Why are we still here? By Pat Buchanan
- Thread starter BarneyFife
- Start date
Hi,
I don't see a complete exodus as practical, here's why:
1. The situation - as now - was always on the cards. It should really come as no surprise.
2. As was quite rightly pointed out, leaving would let Iraq decend into further bloodier anarchy.
3. Walking away from your responsibilities goes against part of what this was ended up being about (helping the average Iraqi) and sets a disturbing precedent IMHO for any future conflicts.
Here's my suggestion. Attempt to get together an international (inc. a good proportion if not majority muslim complement) force. Use this in addition with a partial (though very large part) US withdrawl. It can be argued that the US has the finance and the military to get this done as compared to other smaller countries. Fine, if that's the way it's seen - partially fund the other countries forces. Giving them the cash saves you little financially but in terms of US lives and the Iraqi's administration's credability...
This way the Iraqi's cannot be said to be completely governed by a non-islamic US. Furthermore the US would be able to withdraw it's forces to a more equalised level with other countries (especially those who are wanting to push the humanitarian aspects of the current situation).
This may not work - it may fall flat on it's face. As yet - it does not appear to have been attempted. Time to try.
Andy
I don't see a complete exodus as practical, here's why:
1. The situation - as now - was always on the cards. It should really come as no surprise.
2. As was quite rightly pointed out, leaving would let Iraq decend into further bloodier anarchy.
3. Walking away from your responsibilities goes against part of what this was ended up being about (helping the average Iraqi) and sets a disturbing precedent IMHO for any future conflicts.
Here's my suggestion. Attempt to get together an international (inc. a good proportion if not majority muslim complement) force. Use this in addition with a partial (though very large part) US withdrawl. It can be argued that the US has the finance and the military to get this done as compared to other smaller countries. Fine, if that's the way it's seen - partially fund the other countries forces. Giving them the cash saves you little financially but in terms of US lives and the Iraqi's administration's credability...
This way the Iraqi's cannot be said to be completely governed by a non-islamic US. Furthermore the US would be able to withdraw it's forces to a more equalised level with other countries (especially those who are wanting to push the humanitarian aspects of the current situation).
This may not work - it may fall flat on it's face. As yet - it does not appear to have been attempted. Time to try.
Andy
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Suprisingly that was a good article. I agree with every point he makes, but I disagree with the conclusion he comes to. We don't need to just get out, we need to get on the ball, hurry up and get the job done, then get out.
Buchanan is an Isolationist. Ideas like his led to the great depression. Always read what he writes with that in mind.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Buchanan is a xenophopic and protectionist a-hole. That single sentence I quoted from Gonad completely exposes Buchanan's "great article" for what it really is: Whining from a presidential wannabe.......
The seeming lackluster effort into rebuilding Iraq should be criticized if it can be shown to be lackluster. I understand Bush trying to fix Iraq on the cheap, but if it doesn't pan out like it should, more resources should be spent to ensure that "Iraqi Freedom" is indeed realized by the people of Iraq, anything less is failure.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Buttcannon is a know isolationist. This article isn't suprising to me. Gonad is mostly right - the only part that is "wrong" is the "hurry". Yes we need to leave as soon as we can but to rush the job(no matter how "good") would most likely lead to an unstable gov't. They need lasting stability before we leave.
CkG
CkG
I would be irate at America if they pulled out now. Finish what you started. Running around with military exploits and not cleaning up after them has been just another fuel for resentment in the ME for years. If you are going to go in and bomb a country, kill its leader, and free its people, you had better make sure you see it all the way through. We don't need to cause more chaos than we already have for the Iraqi citizens. Thanks for the post, interesting enough.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
"Buttcannon"
LOL
The reasons Bush et al gave for going into Iraq were:
1. WMD
2. Terrorists
3. Saddam was a bad guy.
If the US leaves Iraq now what will happen?
1. Saddam gets back into power?
2. An Iranian type government rules Iraq?
3. Iraq sinks into a murderous chaos that ends up with a Saddam like dicator taking control of Iraq?
Please feel free to add to either list.
Did Bush ever intend to leave Iraq?
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
The worse thing we could do is leave Iraq right now...
But I suggest bringing in the International community, yes even the French... and sit back and help them run it.
We'll spend less money on Iraq, get less blame for problems, less people thinking it's American Imperialism and less soldiers getting killed that way.
But I suggest bringing in the International community, yes even the French... and sit back and help them run it.
