One of the most disturbing articles I have read about Iraq.

[MedicDVG]

Insurgents Meet on Post-U.S. Future - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1646550,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics)

Now I have refrained from commenting on the Iraq war for a number of reasons, mostly because I am under the General Orders of the US Army Chain of Command prohibiting me from doing so in certain situations, but this article is in the public domain, and I am commenting on the article not the war itself.

If you ever had doubts about what would happen in a US pullout from Iraq, here it is in black and white.

"The summit had been described by organizers as the most ambitious gathering of the movement to date. It came within weeks of a decision by several Sunni groups — including the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Iraqi Hamas and Ansar al-Sunna — to unite in advance of an expected American military withdrawal, and meet in Damascus to unveil their new alliance. "

"Once the majority of American troops have left, the alliance plans to throw out the constitution, dissolve the parliament, cancel all resolutions issued from the Bremer era on, and disband the existing security forces and U.S.-trained Iraqi army divisions. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad, they said, would have to close — "as in Saigon. With helicopters on the roof" said Samarai — until Washington recognized a new, resistance-led Iraqi governing council, and offered compensation to all individuals and organizations affected by the war. Under the new leadership, all Iraqi citizens who worked for or cooperated with the current, coalition-backed government would be arrested. A "reconciliation council", drawn in large part from the ranks of the armed insurgency, would then draw up plans for a permanent "technocratic" government � which would immediately seek criminal charges and file civil suits against the U.S. government and major American war supporters in international court."

my emphasis was added.

So basically here we have the Insurgent Manifesto -- and the ONLY thing that is preventing this is US Force of Arms supporting the elected government.

You want a blood bath of epic proportions? You want the Mideast to be a stronghold of terrorist led governments? Then by all means, pull the US out.

The argument has been made that if we don't stop the insurgents here, we will be stopping them in America is TRUE. This summit shows that post-US Iraq will be a huge state sponsored terrorist organization with incredible resources to bring the fight to US soil. They will also have the preconceived notion that we are vulnerable seeing as they defeated the Soviets in the '80's and now the USA in the new millennium. They will be emboldened by these "victories" to continue their operations against us everywhere.

And in the words of Forrest Gump.. and that's all I have to say about that.

Medic

[MoeMag]

I wish we could pull out, but we already screwed up and got Iraq pregnant from the last time. Best suck it up and stick arround to make sure that kid grows up right I suppose.

War sucks.
I miss my paintball buddies.

[bornl33t]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

[AirAssault]

Yeah, they said the same thing about Vietnam, of course some how the south is free. Communism didn't take over like all the folks said it would. So, if we could all pull out our crystal balls and look into the future to see this "bloodbath" that wood be great. I recall bush saying when the Iraqi people didn't want us there anymore, we would leave. Well the majority of the people there don't want us there, so I say it's time to go.

News flash, the 3 different factions in Iraq have been fighting way before the US was even a country; they will continue to do so. Time to leave.

We would not be fighting them here, you know why? Because we would take the billions spent re-builing another country and fighting a so called "war" and secure our borders.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Practice by prevention.

"stupid is as stupid does"

[kenndogg]

Yeah, they said the same thing about Vietnam, of course some how the south is free. Communism didn't take over like all the folks said it would.

well here's the thing, The North Vietnamese never wanted to destroy America per say. This is not about communism anymore. The Taliban and the rest of the zealots on the other hand would be more than happy to destroy our way of life. They see our western culture and influence as a disease. If we pull out we'll see countless Iraqis who backed us slaughtered and Iraq well be a hotbed for terrorist(if it hasn't already). We're in it too deep to just pull out.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

To their credit it sounds like they have a well thought out plan.

[AirAssault]

well here's the thing, The North Vietnamese never wanted to destroy America per say. This is not about communism anymore. The Taliban and the rest of the zealots on the other hand would be more than happy to destroy our way of life. They see our western culture and influence as a disease. If we pull out we'll see countless Iraqis who backed us slaughtered and Iraq well be a hotbed for terrorist(if it hasn't already). We're in it too deep to just pull out.

