Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

bishop · Jun 20, 2006, 03:53 pm

i just wanted to start a thread here where all members could list the good AND bad consequences that might happen if we were to leave iraq by the end of the year..

i'm hoping that we can minimize the bias here by requiring members to post both the pros and cons of such a decision - looking both short-term and long-term if possible.

RVonse · Jun 20, 2006, 04:46 pm

Just my own feelings about this Bishop. The pros:

1. We save a hell of a lot of money we don't have or never did have to spend.
2. We save a lot of lives, both Iraqs and U.S.
3. We can focus on more important issues such as energy dependence that should have priority over this.

The cons to leaving:
1. We look dishonorable because we fail to finish what we started.
2. We look weak because we did not win.
3. The terrorist might become more confident to do more damage to the U.S. again.

twoanickel · Jun 20, 2006, 04:53 pm

Quote:

Quote by: bishop

i just wanted to start a thread here where all members could list the good AND bad consequences that might happen if we were to leave iraq by the end of the year..

i'm hoping that we can minimize the bias here by requiring members to post both the pros and cons of such a decision - looking both short-term and long-term if possible.

Consequences of withdrawing (at any time in world future): the people of the Middle East will fight and kill one another

Consquences of not withdrawing from Iraq: the people of the Middle East will fight and kill one another and American soldiers. As the time of our stay in Irag lengthens, the people of the Middle East, including those in other nations of the Middle East, will become increasingly outraged at the presence of Americans until, like baker's yeast, warfare will spread across the earth to the land of the politicians who did not have enough sense to secure the borders as they were directed to do by the constitution.

Expect illegal immigration to be more and more from those nations which hate America, and they will be coming to fight on American soil rather than fight on their own soil. While the enemy is invading, the lunkheads inside the beltway will be doing all they can to disarm, distract, and harass decent Americans to keep them from effectively resisting the enemy. Don't say you were not warned. Judgement comes to America, the nation whose people pride themselves in their unbelief.

dreamer · Jun 20, 2006, 09:06 pm

It seems washington as been talking for two weeks about this. link.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13440942

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist declared Tuesday that “surrendering is not a solution” in Iraq as Democrats embraced a proposal to start troop withdrawals this year, setting up an election-year showdown in the GOP-controlled Senate.
“We cannot retreat. We cannot surrender. We cannot go wobbly. The price is far too high,” said Frist, R-Tenn., suggesting that Democrats want to do just that.
Answering, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, disputed the GOP characterization of the Democrats’ position and said: “We have to serve notice on the Iraqis that their future has to be in their own hands.”

Me personal leave as quick as we arrived then with pride say at least we got rid of Saddam "keep face" say good job. and then let the Iraq;s put the electric back on the next day. Dreamer

rmnunez · Jun 20, 2006, 10:09 pm

The lives and money saved by retreating would be offset by the dire consequences to follow. The US would be perceived as weak, unable to fulfil commitments and goals, fearful of sacrifice, scared of Islamic fundamentalists and unable to seriously confront them. Doubt about US capabilities would focus first on their military and likely encourage greater resistance to US goals, for example nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and North Korea. Another likely consequence would involve other terrorist groups which would gain confidence thanks to the perceived success of colleagues in Iraq, this could mean more 911s as they seek the US government's focus and identify their specific goals.

Scribbler1 · Jun 20, 2006, 10:20 pm

I'd like to hear from any war supporter how leaving this insurgency to the Iraqis at our earliest opportunity can be remotely considered a "win" of any kind. Bush keeps saying our goal is to let the Iraqis handle their own affairs, and that means to me there will be no "victory", only a transfer of responsibility for those who are fighting this civil war.
We WILL retreat. It's not a matter if IF but a matter of when. I believe to actually stop the violence we will have to kill half the country. But if we did that, why did we have a problem with Saddam?

