HEY! Lets get out of Iraq!

[yeahwho]

WTF! C'mon Bush, the only semi-success this war has had is securing the oil fields and drilling rigs.

The past quarter of this war has been the deadliest for US military since the beginning.

The toll for the past three months — 329 — made it the deadliest quarter for U.S. troops in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. That surpasses the 316 soldiers killed during November 2004 to January 2005. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003768817_iraq30.html)

The number of US injuries is well over 25,000.

No WMD, Saddam is dead, millions of normal Iraqi citizens have left Iraq, the closest thing to stability is the oil fields which keep getting bombed over and over, over 66,000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/)Iraq civilian deaths, a national healthcare crisis which makes "Sicko (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/who.php)" look like Bambi and a US administration that pretends to be utterly clueless.

And for millions of Americans the worst and most ugly aspect of this war is the utter disregard to report the truth, the un-embedded story. The actual horror of this war. The first amendment being coddled by mega corporate news agencies.

We need to leave, whatever goal we hoped to achieve has been twisted into a hellish nightmare beyond any more US led coalition bombing.

More details and links. (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2133.shtml)

[kaiser soze]

I wouldn't even consider securing the oil fields a semi-success, oil theft and sabotage are rampant. This war isn't about improving the lives of the Iraqis, it is about improving the profits of the military industrial machine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2079641,00.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051207Z.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/08/iraq/main2451828.shtml

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12753

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1622785,00.html

[yeahwho]

I was being too nice when I mentioned the oil...but you do have to admit they seized the oil in more ways than one....;).....I mean semi-successful in the weakest sense.

It really has been a complete fuck up, from pre-intelligence right up till today. Another Bright & Shining Lie (http://www.amazon.com/Bright-Shining-Lie-America-Vietnam/dp/0679724141) of epic proportions.

And we're paying for it (http://costofwar.com/index-college-scholarships.html)by underfunding every social program in America.

I think Bush is going to have to cut his profits and run, the heat is going to really focus on his ass this next year.

[Tompz]

1/5 of the us budget goes to the army

that kind of money could really make some good things happen elsewhere

[yeahwho]

Here is a very good article that simplifies what is happening currently in Iraq, the goals of the current surge and the realities of the outcome.

from an OP/ED 7-3-07 Baltimore Sun "Let's forget the Iraq fantasies and focus on realities" (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.rubin03jul03,0,5485715.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines)

The push for reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite factions has long been a basic premise of Bush policy. As long as the Iraqi government is divided into warring sects, the argument goes, the Iraqi military and police will reflect that division and will fail to jell into an effective army. Civil war will continue.

So the Bush team - and Democratic legislators - has set out benchmarks for Iraqi political leaders to meet, including legislation aimed at bringing them closer together, such as a broader sharing of revenue from oil.

Well, here's the bad news. Forget about reconciliation. The current Iraqi government is led by a weak Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, who has neither the strength nor the desire to reconcile with Sunnis. Nor do the Sunnis have strong, capable leaders. Neither side trusts the other.

The rest of the article goes on with how military leaders perceive the outcome,

But the military's aim is to create a sufficiently stable security situation so that a drawdown would not cause a rout as U.S. forces are reduced, or precipitate a worse calamity inside Iraq and in the region. Toward this end, the goals are as follows:

• Prevent the establishment of any al-Qaida havens in Iraq.

• Prevent the worsening of Iraq's civil war, or a spillover of the Shiite-Sunni power struggle into the Mideast region.

• Ensure that oil continues to flow.

The military's premise is that if al-Qaida is badly damaged, Iraqis can better cope with the ongoing internal struggle for power. The main goal - before a U.S. troop drawdown - is to lower the chances that Iraq will become a failed state, where terrorists train.

This strategy is far more realistic than much of the discussion in Washington. It speaks to many of the concerns of those who fear that Americans are trapped in Iraq with no hope of an exit. I believe it deserves a chance.

I don't endorse this line of thinking but this is a very well written ED/OP piece that lays out much of todays issues politically and militarily in Iraq.