We'll spend less money on Iraq, get less blame for problems, less people thinking it's American Imperialism and less soldiers getting killed that way.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
This little love fest you have going on with moonbeam is getting to be disturbing. Is there a reason you had to change your name to something similar to his other than the fact you were tired of being your own man? Seriously I used to think you were fairly reasonable.
Seriously I used to think you were fairly reasonable.
-------------------------------------
Well I used to think you were rarely feasible too.
-------------------------------------
Well I used to think you were rarely feasible too.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Shinerburke,
This little love fest you have going on with moonbeam is getting to be disturbing. Is there a reason you had to change your name to something similar to his other than the fact you were tired of being your own man? Seriously I used to think you were fairly reasonable.
*****************
It's not nice to invade other countries. (moonbeam said)
When it is your manifest destiny you've but little choice.. (LunarRay said)
Being a coward and all, when it is required to think like the folks in or out of power then I will curtail my outward manifestation of thought. This may not be reasonable but it is prudent... or reasonable to me.
The message is disturbing, I think. Part of the destiny of this administration's anti terrorist policy is to invade other countries to secure the peace for ourselves (perhaps for our allies as well) I have been told, by our President. Moonbeam suggests it is not nice to invade. Buchanan is an Isolationist and invasion would seem repugnant to such a thinker.. so I suspect Moonbeam is agreeing with Buchanan's premise regards world affairs as he, Pat, has previously articulated them... I respond with the notion that Buchanan is out of step with the articulated destiny of this administration, thus it is manifest. The current crop of thinking has moved foreign policy to something much more dangerous to the world and us... which puts Buchanan out of step. Ergo, a questionable love fest of world proportions as I see it..
This little love fest you have going on with moonbeam is getting to be disturbing. Is there a reason you had to change your name to something similar to his other than the fact you were tired of being your own man? Seriously I used to think you were fairly reasonable.
*****************
It's not nice to invade other countries. (moonbeam said)
When it is your manifest destiny you've but little choice.. (LunarRay said)
Being a coward and all, when it is required to think like the folks in or out of power then I will curtail my outward manifestation of thought. This may not be reasonable but it is prudent... or reasonable to me.
The message is disturbing, I think. Part of the destiny of this administration's anti terrorist policy is to invade other countries to secure the peace for ourselves (perhaps for our allies as well) I have been told, by our President. Moonbeam suggests it is not nice to invade. Buchanan is an Isolationist and invasion would seem repugnant to such a thinker.. so I suspect Moonbeam is agreeing with Buchanan's premise regards world affairs as he, Pat, has previously articulated them... I respond with the notion that Buchanan is out of step with the articulated destiny of this administration, thus it is manifest. The current crop of thinking has moved foreign policy to something much more dangerous to the world and us... which puts Buchanan out of step. Ergo, a questionable love fest of world proportions as I see it..
We can't leave Iraq yet because we haven't found all of their WMDs. Hmmm...no wonder we are gonna be there a long time.
Bush and the gang invaded Iraq so they could set up shop (i.e., military bases) in the middle east. Why do you think they invaded using a BS reason? Why do you think they pulled forces out of Saudi Arabia? Why do you think they are "reconstructing" without the help of the U.N.? Why do you think there has never been any sort of credible post-war plan?
Because the U.S. is never leaving Iraq.
Napalm
Because the U.S. is never leaving Iraq.
Napalm
They might think they are staying forever but I think the Iraqi people are going to chase them out.
No one will "chase" us out. Our military is too strong for that. We will leave when it becomes too expensive or unpopular.
Becuause our troops stationed there were useless and costly. 90% of all men and material for the War in Iraq came from the US not our "stronghold" in the Middle East. We left Saudia Arabia because the war in Iraq allowed our troops to be stationed in Iraq. The war was not started in any way because of problems in Saudia Arabia.
yes it's a fine mess we got ourselves into, well Bush got us into and his blind followers.
if we leave now we never should have went, were trapped, no biggy lets do Iran next..............................sure, regime change is needed at home
PS, tell the Iraqi people to give us SH and sons and we will leave, if we get lucky (which I doubt) and they give us them, we best leave asp.
if we leave now we never should have went, were trapped, no biggy lets do Iran next..............................sure, regime change is needed at home
PS, tell the Iraqi people to give us SH and sons and we will leave, if we get lucky (which I doubt) and they give us them, we best leave asp.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter