Quick exit from Iraq is likely

[Zeebadee]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-e...dt-novak20.html


"Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go."


Bush knows his war has been a mistake, and he's going to cut and run, but he's not willing to admit that publicly until after his reelection. This is indicative of his true priorities, staying in power comes first. How many GI's will die between now and our exit from Iraq?? Their blood will be on Bush's hands.

[PatrickHenry]

All the blood of Iraq stains Mr. Bush.

Was the article written by the same Robert Novak who exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA operative?

Also did I miss something in the news?: "Russian President Vladimir Putin's seizure of power" (from the article)

[rcne]

Hopefully, if we learned anything from Vietnam is that 'cut and run' is not an option. That only results in genocide and chaos.

America is such a strange land. We keep troops in Germany for 50 years, in Korea for 30 years - yet where the troops are needed we wish for an exit strategy.

I'd ask first what's our exit strategy for German and Korea? And wouldn't those active troops be of more use as a deterrent in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[rcne]

Hopefully, if we learned anything from Vietnam is that 'cut and run' is not an option. That only results in genocide and chaos.

America is such a strange land. We keep troops in Germany for 50 years, in Korea for 30 years - yet where the troops are needed we wish for an exit strategy.

I'd ask first what's our exit strategy for German and Korea? And wouldn't those active troops be of more use as a deterrent in Afghanistan or Iraq.

[Zeebadee]

If we had learned from Viet Nam, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by rcne, Hopefully, if we learned anything from Vietnam is that 'cut and run' is not an option. That only results in genocide and chaos. America is such a strange land. We keep troops in Germany for 50 years, in Korea for 30 years - yet where the troops are needed we wish for an exit strategy. I'd ask first what's our exit strategy for German and Korea? And wouldn't those active troops be of more use as a deterrent in Afghanistan or Iraq.

What we should have learned from the war in Nam is that we should not have cut in the first place. But the Bush people did not learn that and so here we are again.

[Gorgo]

What we should have learned from Vietnam is not to murder millions of people.

The U.S. is the reason for chaos in Iraq. Arrest Bush, get a new leader, apologize to the world, and get out.

Today.

[Technosoul]

I think that Bush might make it known that he would remove occupation forces if the people of Iraq vote for the people he has appointed to run the new government in conformity and in unity with his wishes. He would not run away from the oil and leave it in the hands of fate.

They have plans to make Iraq the democratic role model of the middle east for other Islamic nations to adopt (freely or with a little help by us). Also we want them to agree with us setting up a military base in that country so we can be ready for other middle eastern conflicts it they arise, the only reason he would leave without reaching those goals is if we clearly lost the war because the insurgency forces won the war, because we lack the number of troops needed to win short of reopening the draft.

Technosoul.

[PatrickHenry]

You don't think a rehired Bush admin will start drafting?

Get real.

[Gorgo]

Hard to tell, but the one thing that was learned from Vietnam is that if you start drafting, you'd better have a popular war that most people agree with and that most people think that Americans should be dying for in large numbers to win.

I'm not sure that this war fills that bill, or they'd have done it already.

[RickSp]

Hopefully, if we learned anything from Vietnam is that 'cut and run' is not an option. That only results in genocide and chaos.

So you are suggesting that we should wait until say, 58,000 soldiers die in a pointless and immoral war before we leave, like Vietnam, or wasn't 58,000 dead enough for you? Of course we should not forget the 3 million Vietnamese who died in the war. I would think that that would be enough genocide and chaos for you right there.

We have no business playing at empire. If there is a lesson of Vietnam it is that we have no business invading countries that didn't attack us.

[bishop]

i'm not so sure he'd just leave. would he want to give up control of such a valuable resources? (iraq's oil) and, what about afghanistan?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, You don't think a rehired Bush admin will start drafting? Get real.

Perhaps you are right, but here is something we could in our hats to think about.

I call it "Post war plan B".

They send home the troops who become unemployed upon leaving the military, and then Halliburtan (having now gained millions) hires the x-military men to work for them as their private security company to protect their oil interests in Iraq. Offering better pay then they got working for Uncle Sam.

Sound real enough for you?

Okay, you no dougt want some textbook knowledge about plan B. So let us open our textbooks and see how plan Bs are operated. We have classic case where Reagan could not get congress to support a plan A attack in South Ameirca so they used plan B which was to use a private para-military group called the Contras and private funding, and private secret security guard people to attempt to win the war that was not being operated under the offical heading of being controlled by the U.S. government. They bring in Ollie North and his planning commision.

Corperate occupation instead of governemental occupation.

Sound real? Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[Sonart]

Hopefully, if we learned anything from Vietnam is that 'cut and run' is not an option. That only results in genocide and chaos.

If we had learned from Viet Nam, we wouldn't be in this mess.

There it is. Now apparently we have to learn the lesson all over again.

You don't think a rehired Bush admin will start drafting?

No, actually, I don't. He'd get dragged out of the Whitehouse and lynched down by the Vietnam Memorial, and he knows it.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, Quick exit from Iraq is likely Bush knows his war has been a mistake, and he's going to cut and run, but he's not willing to admit that publicly until after his reelection.

#1
Unless something beyond any expectations happens, it will never take place.
#2
Dreaming.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Sonart, There it is. Now apparently we have to learn the lesson all over again.

