Deciding to stay or withdraw from Iraq - a straightforward plan

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hapaboy, Oct 21, 2006.

Do you agree that Iraqis should vote on whether the US stays or not?

  1. Yes. If they vote no, we leave. If they vote yes, we stay.

    4 vote(s)
  2. No. We have to stay no matter what.

    2 vote(s)
  3. No. We should leave no matter what.

    6 vote(s)
  1. "We should ask the Iraqis to vote on whether U.S. troops should stay.

    Polling suggests that they want us to go. But polling absent consequences is a form of protest. With accountability, minds may change and appreciation for the U.S. presence might grow.

    If Iraqis voted "stay," we'd have a mandate to do what's necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted "go," our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. And pretty much everyone would have to accept democracy as the only legitimate expression of national will.

    Finishing the job is better than leaving a mess. And if we can finish the job, the war won't be remembered as a mistake."
  2. A quote from the article:
    "The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is a side issue. The WMD fiasco was a global intelligence failure, though calling Saddam Hussein's bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do. Washington's more important intelligence failure lay in underestimating what would be required to rebuild and restore post-Hussein Iraq. The White House did not anticipate a low-intensity civil war in Iraq, never planned for it and would not have deemed it in the U.S. interest to pay this high a price in prestige, treasure and, of course, lives".

    I would argue that the failure to find WMD's is not a side issue, it is the issue. I never argued our reason to invade. We had perfectly good reasons. Once those reasons proved unfounded we needed to leave, right then and there. Our mission was accomplished at that moment. We proved that we were not going to stand idlely by while nations gave safe harbor and support to terrorists. We would not take threats from leaders like saddam lightly. Our toppling of his government in short order would have provided a good lesson to the world....don't pretend to be something you're not, because in times like these, we will call your bluff.
    There never was any original mission to 'save the Iraqi people". That was and is a B.S. sales pitch to continue the war. As to the vote question. The Iraqi people have already voted and they continue to do so everyday with their support of our enemies. We should leave them to die in the sand. That is all they deserve.
  3. "And if we can finish the job, the war won't be remembered as a mistake."

    The fallacy of the neocons and right wingers in a nutshell.

    First of all, "we" cannot finish the job. It is not our job to take care of the Iraqi people, it is their job. The job now is for the Iraqi people to find themselves, or lose themselves once again to a despot like Saddam. Their choice, not ours...

    Secondly, any concern about how the war is remembered is all about ego, which leads to stubborn selfish pride filled decision making...not unemotional, selfless, principles, and purely logical decision making...

  4. Sorry, I don't respond to trolls anymore except to ask them to have the decency to stay away from where they are not welcome.

    Please go away.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    Iustus ignarus troll
  5. 1. Break Iraq into three nations, Sunni, Shiite and Kurd.

    2. Let each group control their own region. Anyone who owns property in a territory where their lives will be clearly at stake if they remain outside of U.S. control should be justly compensated for their losses should they choose to relocate to a different territory.

    3. Maintain a fortified presence in the southern oil fields and seaport; pump oil for the benefit of the Iraqi people but control the financial resources by not permitting any cash into the region that can be used to purchase weapons; syphon off sufficient profits from the oil revenues to pay for the cost of the war, from invasion through the reasonable foreseeable future.

    4. Maintain roadblocks between Syria, Iran and Iraq, and continue to search and destroy any contraband weapons coming into the region. Provide notice that anyone found attempting to import weapons of any type into the region will be summarily executed.

    5. Leave the cities, and let the cards fall where they may.

    6. Offer to split the Iranian oil resources with Russia. If they agree, seize the Iranian oil fields and establish the identical rules as above described.

    7. Remove all U.S. troops from South Korea, because they are at ground zero in the event of a nuclear attack by the North. Tell the Chinese that if they cannot rein in North Korea, that we will have no choice but to provide the South with a tactical nuclear deterrent as a replacement for our troops. The Chinese will probably be very happy that U.S. troops would leave the South, so they will almost certainly give the North an ultimatum to permanently cease their nonsense.

