Consequences of Iraq Pull Out

[madanthonywayne]

A lot of Bushes critics are fond of saying the US should pull out of Iraq by some arbirary date, say, 2007. But what would happen if he did? Here's one mans analysis:

We warn the Iraqis to get off their duffs and prepare to be in charge by Dec. 31, 2007. We depart (leaving a couple of divisions in a desert base somewhere in Kuwait — per John Murtha's over the horizon strategy).
The Iraqi military and police are still not able to manage. Full scale civil war breaks out. The Iranians enter to give help to the Shias. The Egyptians, Saudis and other Sunni states lend a hand to help the Iraqi Sunnis. The Kurds declare an independent Kurdistan. The Turks go to war against the Kurds after Kurdish PKK terrorists hit the Turks yet again. The Sunnis try to take a piece of Kurdish oil resources near Kirkuk. The Shia workers, who dominate Saudi's southern oil fields attack Saudi pipelines in solidarity with Iranian Shia led fighting in Iraq.
Kuwait demands our two divisions immediately leave, as it is arousing the hostility of its population. Qatar makes the same demand, for same reason, of our naval base. The United States complies.
No longer in the sway of the "Jewish lobby," Mr. Bush threatens to cut off Israel from all dollars, military equipment (including spare parts) and diplomatic support. He threatens economic sanctions if Israel doesn't negotiate a peace with Hamas-led Palestinians.
Going beyond President Clinton's peace deal of 2000, which was rejected by Yasser Arafat, Hamas demands Israel return to pre-1967 borders, turn over the Golan Heights to Syria, no West Bank occupation (including in suburbs of Jerusalem), the right of return of the first half million Palestinians to Israel proper and turning over Jerusalem to a United Nations mandate. Israel is compelled to agree.
They sign the agreement that recognizes two states.
On the next day (Nov. 29, 2007 — 60 years to the day from when the first post-U.N. resolution Arab terrorist attack on Jews occurred the day after the U.N. resolution for an independent Israel was passed in 1947) Israel is besieged by terrorists and intensively grouped missile attacks on the north by Hezbollah-run Lebanon, on the south from Gaza and in the center from Janin to Hebron in the new state of the Islamic Republic of Palestine. Syria militarily re-occupies the Golan Heights. U.N.-administered Jerusalem becomes, with U.N. acquiescence, a free passage zone for terrorists into Israel. When the Knesset is bombed by terrorists, Israel declares a defensive, existential three-front war against Lebanon, Syria and the Islamic Republic of Palestine. The war escalates fast toward the edge of Israel's conventional military capacity.
Price of a barrel of crude oil on Election Day 2008 — $250. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm

You should really read the whole thing, it's only two pages. Anyway, does this scenario seem realistic?

[TW Scott]

Actually it seems optimistic

[vslayer]

when you invaded iraq, you screwed up the balance of power that saddam maintained within the country. you say that if you leave things will get worse, well they wouldnt get worse if you hadnt invaded in the first place, so you figure it out. its not our problem that you screwed up and cant get out(in an american way)without screwing it up more

[spuriousmonkey]

You could always buy oil from Iran in Euros.

[madanthonywayne]

when you invaded iraq, you screwed up the balance of power that saddam maintained within the country. you say that if you leave things will get worse, well they wouldnt get worse if you hadnt invaded in the first place, so you figure it out. its not our problem that you screwed up and cant get out(in an american way)without screwing it up more

Water under the bridge. We're there. That's the point. Pulling out prematurely would only make things worse. That should be obvious, but it doesn't stop those on the Left from proposing it.

[spuriousmonkey]

water under the bridge?

funny.

How would you react if the Nazis had said that. Oh...killed a few million jews, gypsies, handicapped etc. But the war is now over. Water under the bridge.



Does that mean righties have no moral sense whatsoever?

[Nickelodeon]

So following that logic.....US troops will never pull out? No wonder permanent US bases are being constructed in Iraq.