Exactly right. The answer was we should never have been there in the first place, and the whole country knew the answer back then. However, with the passage of time the lessons are usually forgotten and people think we should stay because we are TOLD we need to stay, with nothing to explain why.

No, actually, I don't. He'd get dragged out of the Whitehouse and lynched down by the Vietnam Memorial, and he knows it.

Don't forget, that "trial balloon" was floated abvout two years ago with a call for "non military" national service for ALL people leaving high school. A program which was well recieved by the right wing and required all the nations teenagers to sign up. The proponents were stressing the non military part while at the same time advocating a military style "boot camp". But NOT military.

Is that the best these assholes can do, or is it just me? If you want to advocate the draft, fine, ADVOCATE the damn thing and quit trying to hoodwink the people.

OOOps, I forgot...that usually works!

[rcne]

Scribbler1:

Don't forget, that "trial balloon" was floated about two years ago with a call for "non military" national service for ALL people leaving high school. A program which was well received by the right wing and required all the nations teenagers to sign up. The proponents were stressing the non military part while at the same time advocating a military style "boot camp". But NOT military.

Actually a service period is required in many EU nations, so the idea of implementing it here is not extraordinary.

I'd favor some sort of program for all youth. It would provide a common ground experience between country, urban, rich, poor ,black, white etc, etc.

Sonart;

There it is. Now apparently we have to learn the lesson all over again.

Vietnam was a corporate war(actually a conflict), where the Americans for some unknown reason bailed France out (again), then were not allowed to win.

A long, dribble of men and casualties resulted, with no clear directive.
And ended suddenly with more genocide and chaos as the result of 'cut and run'.

Exactly what hopefully we learned - if you're going to do it - do it, finish it without remorse. The ongoing limited force campaign is unsuited to achieve the goal of a stable Iraq, Afghanistan.

Harsh, indeed. Sometimes overwhelming force is the best persuader - aka Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by rcne, Exactly what hopefully we learned - if you're going to do it - do it, finish it without remorse. The ongoing limited force campaign is unsuited to achieve the goal of a stable Iraq, Afghanistan. Harsh, indeed. Sometimes overwhelming force is the best persuader - aka Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan.

So what are you advocating? Shall we just go in and kill everybody that doesn't like us? Do that, or even close to it and the last shred of the facade that we are there to "bring freedom to Iraq" is blown away.

When no WMD's were found, Bush changed his rationale for the war to saving the Iraqi's from saddam. What are we going to tell the world about the reasons for deposing saddam when the number of casualties we have caused exceed the number of murders he committed?

Our enemies in Iraq are totally, religiously, and culturally dedicated to their cause, even willing to use suicide missions to attack us. They are fighting on their own turf, with no time restrictions, and they can continue these attacks indefinitely. National elections in January are going to do about as much to stop the attacks as turning over sovereignty to a puppet Iraqi government did. No matter what we do or give to them, there are going to be large numbers of Iraqi's that will be totally opposed to American troops on their soil. In addition, large numbers of foreign fighters will be attracted to aid what they see as patriots trying to defend their country against an occupation force.

If our purpose in Iraq is to defer attacks here in the United States by offering our troops as easy substitute targets, we are succeeding. But don't you think our GI's deserve to be told why they are being sacrificed??



Edited for grammar.

[Compugasm]

Alexander the Great? Ha, he was a genocidal murderer with no exit strategy.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by rcne, Actually a service period is required in many EU nations, so the idea of implementing it here is not extraordinary. I'd favor some sort of program for all youth.  It would provide a common ground experience between country, urban, rich, poor ,black, white etc, etc.

You are forgetting the sneaky nature of the government and the apathetic willingness of the sheep to believe what they are told without question. Much of the negative things we live with in the US are the result of broken promises or outright lies. The war in Iraq (it was once a threat to us, now its a "liberation" of an opressed people) is only the latest of these scams. The "war" on drugs, the constant attempt to ban guns, RICO and conspiracy laws, campaign finance laws, income tax reform and a load of other things were touted as benign or beneficial and have turned out to be, shall we say, not as they seemed.
I would trust the motives of the EU countries before I trust those of our own government. As unamerican as that may sound, as a relatively intelligent person I cannot forget all the scams of the past and trust them AGAIN. My leaders must EARN my trust now.

Vietnam was a corporate war(actually a conflict), where the Americans for some unknown reason bailed France out (again), then were not allowed to win.

For the record, the Vietnam situation was not a war or a conflict. It was termed a "police action" and was never a real war (in name anyway). We were not allowed to win because a devastating military blow to the North might have brought China into the situation. The Korean War was a similar situation in terms of China.

Exactly what hopefully we learned - if you're going to do it - do it, finish it without remorse. The ongoing limited force campaign is unsuited to achieve the goal of a stable Iraq, Afghanistan.

Not in this case. We need a justifiable reason to wage war in the first place, then kick ass. We STARTED to do that in Afghanistan but Bush dropped that action like a bad habit and went after Iraq.

Harsh, indeed. Sometimes overwhelming force is the best persuader - aka Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan.

Both masterful conquerers, and world class scumbags the both of them. Would you have Bush act as they did? It sounds like you'd wish we should kill them all. Tear the country up, flip it over and plant new on the other side.