Consequence of Tail btw Legs and Running?

[Sonart]

.

Precisely! Not looking at what will happen if we stay. That that out of the equation. What would happen if we leave tomorrow. Must on this board advocate this. What would happen?

You're trying to play this debate is if you were a trial attorney, G.

Attorney 1: Please, just answer yes or no. Are really bad things going to happen if we cut and run.

Witness: Well yes, but it's not that sim...

Attorney 1: Just yes or no... So you admit that really bad things are going to happen if we cut and run.

Witness: {sigh} Yes.



However, we reserve the right to rebut.



Attorney 2: Cross examine, your Honor!

Court: Proceed.

Attorney 2: Thank you your Honor. [walks over to the witness] So, you admit that really bad things are going to happen if we withdraw from Iraq now.

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: Have really bad things happened in Iraq because we were there in the first place, bad things that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded.

Witness: Absolutely.

Attorney 2: And are really bad things going to continue happening if we stay?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: So really bad things are going to happen to Iraqis whether we stay or whether we leave.

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: So the Iraqis are fuqued no matter what we do?

Attorney 1: Objection!!

Attorney 2: I'll rephrase... isn't it true that, based on the current course of events in Iraq, that after 3 and a half years of U.S. occupation, the violence will only continue to escalate to it's inevitable bloody conclusion?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: And isn't it true that, if nothing else, by withdrawing now, we'll be saving the lives of American troops who will eventually get caught in the middle of that chaos?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: In fact, isn't it likely that, by withdrawing now, we may actually save some Iraqi lives by allowing that chaos to happen sooner rather than after more of the murderous violence that continues to happen the longer we stay?

Witness: Yes, I'd say that's likely.

Attorney 2: Thank you. No more questions, your Honor.


.

[GHook93]

Not really the point I am trying to make. I am not trying to debate on whether we should stay in Iraq or whether we should pull-out. It is a tough choice and right now I really don't know. But it seems like the majority opinion is we should leave immediately. Now I ask what would happen.

- Would the puppet government fall? Probably
- Would the Shi'ites and Sunni increase the civil war and blood shed? Without a doubt
- Would the Kurds take a 3rd front? Could be
- Would Iran support the Shi'ites? Without a doubt
- Would the Turks enter the picture? Possibly
- Would there be mass chao, anarchy and death? No Doubt
:rolleyes:

.
You're trying to play this debate is if you were a trial attorney, G.

Attorney 1: Please, just answer yes or no. Are really bad things going to happen if we cut and run.

Witness: Well yes, but it's not that sim...

Attorney 1: Just yes or no... So you admit that really bad things are going to happen if we cut and run.

Witness: {sigh} Yes.



However, we reserve the right to rebut.



Attorney 2: Cross examine, your Honor!

Court: Proceed.

Attorney 2: Thank you your Honor. [walks over to the witness] So, you admit that really bad things are going to happen if we withdraw from Iraq now.

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: Have really bad things happened in Iraq because we were there in the first place, bad things that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't invaded.

Witness: Absolutely.

Attorney 2: And are really bad things going to continue happening if we stay?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: So really bad things are going to happen to Iraqis whether we stay or whether we leave.

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: So the Iraqis are fuqued no matter what we do?

Attorney 1: Objection!!

Attorney 2: I'll rephrase... isn't it true that, based on the current course of events in Iraq, that after 3 and a half years of U.S. occupation, the violence will only continue to escalate to it's inevitable bloody conclusion?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: And isn't it true that, if nothing else, by withdrawing now, we'll be saving the lives of American troops who will eventually get caught in the middle of that chaos?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney 2: In fact, isn't it likely that, by withdrawing now, we may actually save some Iraqi lives by allowing that chaos to happen sooner rather than after more of the murderous violence that continues to happen the longer we stay?

Witness: Yes, I'd say that's likely.

Attorney 2: Thank you. No more questions, your Honor.


.

[Sonart]

.