[G. F. Schleebenhorst]

Madanthonywayne, if the illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq is "water under the bridge", I want you to admit that the WTC attack is "water under the bridge" too.

[spuriousmonkey]

Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

Oscar Wilde

Water under the Bridge for WTC!

[swivel]

when you invaded iraq, you screwed up the balance of power that saddam maintained within the country. you say that if you leave things will get worse, well they wouldnt get worse if you hadnt invaded in the first place, so you figure it out. its not our problem that you screwed up and cant get out(in an american way)without screwing it up more

Are you suggesting that some cultures are so backwards that they require dictators that will conduct purges a'la Stalin, in order to maintain order? So for the foreseeable future, we should allow regimes like Saddam's to remain in power, and fill graves with bodies, in order to keep a people subjugated?

I never understood this argument. It would be like saying that we should have kept slavery legal in the United States, because the only way of ridding ourself of it would be to wage a Civil War that would kill more Americans than all future wars combined. That is a MASSIVE cost, and worth every single life.

I know it sounds callous, but everyone alive today is going to be dead in 120 years. Every single one. The question is, what sort of quality of life are the next 12 billion humans going to enjoy? If you are saying that the status quo in Iraq is better than some very painful change, I think you are crazy.

100,000 people could die over there in order to bring about Democracy and free markets, and it will be cheap. It cost Russia over 100 MILLION dead to experiment with their government last century, 35 million of which died in WWII after apeasing Germany for a slice of Poland backfired on Stalin. We shrug off 100 million, and never talk about it... but 3,000 American soldiers die, and it is the gravest tragedy in history?

Honesty, I think most people have their foreign policy thinking too warped by either their hatred of President Bush, or their undying loyalty towards him. The President did not create the problems over there.

[mikasa11]

MadAnthonyWayne...George Bush lied to get our support behind this iraq war shit.

Remember when they said it would be 6 weeks long?

We would be greeted as liberaters?

We're ridding a tyrant of WMD'S?

He attacked us on 9/11?

What complete fucking bullshit...And what complete fucking bullshit that you try and justify it.

[Buffalo Roam]

mikasa11, site proof of statements please?

[Neildo]

Remember when they said it would be 6 weeks long?

Six months, actually, said by Rumsfeld.

As for the rest, BF, that's been shown to you by myself and others so many times yet you still ask for references. Geez, we need to make an auto-reply sticky thread for stuff like that, heh.

- N

[madanthonywayne]

What's the point of yelling at each other over the choice to go into Iraq? The thread topic is what would happen if we pulled out. There's plenty of other threads where you can call Bush a Nazi or whatever. The question is, what should be done now? This is the reality we face. Calling each other names will not change that. Many of you Bush haters out there argue we should pull out immediately. Well, what would happen if we did?

[spuriousmonkey]

Are you suggesting that some cultures are so backwards that they require dictators that will conduct purges a'la Stalin, in order to maintain order? So for the foreseeable future, we should allow regimes like Saddam's to remain in power, and fill graves with bodies, in order to keep a people subjugated?

I never understood this argument. It would be like saying that we should have kept slavery legal in the United States, because the only way of ridding ourself of it would be to wage a Civil War that would kill more Americans than all future wars combined. That is a MASSIVE cost, and worth every single life.

I know it sounds callous, but everyone alive today is going to be dead in 120 years. Every single one. The question is, what sort of quality of life are the next 12 billion humans going to enjoy? If you are saying that the status quo in Iraq is better than some very painful change, I think you are crazy.

100,000 people could die over there in order to bring about Democracy and free markets, and it will be cheap. It cost Russia over 100 MILLION dead to experiment with their government last century, 35 million of which died in WWII after apeasing Germany for a slice of Poland backfired on Stalin. We shrug off 100 million, and never talk about it... but 3,000 American soldiers die, and it is the gravest tragedy in history?

Honesty, I think most people have their foreign policy thinking too warped by either their hatred of President Bush, or their undying loyalty towards him. The President did not create the problems over there.

