Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan
I still think we should have stayed in Vietnam to finish the job.

How much time did you spend in-country? Who's "we?"

[Nylan-Nolan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Suck my ****, asswipe, and if you think it's a "job" to "finish" then get your own ass down in the sand.

Excellent rebuttal! Your reponse is SO convincing...

Perhaps my family's long time history in the US military could help you calm down a bit. I may not be "in the sand" myself, but it doesn't mean I don't understand the implications. I'm well aware at how much war stinks.

I'm also well aware of what happened to the last country we left early.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
afghanistan is bordered by Pakistan, Iran, and the Russian dominated central Asian stans. Paki, Iran and Russia all had substantial interest in the outcome in Afghan. And conflicts with each other. The net result was a state dominated by the pro-Pakistan Taliban, who were aligned with AQ. And before anyone says that no state would dare to ally the way Pakistan did then, I give you Pakistan today, and Waziristan.

An analagous, if not identical, situation, could still take place in Iraq. I dont see the configuration of nearby powers, or the terrain, preventing that. The proximity of US force is a difference, assuming a future US govt has the stomach to go back into Iraq to alter the balance against any faction that is protecting AQ.

The real question is whether there is any net benefit, either in terms of political progress in Iraqi reconciliation, or in improvement in the Iraqi army, from a continued US presence in say, the next 24 months. If not, then we might as well leave now, as the negative consequences of withdrawl will be no worse, and we could begin to rebuild our army. However a full analysis of that would require a detailed look at current Iraqi political situation, including the oil deal, the debaathification proposal, the ferment in Anbar, and the possibility of new alignments in the Iraqi parliament, rather than a "theyre just hopeless Arabs" snark, despite how much the events since Jan 2005 would seem to justify that.

The question remains on how our withdrawal will help with the WOT. It surely will help the US armed forces, but that is not the question.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


The question remains on how our withdrawal will help with the WOT. It surely will help the US armed forces, but that is not the question.

I guess MTGs assumption is that a stronger US military will be useful elsewhere in the WOT. And not just in afganistan. Coming from most I would dismiss their willingness to really support, say, military action in Pakistan. From MTG, I would not.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I guess MTGs assumption is that a stronger US military will be useful elsewhere in the WOT. And not just in afganistan. Coming from most I would dismiss their willingness to really support, say, military action in Pakistan. From MTG, I would not.

What I don't understand is how we can withdraw without some guarantee that al Qa'ida will not set up bases in Iraq. Otherwise, we will simply have to re-invade.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Nylan-Nolan

I'm also well aware of what happened to the last country we left early.

Do you mean Vietnam? They were the ones who toppled Pol Pot, so it can't have been all bad...

[Nylan-Nolan]

No, it wasn't all bad, but it wasn't exactly good either

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Wildbore
The Iraq war was the smartest and easiest decision Bush made during his term.

Saddam Hussein was given the chance to comply with inspectors by the deadline, inspectors said he didn't. UN resolution 1441 said Saddam Hussein should face serious consequences, he did.

500 billion or so to knock off a third-world dictator with no real power, and leave no real functioning state in its wake, while simultaneously increasing the influence of the largest geopolitical threat in the region? That's brilliant.

Terrorists started coming into Iraq afterwords. To counter-act this, Bush made the easy decision to keep the US in Iraq to prevent terrorists from toppling the democracy.

Yep, every arab fighter we've killed or captured has been a foreigner who "came into Iraq afterwards."

Which democracy? Bremer's CPA? Or the current sham which virtually nobody other than American policy apologists takes seriously? i.e. the one that is riddled with Shiite radical elements, easily penetrated by insurgents and insurgent sympathizers in all factions, and which is corrupt and incompetent?

Hell, they can't even conduct a hanging right. Let alone be trusted to hold those prisoners until moments before execution.