But it seems like the majority opinion is we should leave immediately. Now I ask what would happen.

Certainly the majority on this board. Ok, well, maybe the majority of Americans, too.

Gallup: 55% Now Back U.S. Pullout from Iraq Within a Year -- Aug. 3, 06

- Would the puppet government fall? Probably
- Would the Shi'ites and Sunni increase the civil war and blood shed? Without a doubt
- Would the Kurds take a 3rd front? Could be
- Would Iran support the Shi'ites? Without a doubt
- Would the Turks enter the picture? Possibly
- Would there be mass chao, anarchy and death? No Doubt

Yes, I agree. All of those things will very likely happen. We pretty much guaranteed it the moment we removed Hussein from power. But what's the point of asking if, as is very likely, those exact same things are going to happen anyway, just after considerably more of the extended agony that's tormenting Iraq today?

Do you think if we stay in Iraq, Bush can resolve this without any of those things eventually happening?

A simple yes or no... just kidding.

.

[GHook93]

I am for pulling out of the country, we have now entered into a civil war alia Vietnam. I bought into the propaganda about WDA (and possibly a nuke). Once those weren't discovered I realized the war was a collossal mistake.

But I digress. The reason for the thread was to look at what happens if we pull out. Most volconvo members stop there without looking at what happens next.

(Note: The question might be moot, since we are in a no win situation; nevertheless, it is something one has to consider when they state a cause of action.)

.

Certainly the majority on this board. Ok, well, maybe the majority of Americans, too.

Gallup: 55% Now Back U.S. Pullout from Iraq Within a Year -- Aug. 3, 06

Yes, I agree. All of those things will very likely happen. We pretty much guaranteed it the moment we removed Hussein from power. But what's the point of asking if, as is very likely, those exact same things are going to happen anyway, just after considerably more of the extended agony that's tormenting Iraq today?

Do you think if we stay in Iraq, Bush can resolve this without any of those things eventually happening?

A simple yes or no... just kidding.

.

[Sonart]

.

In some ways this sorta goes back to the '04 elections. Folks kept asking, "Oh yeah, well what would Kerry do better?" My answer was always, there's not a damn thing he can do. If we pull out, we're screwed bigtime, if we stay, we're screwed bigtime. There's no magic fix for a trainwreck that's already happened. I just figured that if we got rid of Bush, the world might think that Americans had come to their senses, and other governments might start being a bit more cooperative.


.

[GHook93]

One thing people don't take into account by a unilateral pull-out is the threat of a Rwanda style genocide. Look at the killing going on with the US big brother presence.

In Rwanda 1,071,000 Tutsis were killed in 100 days. Could we stomach that many killed in Iraq in such a short time span. :(

[Sonart]

.

One thing people don't take into account by a unilateral pull-out is the threat of a Rwanda style genocide. Look at the killing going on with the US big brother presence.

In Rwanda 1,071,000 Tutsis were killed in 100 days. Could we stomach that many killed in Iraq in such a short time span.

ONCE AGAIN... what makes you think that's not going to happen anyway? What attrocities have we been able to stop so far? The only difference I see is that the chaos will simply expand more slowly, until it reaches a point where we're helpless and withdraw in frustration, or institute a draft, double our military presence and launch a real long term Vietnam west, with a million Iraqi dead.

.

[Osborn F Enready]

Ghook, I also think it is important, and relevant to point out HOW the U.S. got into both wars in question.....(Vietnam and Iraq)

We didn't go to war in vietnam through a legal Constitutional process.
We didn't go to Iraq through a legal Constitutional process.

We didn't have a populace that supported the war in Vietnam.
We didn't(don't)have a populace that supported(s) the war in Iraq.

Vietnam didn't attack us.
Iraq didn't attack us.

In Vietnam we attempted to bail out the French failure.
In Iraq we attempted to float the notion of "pre-emptive war".