    Of course, none of this will happen, because it's too obvious and simple a solution. Never let it be said that the USA ever tries to do things the easy way.
  6. too late for face-saving gestures... just put your pride (and regional strategic interests) in your pocket and hand over to more capable forces... or get bogged down and shot at ad eternam... {yawn} whats the body count again?
    The Perfect Army for Iraq: NATO
    By Robert E. Hunter
    This opinion article appeared in the New York Times on September 13, 2003.

    "Let NATO do it."

    This admonition has become a standard response to military challenges, from Bosnia to Kosovo to Afghanistan. It should now be applied to Iraq.

    President Bush's address on Sunday acknowledged that America needs help from other countries. American and British casualties continue, postwar costs have prompted Mr. Bush to seek more than $70 billion from Congress, and occupation troops are increasingly required to carry out police work and other tasks they are not trained to perform. This comes after Secretary of State Colin Powell praised NATO for taking on "new responsibilities it must meet in parts of the world that could never have been contemplated" when it was formed.

    So what are we waiting for?

    First, there are still some doubts in Washington that key allies will be prepared to take part, and also concern that some might use their veto power within NATO to thwart effective action. But these fears have more to do with the bitter prewar debate than with current reality. In fact, much of French, German and popular European opposition to the war stemmed precisely from concern that postwar Iraq would pose the challenges it does now. Proved right, many Europeans are sympathetic to the Iraqis' plight.

    And whatever our NATO allies thought of the war, they know that the old security system in the Middle East has been shattered. TheyÍÂnd every other country with a stake in oil, global stability, Israel-Palestine peace, ending terrorism and stopping weapons of mass destructionÍÉave no choice but to support the thrust of American policy. Furthermore, several allied states have more experience than America does with "nation building"ÍÇor instance, France in West Africa, the Scandinavians in the Balkans and elsewhereÍÂnd they can deploy their well-trained paramilitary forces.

    Yes, France could always play dog-in-the-manger. But President Jacques Chirac has sketched out terms under which it will be involvedÍÕhe direction of France's policy is decided; only the price is in doubt. And, as the American ambassador to NATO during operations in Bosnia, I know that France performs militarily as well and as faithfully as any other ally, even when NATO runs the operation.

    The administration is also concerned that NATO will become involved only under a broad United Nations mandate, which could cause America to lose control and be replaced by United Nations bureaucrats. Yes, if Washington simply turned matters over to the United Nations, that fear could be realized. But almost no one suggests that the United Nations would take operational control.

    Rather, we have plenty of precedents for an effective NATO intervention that starts from a far-reaching United Nations mandate. In 1995, the Security Council created a force to go into Bosnia but made clear it would be run "through the NATO chain of command." NATO thus acted as the United Nations' agent, and the arrangement worked. Something similar was done in Kosovo, with equal military success.

    It is also clear that when NATO is formally in charge, America dominates operations under the organization's supreme allied commander, now a Marine general, James Jones. For half a century, every ally has accepted thisÍÊncluding France, which has deployed forces under our leadership even in engagements falling outside the organization's charter.

    For several weeks, the administration has debated whether it should modify the view that as sole superpower, it can do whatever it wants wherever it wants. To get needed help in Iraq, including major financial support from European Union countries, returning to the last half-century's commitment to working with others seems the obvious choice. NATO is the answer, and the sooner the better.

    Robert E. Hunter, a fellow at the RAND Corporation, was United States ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998.
    Read other commentaries by the author.
  7. Hell, I didn't want a bozo like you to respond anyway.

    Good riddance...

  8. Trolls are not welcome on this thread.

    Please go away.


    Member of the ET Anti-Troll Brigade

    Iustus ignarus troll
  9. The average age of the nearly 3,000 young American men killed in Iraq is 25.5 years of age. This is an absolute tragedy.
    There were no WMD's, the mass destruction is the death of these young men.
  10. Then why do you keep posting?

    Please stop trying to engage me...

    #10     Oct 21, 2006