You can't compare Saddam to Stalin.

You can easily support the notion that American intervention to further it's own interests has killed millions since WW2 and destabilised many democracies.

Can a country like that really bitch about Iraq? Especially since at one point they were best buddies? Especially since Iraq was fighting a war against a nation (Iran) that had gotten rid of the American influence? That is untill the delivery of cheap oil was jeopardized (invastion of Kuwait). That is untill a new scapegoat came on the scene, terrorism.

Nobody believes Iraq was a threat to the middle east anymore. Only American republicans seem to be faithful servants of that 'truth'. Everybody knows that there are no real ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Except americans who have been told there are.

Can a country like the US who has practised the vilest foreign policies imaginable really be a moral police officer in the world? Well, of course, a police officer of a dictatorial regime.

The free market is offered, with the slight nag that the conditions of the free market are dicated by a few. Needless to say cannot see department of war, nor can you say controlled market in our modern times. The truth is too ugly.

We don't care about what you do in your own country. Have a civil war if you wish to do so. But don't pretend you are acting in the interests of others. Nobody believes that shit except gullible americans.

[TW Scott]

Okay everybody keeps saying that the Invasion of Iraq was Illegal and unjustified....Prove it. This works like a court of law, becuase well it is about law. Prove to world that the Invasion of Iraq was unjustified and illegal. If you can't you have to drop your silly claim forever.

[spuriousmonkey]

What law? Your law?

Since when is invading a sovereign nation justified?

Because the invading country acted according to their own laws?

What are we supposed to do? Send Bush to the world court in the hague which is not recognized as such by the americans (well, no american is allowed to be put on trial there).

Germany invaded Poland perfectly according to the law. Germany invaded the benelux and france according to the law.

Iraq invaded kuwait according to the law.

The soviet union invaded poland according to the law. There was a nice agreement with germany to split up poland between them. According to the law.

Law. You don't need to brake a law to be unjustified.

[Buffalo Roam]

Poland, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, were they under legal sanctions by the League of Nations, what legal reason did Hitler have for his invasion in 1939, Saddam was in a cease fire, under sanctions of the United Nations that he wasn't complying with, after 12 years he still hadn't provided the proper proof that he had and was going to comply, and many nations in the U.N. were helping him get around the sanctions, but in the end the United Nations passed 1441, 15-0

While the Security Council has passed a series of resolutions concerning Iraq over the past 12 years, only one explicitly authorized the use of force. Resolution 678, passed on Nov. 29, 1990, authorized member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660, passed on Aug. 2, 1990, demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.)

Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. Recognizing the continued threat Iraq poses to international peace and security, recalling that Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to implement relevant subsequent resolutions, and noting that Resolution 687 imposed conditions on Iraq—with which it has not complied—the council made clear that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions." It is significant that the council explicitly noted that it was acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.

[spuriousmonkey]

Poland, France, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, were they under legal sanctions by the League of Nations, what legal reason did Hitler have for his invasion in 1939, Saddam was in a cease fire, under sanctions of the United Nations that he wasn't complying with, after 12 years he still hadn't provided the proper proof that he had and was going to comply, and many nations in the U.N. were helping him get around the sanctions, but in the end the United Nations passed 1441, 15-0

While the Security Council has passed a series of resolutions concerning Iraq over the past 12 years, only one explicitly authorized the use of force. Resolution 678, passed on Nov. 29, 1990, authorized member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." (Resolution 660, passed on Aug. 2, 1990, demanded that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.)

Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. Recognizing the continued threat Iraq poses to international peace and security, recalling that Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to implement relevant subsequent resolutions, and noting that Resolution 687 imposed conditions on Iraq—with which it has not complied—the council made clear that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions." It is significant that the council explicitly noted that it was acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.

The UN didn't invade Iraq.

[swivel]

Nice try, Buffalo Roam, but logic, reason, and a knowledge of history are not going to help.

The only way to fight fanaticism is with more fanaticism. So... less intelligent posts and more hysterics, please.