We got into Vietnam to pick-up the failed French cause, which was to reassert control after 1945 of their former colony. The Revolution against the French started by Ho Chi Minh started in 1946. Minh declared a Decleration of Independence for Vietnam in late 1945, modeled on and borrowing language from the American Declaration of 1776. By the time the French surrendered at Dien Bien Phu, the United States had pumped more than 1 BILLION U.S. dollars in aid into the french cause.(on the wrong side, because Minh happened to be a communist, and we were still at war in Korea at the time which was another failed attempt at the spread of puppet democracy by imperialism based on lines drawn in a ridiculous agreement seperating control of the nation at the 17th parallel, in the Geneva conference.) Between 1954 and 1960, the Republican administration of Eisenhower violated the terms of the Geneva accords concerning the sending of SEVERAL thousand troops to Vietnam as "advisors", even though many participated in combat, also WITHOUT congressional notification and approval. Kennedy then stepped in, and added to the mess by approving more troops and in addition,black-ops in Laos and Cambodia. Then came Johnson, who added more planes, ships and troops. THEN, came the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was manipulated for congressional support for the war. The entire attack on the "Maddox" was cooked intelligence to support the idea of the war, and the ship was actually being used for military operations in support of the war when it was "supposedly" attacked on a "routine patrol in international waters". (Hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1968) Also, important to note here that these findings and others about the false facts, and reasoning used for the Vietnam War brought about the 1973 War Powers Resolution Act.

The War Powers Act of 1973
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Avalon Project : War Powers Resolution

also: 93-549 Emergency Powers Act resolution.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organ...73%2093-549%22
Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)
Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973


We got into Iraq first in Desert Storm, as a political boost to George H.W. Bush as well as a concious grab at securing access to Middle Eastern oil, as well as bumping the stock market as war tends to do(for big corporations). The war was based on Saddams threat to Middle East stability, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Why then, and not when chemical weapons were being used to gas innocent Kurds, men women and children? Strangely, we sat silent while the Kurds died, but as soon as the Saudis complained about Saddam encroaching on Kuwait(surely no "model" democracy), the U.S. stepped in. Bush's top strategist John Sunnunu sold the war to Bush on the idea that " a short successful war would be pure political gold for the President, and would guarantee his re-election in '92". Bush also did not meet the requirements of the War Powers resolution of 1973, though he did placate the American people to support the war by citing the U.N. resolution which stated "it authorized member states to use all necessary means" to secure Iraqs compliance with prior UN demands that it withdraw from Kuwait. The placation was short lived. President G.H.W. Bush cited "he decided to let Saddam put down his own rebellions in his own nation, rather than risk splintering Iraq by U.S. intervention in Iraq" as to citing the gassing of the Kurds, but the intervention in Kuwait. Come 2003, and little Bush is up to bat. G.W.Bush and his boys, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and many other Bush admin officials all who were signers of the letter to Clinton recommending him to oust Saddam in January 98, with the PNAC(Neo-Con) letterhead, all cooked and manipulated intelligence, media and public opinion using threats of WMD and bleak picture of world dictators the likes of Hitler, expressly to do what G.Dubs dad tried to avoid.....splintering the middle east, by invading Iraq to remove Saddam. This was only possible because of the state of consciousness that followed 9-11, when at a time of trust by the people looking for a leader, our leaders lead us into a "pre-emptive" war built on lies, past grudges of politcal power-wielders, and illogical views of reality.(neo-cons) Strangely enough, most of the facts that come out as the war continues, are contradictory to what we were told when we went to war, and none of the results or goals were/are as expected.

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

So, what is worse.

Pulling out of a bad mistake after you realize you made one?
or
Making a mistake, realizing it, and killing more people to accomplish a goal you can't, and never could achieve?

Kind of like picking between the lesser of two evils, eh?

Sounds familliar..... :rolleyes: :confused:

[GHook93]

I think to note is that there are no good options; however, that still doesn't take away from the fact that once we leave the situation will be remencient of Cambodia, Rwanda or Danfur.

