Is America LOST IN IRAQ?

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
After June 30 what will the U.S. role be in Iraq?

Will Bush start bringing troops home after June 30 regardless of the situation on the ground? Would that enhance his re-election chances?

With the anger of the Shiites against the U.S. rising daily, will Bush greatly increase our military presence in Iraq for the next 85 days in order to get it "cleaned up" before the turnover? Wouldn't that also be a disaster?

Is this turnover on June 30 the dumbest move Bush has made since starting this war?

Can Bush do anything in Iraq to make the political situation better?

What would Kerry do, if elected, that Bush isn't doing since most of the world community wants nothing to do with the mess that is now Iraq?

Since many pundits think we are going to lose Iraq to a fundamentalist Shiite regime, why should we stay? Why should one more American soldier die for a lost cause?

Is America hopelessly mired in a quagmire in Iraq?

-Robert





 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
However it turns out the Neocons and the Bush apologists will blame those who didn't support them for the failure over there. I question gor thosde Myopic Neocons would be ; How can you blame people you deceived into supporting your ill conceived war for not supporting it once they discovered that they were duped into supporting it?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Red:

Yes, and that's exactly what happened after 'Nam.

Every time I look at Rumsfeld I think of McNamera. Now that's pain....

-Robert
 

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Somehow I doubt you would consider any answer if it didn't already fall into what your opinion is.
 

biostud

Lifer
Feb 27, 2003
20,160
7,280
136
If Iraq collapse it will be a great setback for democracy and peace, it must not happen.
 

DoubleL

Golden Member
Apr 3, 2001
1,202
0
0
No what happen to us in Nam was the American people turned on us something I hope no service person ever has to go through again, We have to and will win the war in Iraq, Oh as you can see I am back, Just 12 days in bed,
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
We will not "win the war" in Iraq. It was a crooked dictatorship when we arrived, it will be a crooked dictatorship (allbeit OUR crooked dictatorship) when we leave. The idea of "democracy" there is ludicrous. The U.S. struggles mightily to defeat the implementation. "Democracy" would mean the Shiites would control the country. They want a theocratic government. That's not what we want. You will see body bags coming back as long as we're there. I'm uncertain about whether our precense can forstall a civil war. If we leave, the model of the shining democracy of the middle east with the Iraqis showering the liberators with flowers is O V E R.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
SagaLore:

We consider lots of answers here. :) A good answer can precipitate a good argument. But, yeah, I understand your reluctance to hash old ground.

Or, maybe you have a fresh insight?

I'm always learning here, and from both sides. I suspect that's why most of us keep coming back, plus we all like to wrestle. :)

-Robert
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: DoubleL
No what happen to us in Nam was the American people turned on us something I hope no service person ever has to go through again, We have to and will win the war in Iraq, Oh as you can see I am back, Just 12 days in bed,
By "Us" do you mean Myopic Neocon?
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Witling:

Many commentators are saying we can facilitate the installation of a western-style democracy in Iraq and even if it has a Muslim twist, say, like Turkey, the region will be better.

I'd like to hear HOW that will be done, particularly in light of the obvious animus of many Iraqis towards the U.S. and western ways. Have you, or anyone else, seen a rational road map for doing that? Can we square the circle? :)

-Robert
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Red:

Well, DoubleL and I both served, but he was actually wounded in 'Nam as you know. I have nothing but the highest respect for the sacrifice he and 58,000 others made in 'Nam, but we disagree about the value of our involvement in 'Nam. This is a big issue among 'Nam veterans and will be argued for years.

For many people, supporting our military is not an option. It must be done. I separate that from the neocon agenda, though it plays neatly into their hands. :(

-Robert
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Red:

Well, DoubleL and I both served, but he was actually wounded in 'Nam as you know.
I diden't know. However it wasn't the American People who turned their backs on him, it was the Government who sent him over there in the first place

 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Red:

Yes, but, to play the devil's advocate, he did what his COUNTRY needed, or at least he felt it needed. This is an issue of HONOR, which I fully understand and actually support. But, if we are to have a democracy we must resist our government's worst impulses and 'Nam, IMHO, was one of them. Iraq is another.

I have two ex-Marine buddies who come to my house periodically to visit. We get drunk and laugh about the tough times and argue about the war. They both are in DoubleL's camp, but we would all die for each other if the need arose. (and probably quickly at our ages)

Anyway, I am not disagreeing with you. :)

-Robert
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: chess9
Red:

Yes, but, to play the devil's advocate, he did what his COUNTRY needed, or at least he felt it needed. This is an issue of HONOR, which I fully understand and actually support. But, if we are to have a democracy we must resist our government's worst impulses and 'Nam, IMHO, was one of them. Iraq is another.

I have two ex-Marine buddies who come to my house periodically to visit. We get drunk and laugh about the tough times and argue about the war. They both are in DoubleL's camp, but we would all die for each other if the need arose. (and probably quickly at our ages)

Anyway, I am not disagreeing with you. :)

-Robert
I understand his bitterness and if I were in his shoes I might feel exactly as he does.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
Robert Scheer - LA Times, has an interesting editorial piece on this subjsect today
<Here's a CLIP>

It is the beginning of the end for the United States in Iraq. No amount of glib optimism from Bush administration soothsayers can conceal that reality. Sure, the U.S. possesses the military might to hang on indefinitely, but only through the continuous sacrifice of lives in a reckless venture that never had an honestly stated purpose.

Now that thousands of rioting Shiites have been added to the persistent Sunni insurrection targeting the U.S.-led occupation, it is absurd to define the enemy as only foreigners or agents of the captured tyrant Saddam Hussein. The "coalition" forces are the foreigners, in fact, and the U.S.-financed quisling local government fools no one, regardless of the planned "handover" of power.

