitely prove that he did NOT have them. That's Dixieworld.
Last edited:
He told me he was going to vote for Obama.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Onceler, I have been listening to pinheads about the war since it started. I've never once said this would be easy or suggested things would go smoothly. I fully realized, all along, that this is probably one of the most ambitious challenges we have ever faced as a nation. Nothing about it is easy, and nothing about it is simple, which is why so many pinheads can't get their minds around it.
I believe we only have two choices when it comes to dealing with radical Islamic terrorism... 1. We confront it and deal with it now. or... 2. We confront it and deal with it later. I prefer now, because the longer it is shoved under the rug and put off, the stronger they become and more difficult our task becomes. The more we spend time trying to appease terrorists, or negotiate with extremists, the greater the number of lives that will be lost eventually defeating them, if we are indeed able to defeat them.
The thing that frustrates me most about the pinheads, is how they don't seem to comprehend what is happening. We are in a war! We didn't start the war, alQaeda started it, years and years ago! No, they didn't send conventional military troops into the US, but they don't fight us in Iraq with conventional military troops, and you have no problem accepting that as a war. They slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 in an assault on the WTC buildings. If the Japanese flew planes into buildings during WWII, would we have a problem calling it an act of war? How is this any different?
Now, like it or not, and regardless of whether it fits your Micheal Moore version of what's going on over there, we are fighting alQaeda in Iraq. It is a war, and someone will win. If we surrender, that only leaves one party to be the winner. Surely you pinheads are smart enough to figure out who the winner will be, if it ain't us!
I take a lot of flack for my "predictions" and mostly, they have been completely misrepresented, but the basis for my statements from a year ago, are still true. When all is said and done, we will have lost less forces in Iraq than some single battles of other wars. We are fortunate that we now have the technology to avoid many combat fatalities, and the medical ability to save the lives of soldiers who would have died in previous wars. This is not to disregard the lives lost in Iraq, but things could be a lot worse, and they have been before. I personally feel this is why the anti-war "Vietnam" analogies haven't flown. The attrition is not effecting a large segment of America as it was in Vietnam. For all intents and purposes, we have literally NO combat fatalities in Iraq, since there is NO opposing army. We are not in the trenches fighting a combat war over there! Our troops are being targeted by terrorists and that is how the loss of life is happening. In light of this, we must assume the motivation on their part, as with any terrorist act, is to force us to react by retreating, capitulating, and surrendering to their demands. That's all I ever hear pinheads suggest we do!
I believe we only have two choices when it comes to dealing with radical Islamic terrorism... 1. We confront it and deal with it now. or... 2. We confront it and deal with it later. I prefer now, because the longer it is shoved under the rug and put off, the stronger they become and more difficult our task becomes. The more we spend time trying to appease terrorists, or negotiate with extremists, the greater the number of lives that will be lost eventually defeating them, if we are indeed able to defeat them.
The thing that frustrates me most about the pinheads, is how they don't seem to comprehend what is happening. We are in a war! We didn't start the war, alQaeda started it, years and years ago! No, they didn't send conventional military troops into the US, but they don't fight us in Iraq with conventional military troops, and you have no problem accepting that as a war. They slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 in an assault on the WTC buildings. If the Japanese flew planes into buildings during WWII, would we have a problem calling it an act of war? How is this any different?
Now, like it or not, and regardless of whether it fits your Micheal Moore version of what's going on over there, we are fighting alQaeda in Iraq. It is a war, and someone will win. If we surrender, that only leaves one party to be the winner. Surely you pinheads are smart enough to figure out who the winner will be, if it ain't us!
I take a lot of flack for my "predictions" and mostly, they have been completely misrepresented, but the basis for my statements from a year ago, are still true. When all is said and done, we will have lost less forces in Iraq than some single battles of other wars. We are fortunate that we now have the technology to avoid many combat fatalities, and the medical ability to save the lives of soldiers who would have died in previous wars. This is not to disregard the lives lost in Iraq, but things could be a lot worse, and they have been before. I personally feel this is why the anti-war "Vietnam" analogies haven't flown. The attrition is not effecting a large segment of America as it was in Vietnam. For all intents and purposes, we have literally NO combat fatalities in Iraq, since there is NO opposing army. We are not in the trenches fighting a combat war over there! Our troops are being targeted by terrorists and that is how the loss of life is happening. In light of this, we must assume the motivation on their part, as with any terrorist act, is to force us to react by retreating, capitulating, and surrendering to their demands. That's all I ever hear pinheads suggest we do!
Last edited:
"I believe we only have two choices when it comes to dealing with radical Islamic terrorism"
And your contention is that Iraq was a "Radical Islamic Terrorist state?"
You've created a total clusterf**k, that by your own admission, is volatile, unpredictable & will require our presence for much, much longer than anyone who supported this war was willing to admit in 2003, when "6 months" was one of the figures lobbed out there by the admin (who also fired a guy for daring to suggest the budget might end up at more than $60 billion). Oh, and if you've read an NIE in the past few years, it's a war that has actually made us LESS SAFE.
Good luck washing that blood off your hands...
And your contention is that Iraq was a "Radical Islamic Terrorist state?"
You've created a total clusterf**k, that by your own admission, is volatile, unpredictable & will require our presence for much, much longer than anyone who supported this war was willing to admit in 2003, when "6 months" was one of the figures lobbed out there by the admin (who also fired a guy for daring to suggest the budget might end up at more than $60 billion). Oh, and if you've read an NIE in the past few years, it's a war that has actually made us LESS SAFE.
Good luck washing that blood off your hands...
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
One of the biggest failures of the Bush administration, was allowing the argument for war in Iraq to be based on WMD's. In my opinion, this was Bush's way of justifying the war without a public admission of the real justifications. It is extremely difficult, as president of the United States, to declare war against a religious-based ideology. It tends to spark unrest around the globe, and develop into mass chaos quickly, if such a statement is made. So, Bush couldn't come out on 9/12 and say that we are now in a war with Islamic Fundamentalists. Subsequently, he couldn't state we had to overthrow Saddam in order to prevent alQaeda from setting up shop in Iraq, and forming a base of operations to attack Israel, but that was pretty much the case.
From the start, I said that Bush should have asked Congress for a formal Declaration of War against Terrorism. It would have been a precedent, for sure, but it would have given the administration the authority to take unilateral action in any way they needed to against the enemy. This would have trumped any need to go to the UN for permission. Saddam's ties to our declared enemy would have been all the reason needed to go into Iraq and overthrow him.
So... no, we didn't find the WMD's... I never expected us to. It was a huge blunder on Bush's part to even allow this possibility to be considered. WMD's have a short shelf-life, so anything we would find 2 years after announcing to the world he had WMD's, would have already been useless and depleted. It was not the WMD's themselves which was our concern, it was the technology and means, the capacity to make them in large quantity, and the risk of alQaeda getting their hands on this technology and capacity.
You're out of your fucking mind, completely bat-shit crazy and a revisionist hack. It's disgusting.