Iraq

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

<EOM>

[Jack and Barbara 0]

First option states "leave when the job is done." What job is that? When WMDs are finally found? When the region is stabilized - i.e peace finally in the Middle East? When the death toll reaches 5,000 for American troops and the often not reported number of innocent civilian deaths?

The thrid option doesn't make much sense either -

We should leave Iraq soon, whether 'the job' is done or not, whether American troops continue to die in Iraq or not. Leave Iraq to the Iraqis.

If we (U.S. soldiers) leave Iraq altogether, how would they continue to die there?

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

there is another option not listed.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

there is another option not listed.

Actually, two.

1. Let the Iraqi people decide when they feel secure enough to hold their own without American troops
2. Permanently occupy Iraq (not the optimal choice, but still existant)

[almaty 19]

cut bait and leave

[sparkofcreation 0]

I wish I could choose option 3, but unfortunately, the US is party to a number of international treaties that basically say "You broke it, you fix it" (in other words, by international law, we have to stay until Iraq is stable and self-governing). But there's gotta be a better way to go about getting it fixed as fast as possible and getting the heck out.

I don't suppose that there are any options involving time machines?

[przy 0]

My little brother served a year and a half in Afghanistan. He will have to go to Iraq in a year or less. My twin brother will be leaving for Iraq shortly. I don't want to lose my brothers. Let's get our people out of there.

[sara..... 371]

I wish I could choose option 3, but unfortunately, the US is party to a number of international treaties that basically say "You broke it, you fix it" (in other words, by international law, we have to stay until Iraq is stable and self-governing). But there's gotta be a better way to go about getting it fixed as fast as possible and getting the heck out.

I don't suppose that there are any options involving time machines?

hmmm international law seems to me broke just about everyone of them when we took iraq over

[SMOKE 1,426]

cut bait and leave

we can't do that. the power vacuum & fight for control would destroy the middle east & maybe set off WW3. gen colin powell said it best when advising bush before the invasion "we break it, we own it" ....well no matter how anyone feels about it, we broke it. now we gotta put it back together & leave it in 1 piece.

[sara..... 371]

cut bait and leave

we can't do that. the power vacuum & fight for control would destroy the middle east & maybe set off WW3. gen colin powell said it best when advising bush before the invasion "we break it, we own it" ....well no matter how anyone feels about it, we broke it. now we gotta put it back together & leave it in 1 piece.

true but i do not see how we are ever going to be able to do that.........there are just to many things against us and most of it our own making

[SMOKE 1,426]

cut bait and leave

we can't do that. the power vacuum & fight for control would destroy the middle east & maybe set off WW3. gen colin powell said it best when advising bush before the invasion "we break it, we own it" ....well no matter how anyone feels about it, we broke it. now we gotta put it back together & leave it in 1 piece.

true but i do not see how we are ever going to be able to do that.........there are just to many things against us and most of it our own making

i know. but we can't destroy the gov't & country then leave because we weren't prepared for for what came next. if we leave & it completely goes to hell,(even worse than it is now) Americas status in the world will never recover. eventually the world community will have to bail us out of our mistake. i think the leaders of the world know it too. its the only way we can leave.

Edited June 12, 2008 by SMOKE

[sara..... 371]

cut bait and leave

we can't do that. the power vacuum & fight for control would destroy the middle east & maybe set off WW3. gen colin powell said it best when advising bush before the invasion "we break it, we own it" ....well no matter how anyone feels about it, we broke it. now we gotta put it back together & leave it in 1 piece.

true but i do not see how we are ever going to be able to do that.........there are just to many things against us and most of it our own making

i know. but we can't destroy the gov't & country then leave because we weren't prepared for for what came next. if we leave & it completely goes to hell,(even worse than it is now) Americas status in the world will never recover.

and this ladies and gentlemen is what faces us when we elect a c average president and he is allowed to start wars with no exit plan..........

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

cut bait and leave

we can't do that. the power vacuum & fight for control would destroy the middle east & maybe set off WW3. gen colin powell said it best when advising bush before the invasion "we break it, we own it" ....well no matter how anyone feels about it, we broke it. now we gotta put it back together & leave it in 1 piece.

true but i do not see how we are ever going to be able to do that.........there are just to many things against us and most of it our own making

i know. but we can't destroy the gov't & country then leave because we weren't prepared for for what came next. if we leave & it completely goes to hell,(even worse than it is now) Americas status in the world will never recover. eventually the world community will have to bail us out of our mistake. i think the leaders of the world know it too. its the only way we can leave.

