3,000
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Annie
Not So Junior Member
thank you runyon. And happy New year
You're certainly welcome. My resolution is to try and get control of my Irish temper and too quick to write fingers.
uscitizen
Villified User
Why ? so we can be just like Israel and keep the fires of hatred blazing ?
Short of sending 3 to 4 hundred thousand american troops, events will continue to spiral out of control, IMO.
So we don't create a situation of Genocide unchecked. Pretending that our leaving wouldn't effect that area even more negatively than staying is IMO just covering eyes and pretending that if you don't see it, it doesn't exist.
Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have no interest in seeing a genocide occur and millions of refugees flooding across their borders.
Fortunately for them, Bush is playing into their hands. They don't have to deal with Iraq on a regional basis, because Bush has allowed our army to be the "policeman" in an iraqi civil war. I suspect once those countries are confronted with the possibility that the american policemen are leaving, they will have to come to some sort of regional political solution on iraq.
uscitizen
Villified User
Just like Regan and Bush I did when Sadam was killing off his people ?
And using WMD's on them and Iran ?
Nah, I don't think they will be the solution. I do, however, think that leaving before there is a solution (international forces) to replace them would be far more of a mistake than we have already made.
Making it even worse is not an option, and that would be the only result of leaving without such.
Right... Like we helped to create when we were in the old State Department mentality of "Stability over Moral" solutions...
We cannot continue fooling ourselves into thinking either action could be significantly detrimental to our own direct safety as well as an understanding that we have a responsibility toward people from whom we have taken the only form of stability they have known.
Which was my solution. Not just regional, but an international replacement. Until that has come to some form of reality we must continue to stay rather than allow for them to simply degenerate even more than we have caused.
I don't think the Arab League, or any other international body, is going to pony up peacekeeping troops as long as bush is staying the course "till the mission is complete", and promising to stay in Iraq through the end of his presidency. He's on record saying all of that.
There's simply no incentive for the Arab League or Iraq's neighbors to take ownership of the problem.
I think if we said "we're going to start pulling out in six months, and we'll be gone by 2008", it would force the regional neighbors, the Iraqi goverment, and perhaps the Arab League to take ownership of the problem.
But, I don't think Bush ever wants to withdraw. For several reasons, which probably deserve another thread.
And hence I have never stated we should "stay the course". You are deliberately pretending to misunderstand my posts...
Regardless of what Bush is doing it will be far worse for us if we leave before there is that "league of arab nations" to replace us, or another international force apart from the US and comprised of more than just "Christians"...
I am giving an opinion.. and I think a right one. That if we leave before ensuring this force we simply set those people up for Genocide on a massive scale. I believe that the sectarian violence is just the tip of the iceberg here and leaving will allow the rest of that 'berg out....
Seriously, if you are worried about blood on our hands, then just leave now without first negotiating those forces to replace us. Then you can moan and bitch about the supposed Bush Administration's Genocide that will begin happening in the level 5 hurricane level vacuum left behind...
We must leave smartly. I have been saying this for months now... we cannot just abandon them and expect the regional powers to be able to quell what is happening there.
We must leave smartly. I have been saying this for months now... we cannot just abandon them and expect the regional powers to be able to quell what is happening there.
But that's my point: I don't think Bush really ever intends to withdraw from Iraq, let alone let an arab peacekeeping force take ownership of the situation in iraq.
I think he's still clinging to the illusion that Iraq will be a base for american troops in the middle east, and that Iraq can somehow be turned into a western-style free market economy where oil is privitized and western companies can enter into production-sharing agreements with the iraqi government.
I think he's still clinging to the illusion that Iraq will be a base for american troops in the middle east, and that Iraq can somehow be turned into a western-style free market economy where oil is privitized and western companies can enter into production-sharing agreements with the iraqi government.
So I heard. I found it odd that the Iraq Study Group had a whole chapter on oil: how to privitize the iraqi oil industry, it and open it up to western oil companies.
What did that really have to do with an exit strategy?
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Of course it was. They never had any intent to leave Iraq. They'd turn it over to a grateful and submissive -- or loyal, if you prefer -- Iraqi government but then we'd have a military and financial foothold in the region for a very long time.