Of course, I am for letting them fight their own battles, but in no way can I consider it a "victory", a win or anything else.

bishop · Jun 21, 2006, 05:09 pm

so, it seems that we're pretty much all in agreement regarding the pros and cons. (i was going to put my own up, but they're the same as everyone else's.)

it also seems that we need to figure out what our priorities are, as americans... someone once said to beware of foreign entanglements.. some people consider this to be very wise advice.

are we sacrificing our own domestic needs for this nation-building project in iraq? undeniably - yes we are. so the question then becomes, is it really worth it? at what point are the iraqis going to be deemed capable of defending themselves (especially considering that current iraqi law permits desertion on the battlefield)? as the war supporters stick to bush's message, the current policies in place will not get us to a point where iraq will be able to tend to its own needs.. in fact, the longer our presence in iraq persists, the more iraq will be dependent on us in the future. is that something we really want? the future economic problems (ex. social security, medicare, private pensions) are going to be enormous - do we need another ball and chain welfare state latched onto our ankles? and, do we want to stake the future of our own nation on the future success/failure of iraq?

RickSp · Jun 21, 2006, 05:42 pm

My views are simple. When you have dug yourself into a hole. digging harder is not a viable strategy, except to bury the ever increasing number of dead.

An occupation by a brutal foreign infidel only strenghtens the insurgency.
The longer the occupation lasts the more entrenched the insurgency will become.
The longer the occupation, the more likely that the current government will be viewed as a puppet government and will be guaranteed to fall.
As long as the occupation is open-ended, the Iraqi Army and police force will never be ready to fight on its own.

The problem with withdrawing is that there is no guarantee that the situation on the ground will not get worse. The truth is, there never has been a guarantee and never will be. The only thing that is guaranteed is that if we continue to "stay the course", we will leave in abject defeat.

**Jack** · Jun 21, 2006, 10:00 pm

How much weaker can we be perceived by other nations than we were when we ran from Vietnam? Since then our image as a superpower went untested and was only supported by the threat of using our nuclear capabilities. The Middle East knows we won't nuke that part of the world, so that much of our power is already gone.
It's too late to worry about appearing weak. We'd best be worrying about how to deal with terrorism better than we have since 9/11.

dreamer · Jun 21, 2006, 10:24 pm

WE should of got out the day we pulled Saddam out of that hole and every Arab would now be looking at the west for democracy, we lost the chance for victory that day. Dreamer

Boetie · Jun 21, 2006, 11:29 pm

The solution is to pull the troops out, simple as that.

Recall why we even went there in the first place. Does anyone remember? It was WMD's and the boogeyman is going to get us. That was the reason why.

There are no WMD's and the boogeyman is going to hang via a kangaroo court. Problem solved, everybody go home now.

How do you think the people of Iraq feel that we poured billions of dollars to build 14 bases and let's not even forget the largest embassy in the world complete with bowling alleys, theaters, golf courses and we can't even turn on the lights in the towns and villages that we blew up to get one guy. Blew up a whole nation for one aging, old, senile, harmless, toothless, guy whom lost interest in anything except to write poetry.

It was stupid to go in the first place.

This crap about victory, defeat, cut and run is just a bunch of blah, blah, blah. The politicians every now and then come up with an Iraq emergency spending bill where they will skim off the money to build a monument in Shitshack, Texas. If we bring our boys home, there will be no Iraq emergency spending bill where money can be used to cover the nay nay of a statue in Crapville, Arkansas at a cost of billions.