The best case scenario is if the Iraqi army actually gains power, sadly this doesn't look like it is happening.

Ghook, I also think it is important, and relevant to point out HOW the U.S. got into both wars in question.....(Vietnam and Iraq)

We didn't go to war in vietnam through a legal Constitutional process.
We didn't go to Iraq through a legal Constitutional process.

We didn't have a populace that supported the war in Vietnam.
We didn't(don't)have a populace that supported(s) the war in Iraq.

Vietnam didn't attack us.
Iraq didn't attack us.

In Vietnam we attempted to bail out the French failure.
In Iraq we attempted to float the notion of "pre-emptive war".

We got into Vietnam to pick-up the failed French cause, which was to reassert control after 1945 of their former colony. The Revolution against the French started by Ho Chi Minh started in 1946. Minh declared a Decleration of Independence for Vietnam in late 1945, modeled on and borrowing language from the American Declaration of 1776. By the time the French surrendered at Dien Bien Phu, the United States had pumped more than 1 BILLION U.S. dollars in aid into the french cause.(on the wrong side, because Minh happened to be a communist, and we were still at war in Korea at the time which was another failed attempt at the spread of puppet democracy by imperialism based on lines drawn in a ridiculous agreement seperating control of the nation at the 17th parallel, in the Geneva conference.) Between 1954 and 1960, the Republican administration of Eisenhower violated the terms of the Geneva accords concerning the sending of SEVERAL thousand troops to Vietnam as "advisors", even though many participated in combat, also WITHOUT congressional notification and approval. Kennedy then stepped in, and added to the mess by approving more troops and in addition,black-ops in Laos and Cambodia. Then came Johnson, who added more planes, ships and troops. THEN, came the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was manipulated for congressional support for the war. The entire attack on the "Maddox" was cooked intelligence to support the idea of the war, and the ship was actually being used for military operations in support of the war when it was "supposedly" attacked on a "routine patrol in international waters". (Hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1968) Also, important to note here that these findings and others about the false facts, and reasoning used for the Vietnam War brought about the 1973 War Powers Resolution Act.

The War Powers Act of 1973
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Avalon Project : War Powers Resolution

also: 93-549 Emergency Powers Act resolution.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organ...73%2093-549%22
Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)
Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973


We got into Iraq first in Desert Storm, as a political boost to George H.W. Bush as well as a concious grab at securing access to Middle Eastern oil, as well as bumping the stock market as war tends to do(for big corporations). The war was based on Saddams threat to Middle East stability, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Why then, and not when chemical weapons were being used to gas innocent Kurds, men women and children? Strangely, we sat silent while the Kurds died, but as soon as the Saudis complained about Saddam encroaching on Kuwait(surely no "model" democracy), the U.S. stepped in. Bush's top strategist John Sunnunu sold the war to Bush on the idea that " a short successful war would be pure political gold for the President, and would guarantee his re-election in '92". Bush also did not meet the requirements of the War Powers resolution of 1973, though he did placate the American people to support the war by citing the U.N. resolution which stated "it authorized member states to use all necessary means" to secure Iraqs compliance with prior UN demands that it withdraw from Kuwait. The placation was short lived. President G.H.W. Bush cited "he decided to let Saddam put down his own rebellions in his own nation, rather than risk splintering Iraq by U.S. intervention in Iraq" as to citing the gassing of the Kurds, but the intervention in Kuwait. Come 2003, and little Bush is up to bat. G.W.Bush and his boys, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and many other Bush admin officials all who were signers of the letter to Clinton recommending him to oust Saddam in January 98, with the PNAC(Neo-Con) letterhead, all cooked and manipulated intelligence, media and public opinion using threats of WMD and bleak picture of world dictators the likes of Hitler, expressly to do what G.Dubs dad tried to avoid.....splintering the middle east, by invading Iraq to remove Saddam. This was only possible because of the state of consciousness that followed 9-11, when at a time of trust by the people looking for a leader, our leaders lead us into a "pre-emptive" war built on lies, past grudges of politcal power-wielders, and illogical views of reality.(neo-cons) Strangely enough, most of the facts that come out as the war continues, are contradictory to what we were told when we went to war, and none of the results or goals were/are as expected.