I agree we shouldn't withdraw unconditionally, at least without leaving a stable government capable of managing its own affairs. My question however - is how much do we realistically think we can achieve? I do think that we're kidding ourselves in some respects.... For example I can't envisage a situation where Iran doesn't come out on top in all this; or at the least that its position as a regional power will be significantly strengthened. The dominant sectarian groups in both countries are Shia (as opposed the Sunni minority that was in power under Saddam), groups which aren't really that far removed in terms of general ideology. The animosity between Iran and Iraq came about largely through Saddam, not because of some pre-existing tribal or other dispute between the two countries. In fact the reason that we supported Saddam in the first place is that he provided a buffer against neighbouring Iran. With that gone - Iran is in a rather better strategic position.

Incidentally - we are conspiciously leaving Iran out of negotiations regarding Iraq, which is pretty silly considering the level of influence they are able to wield there (specifically over groups like the Al Sadrists). Iran funding Shia extremists groups (as opposed to Al Qaeda) to cause problems for the occupying forces is all part of a plan - a pretty simple and effective one when you think about it. Specifically - they can, (for not much effort or money) string out the war with these guerilla tactics - cause high profile casualties of US troops via IEDs and RPG ambushes, while the US has to deal daily with casualty reports and the staggering cost of maintaining its armed forces in that region.

Iraq might come out stable and self-sufficient, but its always going to be ideologically partnered with Iran.

The problem as I see is that America has already gambled its international reputation by prosecuting this war, and we've bet the farm and the kitchen sink on ensuring success in Iraq. But the scales are weighed so heavily against what I imagine most people would "success" that it seems doomed to failure. I honestly hope this isn't the case - but what's so frustrating about this whole thing (for me anyway) is that we have delibarately maneouvered ourselves into a very bad position. Not only do I think the voters were swindled into this idea (at least in the US) - but it does show the ineptitude of this government in not being able to foresee an outcome that was frankly predictable from the getgo.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Number 6

[sara..... 371]

cut bait and leave

we can't do that. the power vacuum & fight for control would destroy the middle east & maybe set off WW3. gen colin powell said it best when advising bush before the invasion "we break it, we own it" ....well no matter how anyone feels about it, we broke it. now we gotta put it back together & leave it in 1 piece.

true but i do not see how we are ever going to be able to do that.........there are just to many things against us and most of it our own making

i know. but we can't destroy the gov't & country then leave because we weren't prepared for for what came next. if we leave & it completely goes to hell,(even worse than it is now) Americas status in the world will never recover. eventually the world community will have to bail us out of our mistake. i think the leaders of the world know it too. its the only way we can leave.

I agree we shouldn't withdraw unconditionally, at least without leaving a stable government capable of managing its own affairs. My question however - is how much do we realistically think we can achieve? I do think that we're kidding ourselves in some respects.... For example I can't envisage a situation where Iran doesn't come out on top in all this; or at the least that its position as a regional power will be significantly strengthened. The dominant sectarian groups in both countries are Shia (as opposed the Sunni minority that was in power under Saddam), groups which aren't really that far removed in terms of general ideology. The animosity between Iran and Iraq came about largely through Saddam, not because of some pre-existing tribal or other dispute between the two countries. In fact the reason that we supported Saddam in the first place is that he provided a buffer against neighbouring Iran. With that gone - Iran is in a rather better strategic position.

Incidentally - we are conspiciously leaving Iran out of negotiations regarding Iraq, which is pretty silly considering the level of influence they are able to wield there (specifically over groups like the Al Sadrists). Iran funding Shia extremists groups (as opposed to Al Qaeda) to cause problems for the occupying forces is all part of a plan - a pretty simple and effective one when you think about it. Specifically - they can, (for not much effort or money) string out the war with these guerilla tactics - cause high profile casualties of US troops via IEDs and RPG ambushes, while the US has to deal daily with casualty reports and the staggering cost of maintaining its armed forces in that region.

Iraq might come out stable and self-sufficient, but its always going to be ideologically partnered with Iran.

The problem as I see is that America has already gambled its international reputation by prosecuting this war, and we've bet the farm and the kitchen sink on ensuring success in Iraq. But the scales are weighed so heavily against what I imagine most people would "success" that it seems doomed to failure. I honestly hope this isn't the case - but what's so frustrating about this whole thing (for me anyway) is that we have delibarately maneouvered ourselves into a very bad position.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I voted for the first option - on the basis of "you broke it, you bought it"

It is an optimistic assessment though - I'm almost certain that public pressure will force an early end to the war, as it did with Vietnam.