Jun 20, 2006, 03:53 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	consequences of withdrawing i just wanted to start a thread here where all members could list the good AND bad consequences that might happen if we were to leave iraq by the end of the year.. i'm hoping that we can minimize the bias here by requiring members to post both the pros and cons of such a decision - looking both short-term and long-term if possible. hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 20, 2006, 10:09 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	The lives and money saved by retreating would be offset by the dire consequences to follow. The US would be perceived as weak, unable to fulfil commitments and goals, fearful of sacrifice, scared of Islamic fundamentalists and unable to seriously confront them. Doubt about US capabilities would focus first on their military and likely encourage greater resistance to US goals, for example nuclear non-proliferation in Iran and North Korea. Another likely consequence would involve other terrorist groups which would gain confidence thanks to the perceived success of colleagues in Iraq, this could mean more 911s as they seek the US government's focus and identify their specific goals. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Jun 20, 2006, 10:20 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	I'd like to hear from any war supporter how leaving this insurgency to the Iraqis at our earliest opportunity can be remotely considered a "win" of any kind. Bush keeps saying our goal is to let the Iraqis handle their own affairs, and that means to me there will be no "victory", only a transfer of responsibility for those who are fighting this civil war. We WILL retreat. It's not a matter if IF but a matter of when. I believe to actually stop the violence we will have to kill half the country. But if we did that, why did we have a problem with Saddam? Of course, I am for letting them fight their own battles, but in no way can I consider it a "victory", a win or anything else. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jun 21, 2006, 05:09 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
bishop moderat-e/o-r Location: boston Posts: 11,184	so, it seems that we're pretty much all in agreement regarding the pros and cons. (i was going to put my own up, but they're the same as everyone else's.) it also seems that we need to figure out what our priorities are, as americans... someone once said to beware of foreign entanglements.. some people consider this to be very wise advice. are we sacrificing our own domestic needs for this nation-building project in iraq? undeniably - yes we are. so the question then becomes, is it really worth it? at what point are the iraqis going to be deemed capable of defending themselves (especially considering that current iraqi law permits desertion on the battlefield)? as the war supporters stick to bush's message, the current policies in place will not get us to a point where iraq will be able to tend to its own needs.. in fact, the longer our presence in iraq persists, the more iraq will be dependent on us in the future. is that something we really want? the future economic problems (ex. social security, medicare, private pensions) are going to be enormous - do we need another ball and chain welfare state latched onto our ankles? and, do we want to stake the future of our own nation on the future success/failure of iraq? hope for america... http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Jun 21, 2006, 05:42 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,491	My views are simple. When you have dug yourself into a hole. digging harder is not a viable strategy, except to bury the ever increasing number of dead. An occupation by a brutal foreign infidel only strenghtens the insurgency. The longer the occupation lasts the more entrenched the insurgency will become. The longer the occupation, the more likely that the current government will be viewed as a puppet government and will be guaranteed to fall. As long as the occupation is open-ended, the Iraqi Army and police force will never be ready to fight on its own. The problem with withdrawing is that there is no guarantee that the situation on the ground will not get worse. The truth is, there never has been a guarantee and never will be. The only thing that is guaranteed is that if we continue to "stay the course", we will leave in abject defeat. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Jun 20, 2006, 04:46 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RVonse Igneous Magma Posts: 563	Just my own feelings about this Bishop. The pros: 1. We save a hell of a lot of money we don't have or never did have to spend. 2. We save a lot of lives, both Iraqs and U.S. 3. We can focus on more important issues such as energy dependence that should have priority over this. The cons to leaving: 1. We look dishonorable because we fail to finish what we started. 2. We look weak because we did not win. 3. The terrorist might become more confident to do more damage to the U.S. again.

Jun 21, 2006, 10:00 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 12,997	How much weaker can we be perceived by other nations than we were when we ran from Vietnam? Since then our image as a superpower went untested and was only supported by the threat of using our nuclear capabilities. The Middle East knows we won't nuke that part of the world, so that much of our power is already gone. It's too late to worry about appearing weak. We'd best be worrying about how to deal with terrorism better than we have since 9/11. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)

Jun 21, 2006, 10:24 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
dreamer Igneous Magma Posts: 674	WE should of got out the day we pulled Saddam out of that hole and every Arab would now be looking at the west for democracy, we lost the chance for victory that day. Dreamer

Jun 21, 2006, 11:29 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Boetie Hot Lava Posts: 1,227	The solution is to pull the troops out, simple as that. Recall why we even went there in the first place. Does anyone remember? It was WMD's and the boogeyman is going to get us. That was the reason why. There are no WMD's and the boogeyman is going to hang via a kangaroo court. Problem solved, everybody go home now. How do you think the people of Iraq feel that we poured billions of dollars to build 14 bases and let's not even forget the largest embassy in the world complete with bowling alleys, theaters, golf courses and we can't even turn on the lights in the towns and villages that we blew up to get one guy. Blew up a whole nation for one aging, old, senile, harmless, toothless, guy whom lost interest in anything except to write poetry. It was stupid to go in the first place. This crap about victory, defeat, cut and run is just a bunch of blah, blah, blah. The politicians every now and then come up with an Iraq emergency spending bill where they will skim off the money to build a monument in Shitshack, Texas. If we bring our boys home, there will be no Iraq emergency spending bill where money can be used to cover the nay nay of a statue in Crapville, Arkansas at a cost of billions.