The Road Home

[Danzig]

i don't think the u.s. remains at this point to help in any civil, religious, culture war. i think bush et al have finally understood why we didn't take saddam out in gulf one, and it's kinda late to worry now, since they chose to ignore this particular issue in gulf 2--iran. if we leave, the power vacuum will most certainly exist, it probably does already. this leaves iran as the predominant power in the region. all the years that saddam the thug and murderer was there, he kept his enemy in check. bush and congress chose to ignore the wider view, the wider picture when they invaded to take saddam out--and now iran is making itself heard. there is far more at stake then just iraq.

the problem remains who is going to put this right? not bush--and i'm not so sure that anyone who is running to succeed him will be able to take on this issue either. certainly all the finger pointing won't fix the problem. bush led the call, and congress so willingly followed. just to leave will NOT solve the problem.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Sham,
Of the three options presented, the one that makes the most sense is tainted with hypotheticals. 3 "may"s and one possibly.
Perhaps the author needs a consult with Madame Zelda and her magical cards.

"If the U.S. withdraws without achieving even this minimalist definition of "success", Iraq will deteriorate into ever worsening violence and may splinter into its component parts. Turkey may then invade Kurdistan, whose possible independence it views as a threat to its own territorial integrity. Iran will become not only a primary player in Iraq, but the primary one, possibly even annexing Shiite areas outright. The Saudis, already threatened by rising Shiite influence in the region, petrified by a possible Iranian presence right on their border, may similarly choose to preempt this by grabbing parts of Iraq. Jordan, with an Iranian controlled Iraq on its border, might collapse. For Israel, the consequences will be severe."

Oh, I wonder why the author is looking out for the interests of Israel?
hmmm.....

I've stayed out of this thread but I read this and I start looking for my time machine...did I just travel back to the 60's? This is the same crap Henry K and the boys used to justify Nam...in fact it was the mindset that led to Korea...use to call it the domino theory...names no doubt changed to protect the guilty but still...the more things change, the more they stay the same! I'm not an isolationist but I'd rather see our troops in the Sudan stopping genocide than trying to create something in Iraq that goes against everything the folks there believe!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I've stayed out of this thread but I read this and I start looking for my time machine...did I just travel back to the 60's? This is the same crap Henry K and the boys used to justify Nam...in fact it was the mindset that led to Korea...use to call it the domino theory...names no doubt changed to protect the guilty but still...the more things change, the more they stay the same! I'm not an isolationist but I'd rather see our troops in the Sudan stopping genocide than trying to create something in Iraq that goes against everything the folks there believe!

Somer,
I called attention to the "domino theory" in post #25.
Same old, same old.
It was a lie then, and it's still a lie.
If the Bushco junta really wished for this to end (and I don't think they do, cause Halliburton, BKR, Blackwater, and major GOP corporate contributors are continuing to cash in on the blood expended by our troops), Condi would be arranging a "Moslem Summit" involving many of the nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, where moderate Moslems might be enlisted to find a diplomatic solution.
Let's face it. This really is a quagmire. Old arguements will be trotted out to justify it. History is a circle that runs on blood.

[sham]

I have no intention of defending the Iraq war. Just pointing out views some have ragarding consequences of a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq. One has to wonder what is gonna happen to those Iraqi citizens that bought in and supported the concept of a free and democratic nation. Upon a US pull-out, many of them are as good as dead I suspect.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by sham

I have no intention of defending the Iraq war. Just pointing out views some have ragarding consequences of a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq. One has to wonder what is gonna happen to those Iraqi citizens that bought in and supported the concept of a free and democratic nation. Upon a US pull-out, many of them are as good as dead I suspect.

Sham,
I see what you're trying to say, and yes, things could get worse. No debate on that.
Do you think that what's been happening to "those Iraqi citizens that bought in and supported the concept of a free and democratic nation" during the past three years, and especially during the past year, isn't already happening?
Two million Iraqis have fled their country to escape the horror.
So, could it get worse, yes. But it appears to be bad enough already.
"Stay the course" isn't making the situation any better, despite the delusional dreams of the "Decider" and his vice-emporer.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Sham,
I see what you're trying to say, and yes, things could get worse. No debate on that.
Do you think that what's been happening to "those Iraqi citizens that bought in and supported the concept of a free and democratic nation" during the past three years, and especially during the past year, isn't already happening?
Two million Iraqis have fled their country to escape the horror.
So, could it get worse, yes. But it appears to be bad enough already.
"Stay the course" isn't making the situation any better, despite the delusional dreams of the "Decider" and his vice-emporer.

The same argument was used in Nam...and yes, people suffered after we left as they were unable to defend themselves. South Korea was a better result...it will depend on the Iraqi government I suspect.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

The same argument was used in Nam...and yes, people suffered after we left as they were unable to defend themselves. South Korea was a better result...it will depend on the Iraqi government I suspect.

Without the support of moderate Muslim nations Iraq will find itself in the same situation as South Viet Nam.
This quagmire will not end militarily. No way, despite the best efforts to train an Iraqi military (remember ARVN's?) or an Iraqi police force. Pipe dream, that.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Without the support of moderate Muslim nations Iraq will find itself in the same situation as South Viet Nam.
This quagmire will not end militarily. No way, despite the best efforts to train an Iraqi military (remember ARVN's?) or an Iraqi police force. Pipe dream, that.

I agree...maybe a radical suggestion? Give the opportunity to relocate to all Iraqis willing...then pull out!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree...maybe a radical suggestion? Give the opportunity to relocate to all Iraqis willing...then pull out!