Well, according to OBL the reason he attacked the US in the first place was because we were in Saudi Arabia. So, maybe our foreign policy and not our way of life has a little more to do with it. If we as a country spent a little more time on our own problems instead of trying to "cure" every one elses, we would be better off.

The fight them over there so we don't have to here thinking is a load of CRAP. Basically, we are saying it is ok to take over a country, and let every person in the world that wants to do us harm come and blow themselves up killing innocent people in the process. Basically saying Iraqi lives are worth less than ours. Am I the only one here that thinks that's worng?

Plus, the majority of violence in Iraq is not caused by so called Al Qaeda, it is caused by Suni/Shea confrontation.

[Lohman446]

Well, according to OBL the reason he attacked the US in the first place was because we were in Saudi Arabia. So, maybe our foreign policy and not our way of life has a little more to do with it. If we as a country spent a little more time on our own problems instead of trying to "cure" every one elses, we would be better off.
.

I didn't realize OBL was the Saudi government who INVITED us there. In fact, I seem to recall them being pretty insistant we, and the rest of the world, protect the region from Iraq at the time.

Nice talking point though... almost

[Lohman446]

The fight them over there so we don't have to here thinking is a load of CRAP. Basically, we are saying it is ok to take over a country, and let every person in the world that wants to do us harm come and blow themselves up killing innocent people in the process. Basically saying Iraqi lives are worth less than ours. Am I the only one here that thinks that's worng? .

I fail to see the problem with that. :)

[FactsOfLife]

Well, according to OBL the reason he attacked the US in the first place was because we were in Saudi Arabia. So, maybe our foreign policy and not our way of life has a little more to do with it. If we as a country spent a little more time on our own problems instead of trying to "cure" every one elses, we would be better off.

The fight them over there so we don't have to here thinking is a load of CRAP. Basically, we are saying it is ok to take over a country, and let every person in the world that wants to do us harm come and blow themselves up killing innocent people in the process. Basically saying Iraqi lives are worth less than ours. Am I the only one here that thinks that's worng?

Plus, the majority of violence in Iraq is not caused by so called Al Qaeda, it is caused by Suni/Shea confrontation.


man you are just full of prop aren't ya.

[personman]

If we as a country spent a little more time on our own problems instead of trying to "cure" every one elses, we would be better off.
QFFT.

[Empyreal Rogue]

I still find it funny how Iraq was not a nation that harbored terrorist until after we falsely accused it of so then invaded it. Now it's a training ground for terrorism.

Oh karma, how you amaze me so.

An immediate withdrawal of American forces will have a detrimental affect on Iraq, the middle east, and pretty much every country who buys oil from these nations. But we can't leave our forces there, either. No matter how you look at it, it's going to end with US troops being pulled out and there will be an aftermath. The question is then, what outcome has the least consequence? I agree that an immediate and complete withdrawal of American Troops is a bad idea, but it needs to be done. The troops can't stay in Iraq forever, and they've certainly overstayed their welcome by a few years.

[Pacifist_Farmer]

If we as a country spent a little more time on our own problems instead of trying to "cure" every one elses, we would be better off.

Do you honestly think we are trying to cure some body else's problems? The only time our military leaves these shores is when there is a monetary incentive.

[FactsOfLife]

I still find it funny how Iraq was not a nation that harbored terrorist until after we falsely accused it of so then invaded it. Now it's a training ground for terrorism.

Oh karma, how you amaze me so.

An immediate withdrawal of American forces will have a detrimental affect on Iraq, the middle east, and pretty much every country who buys oil from these nations. But we can't leave our forces there, either. No matter how you look at it, it's going to end with US troops being pulled out and there will be an aftermath. The question is then, what outcome has the least consequence? I agree that an immediate and complete withdrawal of American Troops is a bad idea, but it needs to be done. The troops can't stay in Iraq forever, and they've certainly overstayed their welcome by a few years.



right, AQ was everywhere EXCEPT Iraq....

[SCpoloRicker]

UN oversight of a pan-Arab, multi ethnic peacekeeping force numbering around 250,000 for six months. US air support, SF advisors, and command.