[funk63]

Hey ya! lets do that!

[QueenAdrock]

"It’s a tough fight, but I wouldn’t have asked those troops to go into harm’s way if the fight was not essential to the security of the United States of America," Bush said of the more than 4-year-old war that has claimed the lives of over 3,580 men and women of the U.S. military.

He's either a fucking idiot since invading Iraq wasn't necessary to "protect America" after 9/11, or he's a fucking liar.

I'm kinda stuck in the middle and don't know what to think.

1/5 of the us budget goes to the army

that kind of money could really make some good things happen elsewhere

They had a good quote in Sicko - "If we have the money to kill people, we've got the money to help people." It's disturbing that we have underfunded education programs here, there is no universal health care and we have a startling national debt that's going specifically towards this bullshit war.

It makes me sick.

[Schmeltz]

He's either a fucking idiot since invading Iraq wasn't necessary to "protect America" after 9/11, or he's a fucking liar.

I'm kinda stuck in the middle and don't know what to think.

Can't it be both?

Seriously though, there's going to be American troops in Iraq for years to come. This system of threatening the Iraqis with abandonment unless they pull together is totally hollow, and I think the Iraqis know it. With or without Bush in charge, America - and indeed the rest of the world - can't afford to allow Iraq to turn into another Afghanistan, which it surely will if left to its own sectarian devices. Like it or not there has to be a substantial military presence there, though the cure be hardly less pleasant than the disease. This doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing though: under a capable leadership that makes effective use of the tools at its disposal, the American presence in Iraq could be much more productive than it is at present. But we'll have to wait till 2008 (and maybe longer) for that to happen, since it sure as shit won't come about under the bungling, stupid ineptitude of Bush and his cronies.

[D_Raay]

So relinquish the dagger that is halfway in from the palm of the maniacal, unethical, disingenuous madmen and slip it into a more capable hand to finish the insertion?

Whatever way you want to rationalize or speculate on this, all roads lead to more innocent deaths. Except maybe organized true coalition with diplomacy as their aim.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6279864.stm

It will not end while we are still there...

[yeahwho]

The aftermath of the Vietnam War is still with us today. This war doesn't end because we withdrawl. I think all of us agree with the notion that Iraq will be our legacy forever. What we do today is what will be remembered.

I know that may sound trite and simple, but we're killing on an extremely large scale of people who didn't threaten American's in anyway. Course changes are overdue.

It's not like we needed more evidence to demonstrate that the Bush administration is the #1 vocal proponent of protecting national security while simultaneously endangering it at every given opportunity.

[D_Raay]

Well, speaking of simplicity... Let's look at how this started and where it went from there to see the absurdness of it and to realize the actual goals of our handlers.

We are struck on 9/11 by people having nothing to do with Iraq.

We very briefly go after these people.

That was the simple part.

We start hearing that Iraq is an imminent danger to us despite the fact it causes quite a bit of headscratching and questions of the legitimacy of these claims. We are besieged with phrases like "mushroom clouds", and "chemical weapons".

We are frightened repeatedly with ridiculous color coding and grandiose press conferences, most of which turn out to be false.

The original case for the war in Iraq is proving to be quite difficult to prove anymore to the American people so they simply change the rationale and act like it had always been thus. (with a great deal of help from the MSM of course)

Saddam Hussein is captured and subsequently executed for nearly everyone to see as if he were the man who planned 9/11. I know they never actually said this, but they certainly didn't "not" say this either. He was a symbol of terrorism that was executed for freedom and such. Who cares how the public will see it. War over right? wrong.
This is the same Saddam Hussein that was such an imminent threat to our security and our freedom. His threat is now ended, but the war goes on.

Many think the US will now slowly depart and help diplomatically and with training, but instead the democracy building and freedom spreading propaganda kicks into high gear. And people keep dying, troops are arrested for heinous acts, children are born with deformities, arms and legs are blown from bodies, hungry dogs eat charred bodies that litter the streets.

The American people speak quite clearly through the democratic process and vote out most of the hawks. The overwhelming reasoning being the weariness over the war, despite the attempts to make other much less meaningless issues the focal point of said elections.