Maybe, but I'd go with a United Islamic (moderate) peace keeping force.
It would be a tough job to bring consensus, and the US shouldn't take the lead, maybe Jordan and the Saudis, and Indonesia.
The Secretary of State needs to get off her bunzollas and start talking to some people. It wouldn't hurt if she used her buttocks for more than brain storage and sitting while she watches from the sidelines.
Fact: Condi has no balls.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Timm,
Here is what a real general has to say.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....groundid=00192

I wonder what Sgt Pendry would have to say to Gen Odom.

A "real" General that's 22 yrs removed from active service? Isn't that like a generation? The media is biased to the left in case you haven't seen the latest polls. Pendry would probably tell Odom that he's a cowardly POS,imo!
My mistake...Pendry was a Sgt. Major.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Maybe, but I'd go with a United Islamic (moderate) peace keeping force.
It would be a tough job to bring consensus, and the US shouldn't take the lead, maybe Jordan and the Saudis, and Indonesia.
The Secretary of State needs to get off her bunzollas and start talking to some people. It wouldn't hurt if she used her buttocks for more than brain storage and sitting while she watches from the sidelines.
Fact: Condi has no balls.

Well, Condi takes her orders from GWB...I doubt he's had an original thought since he became President. I agree that we need a multi-national Islamic presence...but that takes statesmanship from the US...an oxymoron! Geez...the spelling police are out!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Well, Condi takes her orders from GWB...I doubt he's had an original thought since he became President. I agree that we need a multi-national Islamic presence...but that takes statesmanship from the US...an axymoron!

The OXYMORON is the multi-national Islamic presence(herding mean cats)

TImm: my 2 pennies...
The NY Times would be considered more liberal but it is a great paper. There is no paper in this country that does a better job reporting foreign affairs. If you dont read it, your missing out. The NY Times Science section is very good also. I cant think of a paper that has better writers.

The Wall Street Journal is also excellent... what happens down the road remains to be seen.

I also think the guy on FOX on Sunday morning does an excellent job interviewing. He is very well read and if a question yields an answer he did not expect, he is immediately on it with unscripted questions that are very good. He is excellent at catching contradictions. The guy is very good at this.
Fox craters with the O'Reilly and that other entertainer. And will someone please kick Lou Dobbs in the groin. CNN is just horrid. Charlie Rose on PBS is very good for late night stuff as long as he does not have one of his artsy/fartsy friends on. I also enjoy George Will. One of the few conservatives commentators that actually understands science.

[sham]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

The OXYMORON is the multi-national Islamic presence(herding mean cats)

I agree. Won't ever happen. Every nation in the region has a differing agenda and most are probably too afraid of Iran to participate. I got it. We get an Israeli security force to tamp down violence while the US military scampers clear.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by sham

I agree. Won't ever happen. Every nation in the region has a differing agenda and most are probably too afraid of Iran to participate. I got it. We get an Israeli security force to tamp down violence while the US military scampers clear.

Which strenghtens the Jihadists forces...as now they have a single enemy! I do believe that we'll never be free from the terrorists. So, we have to fight them somewhere!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Which strenghtens the Jihadists forces...as now they have a single enemy! I do believe that we'll never be free from the terrorists. So, we have to fight them somewhere!

timm.
Are you stating that all Islamic people are radical Jihadist forces?
You might be surprised to find that the majority of the people of that faith are not, anymore than all Christians are Crusaders.

So...your solution to this debacle besides "never ending war"?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

timm.
Are you stating that all Islamic people are radical Jihadist forces?
You might be surprised to find that the majority of the people of that faith are not, anymore than all Christians are Crusaders.

So...your solution to this debacle besides "never ending war"?

DTS: Must you always "beg the question"? You know I'm doing nothing of the sort! The Jihadists aren't going to stop planning and attacking anytime soon! The attacks in London,Scotland and the aborted attacks in US are proof that the terrorist will not be minimised unless America is able and ready to deal with them militarily.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: Must you always "beg the question"? You know I'm doing nothing of the sort! The Jihadists aren't going to stop planning and attacking anytime soon! The attacks in London,Scotland and the aborted attacks in US are proof that the terrorist will not be minimised unless America is able and ready to deal with them militarily.

timm,
Honestly, I didn't "beg the question", I asked one.
The attacks in London and Scotland were thwarted by luck, and investigated by security agencies (police intelligence), not military.
So, as regards the USA, and given the fact that one fourth of the leadership positions at Homeland Security remain unfilled, ummm.., ugh,
Sorry, Timm. Good intelligence provides more security than all the brave military service, (and I commend their efforts).
Remember, wars are fought with countries. "Terrorists" know no boundaries.
This isn't the mission of the military, but rather, the covert (intelligence) departments.

[timmgirvan]

Terrorists know no boundaries, but this country still isn't ready for what is coming as far as attacks! They're too inconvenienced to pay attention to things that might interrupt their daily lives. And the Dems will fund for more intelligence...I don't think so!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Terrorists know no boundaries, but this country still isn't ready for what is coming as far as attacks! They're too inconvenienced to pay attention to things that might interrupt their daily lives. And the Dems will fund for more intelligence...I don't think so!

Wow!
We agree!...at least on most of what you said.
I really don't know that the Dems won't fund more intelligence, so I'm not going to assume (cause whenever I do, it makes an ass of you and me).
As far as people paying attention, well, I'm thinkin' that many do. The rest might be just struggling to keep their heads above water (survive).
Timm, do you remember what Regan said? The quote about, "is your life better now than it was four years ago"?
So, back to an honest question:
How does the US find a way to disengage from Iraq?

btw...many prominent Repub Senators are aasking that question.