/kthxbye

[FactsOfLife]

UN oversight of a pan-Arab, multi ethnic peacekeeping force numbering around 250,000 for six months. US air support, SF advisors, and command.

/kthxbye


wouldn't work.

UN can't even handle Darfur let alone a real warzone.

[WillyB]

I did my senior thesis on "The Use of the Stinger Missile System in the Soviet-Afghan War". From this ridiculously long paper that I wrote I found it absolutely dumbfounding that at the end of the Soviet-Afghan War the Soviets pleaded with the United States to not turn Afghanistan over to a democracy until a system that was in all the citizens of Afghanistan's best interests was in place. The United States flatly refused because the Soviet Union was Communist and obviously not in a position of telling a nation that had just forced them out how to run themselves. Instead the United States allowed the Afghanis to build their own government and within five years the Taliban was in power.

What does this all have to do with Iraq? The way I see it, and this article has proved it even more, if we were to pull out of Iraq post haste the country would immediately fall into the hands of the insurgents and would have a serious effect on the Middle East, as well as all the countries that depend on Middle East oil. We must learn from our previous mistake in Afghanistan and be sure that a government is in place that is beneficial to all the different groups in Iraq. But, we must also realize that maybe democracy is not suited to the Middle Eastern mindset. The Middle East does not have the same "background" as the majority of democracies in the world. While this may be a minor issue, it does play a big part in the formation of a democratic government.

So, what do we do? In my opinion, we have to stay there and see this thing to its finale. We cannot leave overnight (or within the next few years), for if we do, we (or a conglomerate of nations) will have to invade again and do it all over.

[warbeak2099]

I wish we could pull out, but we already screwed up and got Iraq pregnant from the last time. Best suck it up and stick arround to make sure that kid grows up right I suppose.

War sucks.
I miss my paintball buddies.

QFT. Pulling out would simply put everyone in the world in danger because of our collosal mistake. That would be even more irresponsible than what we've already done.

Although, I must add another viewpoint to the discussion. What if the insurgents were simply putting out this manifesto in order to make us stay. Maybe they've got something cooking and for some reason want US forces to remain in the country. Just saying...

[FactsOfLife]

I did my senior thesis on "The Use of the Stinger Missile System in the Soviet-Afghan War". From this ridiculously long paper that I wrote I found it absolutely dumbfounding that at the end of the Soviet-Afghan War the Soviets pleaded with the United States to not turn Afghanistan over to a democracy until a system that was in all the citizens of Afghanistan's best interests was in place. The United States flatly refused because the Soviet Union was Communist and obviously not in a position of telling a nation that had just forced them out how to run themselves. Instead the United States allowed the Afghanis to build their own government and within five years the Taliban was in power.

What does this all have to do with Iraq? The way I see it, and this article has proved it even more, if we were to pull out of Iraq post haste the country would immediately fall into the hands of the insurgents and would have a serious effect on the Middle East, as well as all the countries that depend on Middle East oil. We must learn from our previous mistake in Afghanistan and be sure that a government is in place that is beneficial to all the different groups in Iraq. But, we must also realize that maybe democracy is not suited to the Middle Eastern mindset. The Middle East does not have the same "background" as the majority of democracies in the world. While this may be a minor issue, it does play a big part in the formation of a democratic government.

So, what do we do? In my opinion, we have to stay there and see this thing to its finale. We cannot leave overnight (or within the next few years), for if we do, we (or a conglomerate of nations) will have to invade again and do it all over.

Have you read "Charlie Wilson's War"?

[AirAssault]

I fail to see the problem with that. :)

So what if someone decides your families life isn't worth anything and decides to kill them? Still have a problem with it? You truely are a pathetic human being.

[kruger]

Just a point of fact: We still have troops in Germany.

Just thought that I would throw that in.

And I am all for securing our borders. But, if we do try that, then the Liberals will be screaming that we are trampling on some immigrants rights, and to hell with Americans' rights.