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

So, what is worse.

Pulling out of a bad mistake after you realize you made one?
or
Making a mistake, realizing it, and killing more people to accomplish a goal you can't, and never could achieve?

Kind of like picking between the lesser of two evils, eh?

Sounds familliar..... :rolleyes: :confused:

[shield772]

We are, indeed, between a rock and a hard place. And we have two years of pain left to endure because the executive controls foreign policy. I believe the only answer to this is to actually find some way to get others to participate. We need boots on the ground, but they need to be from other nations as well. We need to stop protecting the financial interests of big corporations before we protect Iraqis. We need to get them back to work and school and get electricity back to their homes, i.e.- fix what we destroyed. We need to create conditions that will maybe allow that democracy to flourish. Right now, all we are doing is making sure profits for non-Iraqis are protected. Not the way to win hearts and minds. But then, that is not, in my opinion, even on the list of things this admin. considers to be important. That so many American and Iraqi lives have been wasted to this point is tragic. I would be for pulling out if we sent an acceptable third party in to take our place and we redeployed close by. But we need to not establish bases in Iraq, we need to be seen as willing to allow Iraqis to control what they have every right to control, the benefits of their own resources.

We have restored and even created power stations water supplies sewage plants schools.

Ghook, I also think it is important, and relevant to point out HOW the U.S. got into both wars in question.....(Vietnam and Iraq)

We didn't go to war in vietnam through a legal Constitutional process.
We didn't go to Iraq through a legal Constitutional process.

We didn't have a populace that supported the war in Vietnam.
We didn't(don't)have a populace that supported(s) the war in Iraq.

Vietnam didn't attack us.
Iraq didn't attack us.

In Vietnam we attempted to bail out the French failure.
In Iraq we attempted to float the notion of "pre-emptive war".

We got into Vietnam to pick-up the failed French cause, which was to reassert control after 1945 of their former colony. The Revolution against the French started by Ho Chi Minh started in 1946. Minh declared a Decleration of Independence for Vietnam in late 1945, modeled on and borrowing language from the American Declaration of 1776. By the time the French surrendered at Dien Bien Phu, the United States had pumped more than 1 BILLION U.S. dollars in aid into the french cause.(on the wrong side, because Minh happened to be a communist, and we were still at war in Korea at the time which was another failed attempt at the spread of puppet democracy by imperialism based on lines drawn in a ridiculous agreement seperating control of the nation at the 17th parallel, in the Geneva conference.) Between 1954 and 1960, the Republican administration of Eisenhower violated the terms of the Geneva accords concerning the sending of SEVERAL thousand troops to Vietnam as "advisors", even though many participated in combat, also WITHOUT congressional notification and approval. Kennedy then stepped in, and added to the mess by approving more troops and in addition,black-ops in Laos and Cambodia. Then came Johnson, who added more planes, ships and troops. THEN, came the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was manipulated for congressional support for the war. The entire attack on the "Maddox" was cooked intelligence to support the idea of the war, and the ship was actually being used for military operations in support of the war when it was "supposedly" attacked on a "routine patrol in international waters". (Hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1968) Also, important to note here that these findings and others about the false facts, and reasoning used for the Vietnam War brought about the 1973 War Powers Resolution Act.