Under the false conceit that the adventure made sense as part of the fight against terror, the U.S. seized a country containing a major portion of the world's most valued and scarce resource. Yet our leaders expect the natives to believe that the corporate camp followers of the U.S. military are only swarming over their country for the purpose of humanitarian reconstruction.

Just how dumb do we think they are? After all, Iraqis know their own tortuous history. Theirs is a country patched together at the end of a gun barrel by previous colonizers. The common denominator of those imperial designs was the exploitation of oil rather than the desire to produce a harmonious, let alone democratic, society.

Nor does the U.S. have clean hands. During the Cold War, Washington tried to break any government or leader in the region unwilling to bend to its will, including popular nationalists Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Abdul Karim Kassem in Iraq. Never heard of Kassem? He's the guy the CIA hired young Hussein and other unsavory thugs to overthrow (and then kill) because he dared to challenge the strong U.S. role in the region after World War II.

And so it goes. Hussein's rule emerged from U.S. inability to allow yet another country to find its own way, just as Al Qaeda was blowback from our "freedom-fighting" team in the cynical Cold War proxy conflict that destroyed Afghanistan. The only link between Osama bin Laden and Hussein is that they are both monsters of our creation.

To its credit, the U.S. is also the nation that genuinely sought to advance the Mideast peace process under every recent president until George W. Bush. From Jimmy Carter through the first President Bush to Bill Clinton, the U.S. aimed to undermine the region's irrational and fundamentalist forces with a genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis. For once, the United States deserved high praise for attempting to mitigate rather than exploit the grievances that have left the region a breeding ground for terrorism and rage.

Yet, under the current administration, this good-faith effort has been discarded, further disillusioning U.S. friends in the Mideast and stoking those in the region who spew hateful rhetoric against Jews and "infidels."

And even when that rhetoric again manifested itself in violence with the deadly attacks on the U.S. destroyer Cole in Yemen, it was of bare interest to then-candidate Bush. He rarely referenced terrorism during the campaign and, the record is now clear, all but ignored the Al Qaeda terror threat in the months leading up to the attacks on 9/11.

Instead, his focus was the irrelevant target of Iraq, defanged by 10 years of sanctions and U.N. weapons inspections but still possessing huge reserves of black gold. Few in the rest of the world, least of all the Iraqi people, are buying the administration's current line, that the prime goal of the occupation is simply to turn Iraq into a good place to live.

Consequently, while it would be great if that country were to end up in the column of democratic societies, the tragic events of recent days once again remind us that it is an outcome made less likely by each additional day we presume to know what is best for the rest of the world ? and we impose those views with our awesome military power.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
cquark:

"Mr Chalabi told ABC television yesterday: "It is up to the Iraqi parliament and the Iraqi people to decide whether they will want a military association of the United States."

Chalabi is considered friendly to the U.S., so if his moderate views don't predominate, will American bases be welcome in Iraq? :)

Also, that's a pretty old story, mate. :)

-Robert

 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
Nothing has ever come close to saying that the US will completely pull out of Iraq after the June 30 turnover to the UN. After June 30, there will be some scheduled troop reduction in Iraq but not a complete pullout. Everyone that wanted this to be run by the UN will have their way and as an active member of the UN, the US will be there.

I don't understand why people are saying that the US is stuck in a "quagmire". That is a term used very freely. I don't think anyone that uses it really understands what a wartime quagmire is (outside of those that actually fought in a WW or Vietnam). This isn't Rainbow 6 where there is constant action and if your sgt dies, you just hit F9 and start over from your last save point. People really die and people in Iraq really do support us even though there are vocal opponenents in Iraq that the media loves to focus on and there are those in the US that are against the government (not just the GWB haters) but they too are a minority.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Rumsfeld is speaking now.

Is it me or he is speaking quite reservedly?

He's usually rather animated and upbeat sounding. Maybe he hasn't had enough coffee yet. ;)
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: DoubleL
No what happen to us in Nam was the American people turned on us something I hope no service person ever has to go through again, We have to and will win the war in Iraq, Oh as you can see I am back, Just 12 days in bed,
Glad to have you back, DoubleL.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Capt.K:

That doesn't sound like a timetable for the installation of a Western style democracy. :) But, I agree with everything said in that peace.

Here's one of the ironies about this thing I don't understand. I have close Jewish friend who lives near L.A. He is moderate to liberal on so many issues, yet, when I inquired about his views he told me he supports Bush on the war. "Anything to get rid of SH". Good grief, the guy's an eminent cancer researcher and that's as deeply as he went. :(

--Robert
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
TheGameIs21:

Well, if we pull out a lot of troops after June 30 how are we going to ensure the peace? If we keep our troop strength high, how are we going to ensure the peace? :)

That's the nature of a quagmire. You lose.

Bush was holding 20 and drew a card. :) Too dumb....

-Robert
 

TheGameIs21

Golden Member
Apr 23, 2001
1,329
0
0
Originally posted by: chess9
TheGameIs21:

Well, if we pull out a lot of troops after June 30 how are we going to ensure the peace? If we keep our troop strength high, how are we going to ensure the peace? :)

That's the nature of a quagmire. You lose.

Bush was holding 20 and drew a card. :) Too dumb....

-Robert


I don't know why you aren't understanding this but the UN will be taking care of it from that point on. The US will be part of a UN force. I don't know how you can call this a quagmire. You lose after drawing the ignorance card.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
TheGameIs21:

When did you learn the U.N. was going to be taking over Iraq? We'd like to see that link as it will come as quite a surprise to most folks.

Thanks for calling me ignorant, it keeps me humble.

-Robert