Alot of promises are made. "The people have spoken" they say and we hear you. When push comes to shove though, these promises are meaningless.
No resolve is shown at all and the promisers bend to the will of the very same people the public itself took a stand against.

Exactly what in the hell is really going on here? Permanent military presence? Is it really that important? Not to me it isn't... I am sure to Lockheed Martin it is. Is it possible they really are just trying to attract all the terrorists to us to meet them on the battleground that is Iraq? Not exactly a fair way to treat people that you are supposedly liberating is it? Not at all logical either as terrorists continually prove they will strike anywhere.
My guess would be that this is part of a larger scheme. The neo-cons here were thrust into power under very dubious circumstances and they are running the full court press. It shows in Bush, it shows in Cheney, it shows in increasingly ludicrous talking heads like William Kristol and Fouad Ajami, who btw recently compared Libby to our fallen soldiers in Iraq.

I'd like to hear from you regulars on this though as I am certainly not an expert on the matter I just try to keep myself informed. I mean really have we just simply accepted the fact that we will be in Iraq forever? Can any of us live with this much blood on our hands?

[Schmeltz]

This war doesn't end because we withdraw

I think that's an excellent point. The consequences of this conflict will be enormous and transgenerational - and not least among them will be the accelerated creation of a generation of battle-hardened terrorist combat veterans, extremely adept at the use of unconventional arms and wedded to a fanatic religious ideology spreading through the Middle East like a poison. This is inevitably going to create more conflict, especially given the statist, corporatist character of the primary forces arrayed against this movement by a grasping and consumptive Western society. So it's a waste of time, effort, and money to pull the troops out now - you'll only spend more of all those things when you have to send them back.

If you don't think this is really all that important, all I have to say is you couldn't be more wrong. This is probably the most historically significant pattern of events since the end of the Cold War and it's directly tied to all sorts of other major issues that are already dramatically impacting our societies and will continue to do so. It is irrealistic to imagine that walking away from the issue (especially after all the missteps already taken) and pretending everything will sort itself out is a halfway productive approach to the situation.

On the other hand, it doesn't have to be a simple matter of resigning oneself to unrelenting bloodshed and military interference overseas. This mess started with the irresponsible misuse of power by corrupt and incompetent public officials. Punish them. Impeach them, incarcerate them, render them accountable for their grotesque misdeeds, and most of all replace them with leaders with the experience and capability needed to address these problems. I'm convinced that humanity right now is facing problems of a scope and magnitude never seen before, but equally I continue to believe that they are largely of our own making and that it is therefore possible to unmake them, though at a cost.

[D_Raay]

I would disagree wholeheartedly. If all of us more educated and fortunate people were given permission to effect the lives of the less fortunate in as grave a manner as we are now you would say that it is important and necessary?

I cannot abide by such logic. It is intellectual arrogance and grossly immoral. I don't want to hear about how it is necessary to so severely the impact the lives of fellow human beings that are demonized by our culture that somehow we become justified in the undertaking of said act?

Who leads us is very important because he certainly doesn't speak for all of us, just ask the gays if you don't believe that. And that is the root of the problem. We are not meant to be LEAD in the existential sense at all. We are meant to empower to further our own good. Otherwise, the whole prospect of liberty and justice is merely a sham. These people can work out their own problems just fine. They are not lost without us. You don't think if we took all our cards off the table that it wouldn't be a positive influence.

Maybe I am being to optimistic, but it seems that this is exactly what the world needs. We should mind our own business and stop with the hording of natural resources.

But hey it'll never happen. Not so long as greed and power corrupt.

[SugarInTheRaw]

Hey ya! lets do that!
Let's go! Over the top :D!

[Schmeltz]

Alright, I've tried twice to form my thoughts into a coherent reply to this thread and it hasn't worked. Let's see if I can do it before I head out to lunch.

I think this is the crux of the matter here:

These people can work out their own problems just fine. They are not lost without us.