I also agree that there is not much that America can do in that part of the world. Yes, they have been fighting since before Jesus was walkin' around. Religion has killed more people than anything else, PERIOD. But, we can try to introduce a stable democratic government in that area. Democracy, if allowed to flourish and grow works every time.

[koleah]

So what if someone decides your families life isn't worth anything and decides to kill them? Still have a problem with it? You truely are a pathetic human being.

And this is why we're not supposed to discuss politics here.

Someone makes a joke (I'm assuming thats what the smiley was for), someone else misinterprets it, and the mud goes flying...






Then the ban-stick gets pulled out.

[AirAssault]

And this is why we're not supposed to discuss politics here.

Someone makes a joke (I'm assuming thats what the smiley was for), someone else misinterprets it, and the mud goes flying...






Then the ban-stick gets pulled out.

Not a joke, not funny if it was. Sad to say many Americans feel this way, it is a shame. IF it was an attempt at humor, then I withdrawl the comment. I don't know the guy from Adam, but if he really feels that way...... Sad.

[WillyB]

Have you read "Charlie Wilson's War"?

I came across it during my research, but didn't pick it up. I'll have to look into it now...

[SCpoloRicker]

wouldn't work.

UN can't even handle Darfur let alone a real warzone.

I may not have been clear. I'm suggesting a peace-keeping force comprised of Pakistani, Malaysian, Saudi, Kuwaiti, heck let the Syrians and Iranians pitch in.

[FactsOfLife]

So what if someone decides your families life isn't worth anything and decides to kill them? Still have a problem with it? You truely are a pathetic human being.


huh, I thought that had already happened on 9-11.


welcome to ignore pukestick.

[FactsOfLife]

I may not have been clear. I'm suggesting a peace-keeping force comprised of Pakistani, Malaysian, Saudi, Kuwaiti, heck let the Syrians and Iranians pitch in.



I'd like to think that the UN would begin to pull it's weight in situations like this.

Past experience says it won't happen. It's way too corrupt and self serving to be of much use I think.

[BeaverEater]

The force the UN uses to keep the peace effectively is usually US troops anyways, so whats the point of turning it over to the UN peacekeepers. We would still be there anyways but our hands would be tied even more.

[IronCore]

We should divide iraq into 4 new countries then support, settle and supervise the easternmost country :)

[Beemer]

And this is why we're not supposed to discuss politics here.

Someone makes a joke (I'm assuming thats what the smiley was for), someone else misinterprets it, and the mud goes flying...

Then the ban-stick gets pulled out.


You think? It says avoid. They never work even with a warning. Prove me wrong.

To anyone else.
Show some respect for the OP and be civil or dont post. Nobody likes to have there thread locked or post removed or be banned.

[Jonneh]

I think the problem is that you are fighting people who have been convinced that dying in opposition to yourselves is a favourable outcome, how do you fight a group of people who believe such things?

[Empyreal Rogue]

right, AQ was everywhere EXCEPT Iraq....

I never said that.

I said Iraq was not a training ground nation for terrorist organizations prior to 9/11 and the invasion. Now it's probably THE leading terrorist training nation in the world simply because of the invasion and accusations thrown.

[Thordic]

I think the problem is that you are fighting people who have been convinced that dying in opposition to yourselves is a favourable outcome, how do you fight a group of people who believe such things?

Aw Jonneh you're all grown up :)

[rkjunior303]

I never said that.

I said Iraq was not a training ground nation for terrorist organizations prior to 9/11 and the invasion. Now it's probably THE leading terrorist training nation in the world simply because of the invasion and accusations thrown.

Ok, so how about this - when we invaded Afghanistan it was rumored that OBL was hiding/training in Pakistan, whom wasn't being much of a help in trying to track him down. If Pakistan was harboring enemy #1, knowingly or not, why haven't we gone into Pakistan? I would think OBL is more of a Weapon of Mass Destruction than any of the "WMDs" we found in Iraq...........

[FactsOfLife]

I never said that.

I said Iraq was not a training ground nation for terrorist organizations prior to 9/11 and the invasion. Now it's probably THE leading terrorist training nation in the world simply because of the invasion and accusations thrown.


you might want to fact check yourself before you make that claim.