The War Powers Act of 1973
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Avalon Project : War Powers Resolution

also: 93-549 Emergency Powers Act resolution.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organ...73%2093-549%22
Emergency Powers Statutes (Senate Report 93-549)
Emergency Powers Statutes, Senate Report SR 93-549, November 19, 1973


We got into Iraq first in Desert Storm, as a political boost to George H.W. Bush as well as a concious grab at securing access to Middle Eastern oil, as well as bumping the stock market as war tends to do(for big corporations). The war was based on Saddams threat to Middle East stability, after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Why then, and not when chemical weapons were being used to gas innocent Kurds, men women and children? Strangely, we sat silent while the Kurds died, but as soon as the Saudis complained about Saddam encroaching on Kuwait(surely no "model" democracy), the U.S. stepped in. Bush's top strategist John Sunnunu sold the war to Bush on the idea that " a short successful war would be pure political gold for the President, and would guarantee his re-election in '92". Bush also did not meet the requirements of the War Powers resolution of 1973, though he did placate the American people to support the war by citing the U.N. resolution which stated "it authorized member states to use all necessary means" to secure Iraqs compliance with prior UN demands that it withdraw from Kuwait. The placation was short lived. President G.H.W. Bush cited "he decided to let Saddam put down his own rebellions in his own nation, rather than risk splintering Iraq by U.S. intervention in Iraq" as to citing the gassing of the Kurds, but the intervention in Kuwait. Come 2003, and little Bush is up to bat. G.W.Bush and his boys, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and many other Bush admin officials all who were signers of the letter to Clinton recommending him to oust Saddam in January 98, with the PNAC(Neo-Con) letterhead, all cooked and manipulated intelligence, media and public opinion using threats of WMD and bleak picture of world dictators the likes of Hitler, expressly to do what G.Dubs dad tried to avoid.....splintering the middle east, by invading Iraq to remove Saddam. This was only possible because of the state of consciousness that followed 9-11, when at a time of trust by the people looking for a leader, our leaders lead us into a "pre-emptive" war built on lies, past grudges of politcal power-wielders, and illogical views of reality.(neo-cons) Strangely enough, most of the facts that come out as the war continues, are contradictory to what we were told when we went to war, and none of the results or goals were/are as expected.

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century

So, what is worse.

Pulling out of a bad mistake after you realize you made one?
or
Making a mistake, realizing it, and killing more people to accomplish a goal you can't, and never could achieve?

Kind of like picking between the lesser of two evils, eh?

Sounds familliar..... :rolleyes: :confused:

I would please like you to explain how the process of going into Iraq was unconstitutional? Because correct me if I am wrong did not the president request from congress authorization to enter Iraq, did not congress agree and give authorization, has congress continued to fund the conflict in Iraq, has congress rescinded it's autorization for US troops to be in Iraq? This is constitutional, you may not agree with it, you may believe that the US and congress were lied to to get the authorization but none of that makes it unconstitutional since congress continues to fund it and has not rescinded it's authorization.

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld started the War in Iraq, and they've LOST IT. Anwar Province is under the control of Al Quaeda, Bagdad is having 100 people killed DAILY. Even the tiny Green Zone is barely secured.If it was your son or daughter would you want them stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan, TODAY? Well then don't silently send someone else's kid there.

Yes I would and I have 2 sons.

[Sonart]

.

We have restored and even created power stations water supplies sewage plants schools.

Considering what we promised, not nearly enough, and we long ago gave up such projects in order to focus on trying to restore order.

Baghdad's electricity has fallen far below prewar levels due to instability

Iraq Oil Output Lowest Since Invasion

A day in the life of an ordinary Iraqi

The ICRC is alarmed by the humanitarian situation in various parts of Iraq. Recent reports about very acute water and power shortages are of particular concern.

.

[Scribbler1]

Aside from the fact that anyone old enough to serve is old enough to make his own decisions and can NOT be "sent", I would also respect my son if he joined the service to fight for America.

The problem is, those brave men and women who DO join and serve are not currently fighting for "our freedom" or even for the protection of our nation. They of course have my utmost respect, but that respect is reserved for THEM and not for those who sent them there.

They fight for undefined objectives which are not in the TRUE interest of the United States of America. May there be a special place in hell for those who sent them there.