In fact this is not at all certain. An historically transformative struggle is under way at the heart of Islamic civilization; a violent and oppressive strain of theocratic fundamentalism is burning its way into the fabric of a world religion whose adherents comprise one-sixth of humanity and it is very possible that this vicious movement will subsume and destroy the moderate, progressive, secularist elements that currently control the various Muslim countries. It already happened in Afghanistan and now, thanks to the Bushies, it threatens to happen in Iraq. And it's worse than foolish to imagine that it will stop there, as would seem to be indicated by the scenes we've watched playing out so far this year in Gaza, in Islamabad, in Nahr al-Bared, and in London and Glasgow.

In these terms there is no such thing as us and them, there is no "these people" who will (probably!) work out their own problems while "we" can just sit back and relax irrespective of which side wins. This is a global issue and it will take a global effort to ensure that the very worst - the imposition of a new Dark Age upon an enormous sector of the human and material world, with all its attendant consequences - does not come to pass.

In spite of all the appalling errors and colossal bungling performed by the current mind-bogglingly ignorant, arrogant, and grossly incompetent generation of Western politicians, this effort will not be furthered by a total retreat from the situation. As John Ibbitson wrote concisely in the Globe and Mail this week, if American troops remain in Iraq the odds against success are very high - but if they leave, failure is certain, not just for Iraq but for the Islamic and indeed the human world at large.

So no, I don't think the kitchen will clean itself if we go down to the basement to watch TV.

[EN[i]GMA]

I can't see how leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves against criminals and gangsters adept enough at killing to dent even US forces is at all a sensible, humane course of action.

Schmeltz is right, we've fucked things up too badly to just say fuck it. First of all, that's irresponsible. Past failure does not excuse you from your obligations. If you break your mom's vase, the fact that you broke it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for fixing it.

To D_raay:


I would disagree wholeheartedly. If all of us more educated and fortunate people were given permission to effect the lives of the less fortunate in as grave a manner as we are now you would say that it is important and necessary?

The question isn't were we right to go in; the answer is obviously no.

The question is, do have a responsibility, an obligation, to fix what we've fucked up? The answer to that HAS TO BE yes.


I cannot abide by such logic. It is intellectual arrogance and grossly immoral. I don't want to hear about how it is necessary to so severely the impact the lives of fellow human beings that are demonized by our culture that somehow we become justified in the undertaking of said act?

The fact is that we've probably destroyed the lives of nearly everyone in the country, in that many or most of them can no longer function anywhere as easily as they once perhaps could have.

There is constant in parts of the country of violence, the political and social institutions are broken and I don't think the economy is doing so well.

It is necessary, then, to fix these problems, because they are largely our creation.


Who leads us is very important because he certainly doesn't speak for all of us, just ask the gays if you don't believe that. And that is the root of the problem. We are not meant to be LEAD in the existential sense at all. We are meant to empower to further our own good. Otherwise, the whole prospect of liberty and justice is merely a sham.

I think you need to only look at how the US is treating the Iraqis, by and large, and how the Iraqi police are behaving to see that justice and liberty are rare commodities in Iraq.

But that's what we have to fix.

These people can work out their own problems just fine.


No, no they cannot.

The Iraqi government by itself cannot more effectively defend its citizens than it can with our help.

That's simply impossible. They don't have the men, the equipment, or the capability to defend the bulk of the country.

If Iraq's problem becomes Iran, or Al Qaeda (which is now stronger than it was when it attacked us, by the way), they can't deal with it. Hell, WE can't deal with those problems. What COULD the Iraqi government do to stand up to Iran? To prevent usurpation? To prevent religious extremists from growing in power?

The only possible solution that I can think would be to institute forceful martial law. And that's a valid solution.


They are not lost without us. You don't think if we took all our cards off the table that it wouldn't be a positive influence.

On whom? It would certainly be a positive influence on the gangsters, murderers, and thugs who currently run roughshod over portions of the country. It would be a positive influence on the spread of sectarian violence, on religious fragmentation, and on economic instability.

But I can't imagine it being very positive for the average Iraqi.


Maybe I am being to optimistic, but it seems that this is exactly what the world needs. We should mind our own business and stop with the hording of natural resources.