[maxama10]

.................................................. ..........

Edit .....You must have missed my previous post. Keep it on topic or dont post.

[FactsOfLife]

Edit .....You must have missed my previous post. Keep it on topic or dont post.

edit, Beemer, when you edit someone else's post let us know bro!

[jenarelJAM]

And I am all for securing our borders. But, if we do try that, then the Liberals will be screaming that we are trampling on some immigrants rights, and to hell with Americans' rights.

How about you let the Liberals make their own arguments and don't put words in their mouths. Not a valid argument.

I hear lots of reasons why pulling out will not work. Many are valid. Nobody wants to see the middle east in chaos, an increased chance of attacks on America, or the slaughter of innocents. But what I'm concerned with is the lack of progress currently. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe we are making progress, but what I've seen so far is pretty much what I predicted way back when we were first getting into this war, and I don't see any solution. Kill a terrorist, and a new one is created. What advocates of pulling out of iraq see is a lost cause. We can't make a noticible difference, so why continue to spend money we don't have and risk lives that could be saved when the fallout is going to come sooner or later anyway. Lives are going to be lost. The middle east will be in chaos. Nothing we can do but prolong it, and possibly make it worse.

Or better. Even though I don't see it that way, I can't say I am all-knowing, and the beauty of OUR democracy is that if I'm way off base here, all your votes will overrule me and no harm will be done. Or, if enough other people feel the way I do, such plans will come to fruition. Feel free to argue with my statement, but please don't attack my beliefs or me,

[wjr]

I'm not really in favor of a complete pullout, but if it were to happen I don't think they'd "bring the war to america." Nothing is really preventing them from doing it now.



I fail to see the problem with that. :)

You pathetic piece of bigoted trash. Just because they're from another country makes them worth less then you?




Edit by Beemer...............That just got ya banned for a week. You should read the whole thread before you post. If you had you would have seen my previous post with a warning to all. You also must have missed the smilie and dont pay enough attention to know how Lohman posts. Locking threads suck. Removing posts sucks and banning folks sucks, so why do you make me?

[MedicDVG]

I'm not really in favor of a complete pullout, but if it were to happen I don't think they'd "bring the war to america." Nothing is really preventing them from doing it now.


Only the fact that we are vigilantly seeking out and destroying the seat of state sponsored terrorism abroad as well as rigorously monitoring and investigating links to domestic operations, breaking up transfers of funds, detecting and disrupting insurgent recruitment and training, and investigating every terrorist incident around the world as a potential threat to the USA; Other then that, yes, you are perfectly correct. There is nothing stopping them from operating on US soil with reckless abandon.

There isn't hardly a week that goes by where there isn't a report of terrorism plots in the USA being discovered and rooted out. The planned attack at JFK comes to mind immediately and you don't have to look hard to find other examples. This is a direct result of incredible domestic resources AND with military operations abroad that is disrupting the ability of the terrorists to arm, train, and deploy.

What I was saying in my original post is that terrorism against the USA would become state sponsored if we were to pull out of Iraq. OBL and his group have shadowy links to governmental and privately wealthy sources and look what they were able to accomplish. Now imagine a large portion of the GNP of a country such as Iraq or Iran designed to be utilized for the destruction of our way of life. That means an increased threat to Mid East peace at the very least, and it certainly means a more dedicated and able force for operations within the USA.

[zipity_Bop]

hah this is why the rules state no political talk......
everyone quotes the person before them and finds a flaw in their statement.

40 posts an almost everyone has quoted and disagreed with a statement before their's.

[drg]

There is always an interesting dilemma when interpreting what one hears insurgents/terrorists/"bad guys" have "said" ... all kinds of questions come up. Did they really say that? If so, is it what they wanted us to hear? Is it realistic, or just bloviation? Are these people really the people we should be taking our foreign policy cues from anyway?

For example, when OBL puts out a tape near the 2004 election and, for example, Republicans play it up as proof we should re-elect Bush. Since when do we listen to Osama Bin Laden? Was he speaking from a position of power or weakness? Was it just what he wanted us to hear? Or what?