If the US would have left Iraq, by now Iraq would be a failed state,

As opposed to the enormously successful state it is now.

and the al-Qaeda would most likely have trained dozens of sleeper cells in the US to blow stuff up.

Yeah, and US immigration would have let them fly in on student visas. All on chartered flights from Baghdad International, I suppose?

Military operations in Iraq don't have the slightest effect on the ability of AQ operatives to conduct training outside that theater or to infiltrate the US or the west.

3200 or so soldiers died. Boo-hoo, not a whole lot.

How much time have you spent in the line, buddy-boy?

They were doing their job and they still are, if you pull them out America is not only cowardly, but the soldiers are prevented from doing their duty.

Nobody, least of all the US, has to account to anyone else's hypocritical, ever-shifting concept of bravery or duty. The only thing the US needs to be accountable for is the effective service of its global geopolitical and security interests.

Even now, the UN Sec. General is saying Iraq must be fixed. Even the stupidest person can understand that a large number of troops are needed to do that.

So when are you deploying, precious? And unless the UN Secretary General proposes to supply troops to get their asses in the line, then his opinions on the matter count for just about as much as anything else the UN says or does. Not diddly ****, in other words.

[Wildbore]

Its amazing how dumb Americans are.

The American public and Senate gives Bush massive support to democratize Iraq. Now troops die and Americans are all crying and whining because its too hard.

Obviously troops were going to die, Bush even told you it wasn't going to be easy.

Anyways, who cares if troops die, the US military is recruiting like crazy, so its not like your going to run out.

And money, you have tons. Any American who supported the war and doesen't want a tax-hike (which is half of you) is a complete disgrace who should be taken out into a field and shot.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


What I don't understand is how we can withdraw without some guarantee that al Qa'ida will not set up bases in Iraq. Otherwise, we will simply have to re-invade.

1. MTG seems to think we would reinvade, if necessary

2. Even if we wouldnt, we have to ask if we are weakening AQ enough by staying in Iraq X more years, then we would by using the resources elsewhere. I dont think MTGs case is ironclad, depending on what you think of the political movement in Iraq, or of the ease of reinvasion. But it certainly has a logical structure such that it could strongly make sense, if you grant certain empirical assumptions.

[Ned]

A major difference between Vietnam and Iraq is that the North Commies were not threatening the US, just the Catholics of Vietnam. Part of the forces fighting un in Iraq are al Qa'ida which has declared war on the US.

[KrazyHorse]

just the Catholics of Vietnam

Given that Catholics only comprised around 10% of the population of South Vietnam I'd say that this view is ridiculous.

[Patroklos]

Suck my ****, asswipe, and if you think it's a "job" to "finish" then get your own ass down in the sand.

How much time did you spend in-country? Who's "we?"

How much time have you spent in the line, buddy-boy?

Been to Iraq lately? Does that mean my opinion automatically trumps yours?

Actually being on the ground in a conflict means nothing unless you demonstrate some acquired knowledge of the situation from it.

Same goes for war in general. So take that "I've seen war so I know and you don't ****," bull**** somewhere else unless you qualify it by saying something intelligent.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. MTG seems to think we would reinvade, if necessary

2. Even if we wouldnt, we have to ask if we are weakening AQ enough by staying in Iraq X more years, then we would by using the resources elsewhere. I dont think MTGs case is ironclad, depending on what you think of the political movement in Iraq, or of the ease of reinvasion. But it certainly has a logical structure such that it could strongly make sense, if you grant certain empirical assumptions.

I don't think so as the political realities would forbid it.

So, we would be in a WOT against al Qa'ida with a major if not only base of operations off limits to US intervention.

[Nylan-Nolan]

I think some of you misunderstand "finish the job"

I mean go in there and get rid of the rest of them. Quit freaking out about being "too heavy handed". It's WAR for Pete's sake!

I want the warfare to end, but not because the US left early. I want the war to be over because the US ended the otherwise unending infighting and terrorist resistance.