But hey it'll never happen. Not so long as greed and power corrupt.

I think we're emotionally on the same side; we think the whole ordeal is abhorrent. By shying away from it won't solve it.

[D_Raay]

Well, hey you guys might be right... I tend to let the emotional gravitas of the situation cloud my thinking a little.

It is very frustrating to not be able to come to a reasonable conclusion in one's own head on how this all should play out. Perhaps, you could help me?

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, hey you guys might be right... I tend to let the emotional gravitas of the situation cloud my thinking a little.

It is very frustrating to not be able to come to a reasonable conclusion in one's own head on how this all should play out. Perhaps, you could help me?

Honestly? I have no idea. It might be totally wrong. It might be the case that the moment we leave the insurgency will pack up, and Iraq will become a utopia. But I doubt it.

That's why I take the position I do. Not because I like the idea of occupying Iraq, but because I think that leaving it now would do more harm than staying, on balance. That doesn't mean that staying will do no harm -- it'll probably continue in much the same fashion as the last few years, for the foreseeable future -- merely that leaving would likely further destabilize the situation.

Then you throw in the fact that this mess is our creation, and we have an obligation to fix it, no matter what our previous fuck ups have been. It would a abdication of duty to say "Well, we've fucked your country up good and we're just too fucking incompetent to fix it, so here are the keys." We have to fix it. And if the Iraqi government cannot, or will not help us, so what? The stability of the entire Middle East is now our direct responsibility. Now I don't like this one bit, but it is what it is. We may learn in a few more years that the situation in Iraq is just unfuckupable, somewhat like the constant mess that is Israel. Under those circumstances, it might be prudent to wuss out and leave Iraq a shattered mess. But I'd really hate to add that final failure onto our long tally.

[yeahwho]

We'll leave when we find some WMD in operational order that present a direct security threat to the U.S. circa 2003.

We are powerless over any decision of leaving Iraq. We were powerless over any decision of going into Iraq.

Fuck let's just face it, democracy on the Planet earth is becoming a losing proposition. That is the one lesson learned by me.

In the end I predict the U.N. will provide exactly the same service they were providing in the beginning. How fucked up ironic is that?

[Ali]

There is no way the US will ever leave Iraq, they need the presence there in order to secure the oil reserves (most of which is required by the US military :rolleyes: ) and of ourse there's always Iran!

[D_Raay]

How come the money that can't be found to insure all the kids in the country can be found every 2 months for the Iraq war?

Is it really that monumental of a venture that we should spend such vast amounts of wealth?

I understand your points all too well, it just stinks... not entirely sure what the smell is necessarily, but it is pungent.

[bigboy7787]

Yeah,

Let's just leave Iraq. That would be real smart. Lets abandon the Iraqi people. Lets show weakness to Al-Qaeda. Let's see where that gets us.

[Whatitis]

Uh, oh.

[TimDoolan]

:D

[yeahwho]

Yeah,

Let's just leave Iraq. That would be real smart. Lets abandon the Iraqi people. Lets show weakness to Al-Qaeda. Let's see where that gets us.

Fuck yeah! Let's invoke the draft today and go kick some ass! In the name of Jesus stop this "all volunteer" army and start getting some of the richer kids out on the front lines.

It's been 4 years, now is the perfect time to que in on GWB's brilliant logic on how to conduct a false war.

[D_Raay]

Yeah,

Let's just leave Iraq. That would be real smart. Lets abandon the Iraqi people. Lets show weakness to Al-Qaeda. Let's see where that gets us.

So where do you propose it should end? I am sure enough reasons could be concocted to just march on until the whole world is ours. Every one is just a statistic waiting to happen as long as it's safe in your own mind huh?

The simple fact of the matter is that this was brought on us by our own government who we are now , ironically, entrusting us to get us out of.

You can't catch the simple logic in that?

Oh and btw, I don't think it is possible to abandon people that want you to get the fuck out! Unless of course you put on this ridiculous "America is number 1" face and just ignore what "lesser" people have to think or say.