[drg]

What I was saying in my original post is that terrorism against the USA would become state sponsored if we were to pull out of Iraq. OBL and his group have shadowy links to governmental and privately wealthy sources and look what they were able to accomplish. Now imagine a large portion of the GNP of a country such as Iraq or Iran designed to be utilized for the destruction of our way of life. That means an increased threat to Mid East peace at the very least, and it certainly means a more dedicated and able force for operations within the USA.

State-sponsored acts are easier to identify and address than the acts of non-state entities. Whoever takes over Iraq in the event the current government falls will become much more prominent and accountable than they are now.

This is not to say it would be a good thing necessarily, but something to consider.

[Lohman446]

You pathetic piece of bigoted trash. Just because they're from another country makes them worth less then you?

You missed the big smiley face huh?

Funny though, in the post I responded too the comment was made about spending the money here rather than there? So we're more important when it comes to allocating resources to people but not in killing? Either we are all equal and have equal rights or we are not. If they are of equal rights do they not have the rights to free and fair elections and protection from atrocities?

[warbeak2099]

You missed the big smiley face huh?

Funny though, in the post I responded too the comment was made about spending the money here rather than there? So we're more important when it comes to allocating resources to people but not in killing? Either we are all equal and have equal rights or we are not. If they are of equal rights do they not have the rights to free and fair elections and protection from atrocities?

Good point. Universal equality has no gray area. It's all or nothing.

[Lohman446]

So what if someone decides your families life isn't worth anything and decides to kill them? Still have a problem with it? You truely are a pathetic human being.

Are you saying we should help Iraq, or withdraw fully and focus only on our problems? I see a contradiction in your arguments. Do the Iraqi people have equal rights to you? Do they have the right to free and fair elections? Do they have the right to be protected from oppression?

As to my family, and this is slightly off topic but I need to respond anyways. The duty to defend my family is mine. I have the ability and willingness to defend it at whatever cost. I am not dependent on you, or the government to do that (thank God). Yes, I would defend my neighbor as well, as I trust he would defend me. Reliance on the government is a crutch.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Well, according to OBL the reason he attacked the US in the first place was because we were in Saudi Arabia. So, maybe our foreign policy and not our way of life has a little more to do with it. If we as a country spent a little more time on our own problems instead of trying to "cure" every one elses, we would be better off.

The fight them over there so we don't have to here thinking is a load of CRAP. Basically, we are saying it is ok to take over a country, and let every person in the world that wants to do us harm come and blow themselves up killing innocent people in the process. Basically saying Iraqi lives are worth less than ours. Am I the only one here that thinks that's worng?

Plus, the majority of violence in Iraq is not caused by so called Al Qaeda, it is caused by Suni/Shea confrontation.

One for three!

(A) The USA political/economic/military presence in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands was only one of several reasons that OBL and Al Qaeda attacked the USA. And not the reasn he listed as first either. In fact, it was number 6 (of 6) on his list.

(B) It is traditionally considered wise to fight your enemy on his home turf, rather than your own. Racism has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the strategically vital job of protecting your populatin and infrastructure.

(C) Correct. The Sunni-Shia situation in Iraq is analgous to the RC-Protestant situation in Northern Ireland, or the Serbian-Croation-Bosnian situation in the former Yugoslavia.

[Lohman446]

One for three!

(A) The USA political/economic/military presence in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim lands was only one of several reasons that OBL and Al Qaeda attacked the USA. And not the reasn he listed as first either. In fact, it was number 6 (of 6) on his list.

(B) It is traditionally considered wise to fight your enemy on his home turf, rather than your own. Racism has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the strategically vital job of protecting your populatin and infrastructure.

(C) Correct. The Sunni-Shia situation in Iraq is analgous to the RC-Protestant situation in Northern Ireland, or the Serbian-Croation-Bosnian situation in the former Yugoslavia.

But... but... they sounded good. I thought you were supposed to argue in sound bytes, that way you can "win". Its not about actually gaining knowledge or understanding, its about winning. :D