If you don't propose getting out of Iraq now, then you are no better that the Neo-Cons.

[trumad]

It's over, we're done--- one more death of an American Soldier should be blamed on every single person who argues that we should not leave immediately.

[shadowknows69]

1. What he said

Home Now!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Agreed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

3. Ummmm, Yeah. Narrow-Minded Divisive Declarations Like This Are Helpful.

:eyes:

[trumad]

4. Narrow-Minded Divisive Declarations

Really---so you support staying longer?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Yes, Narrow-Minded Divisive Declarations.

[Ravy]

5. People who do that are no better than Bush. He does that, too.

Really trumad, you are better than that.

[trumad]

7. Do what?

Do you support staying longer?

[Ravy]

11. Make divisive declarations, like you did in the OP title.

No, I don't.

But I don't think it is as simple as just moving out immediately. I think we need to move away from the cities, yet remain on the borders until a diplomatic regional solution can be found. The military aspect of Murtha's plan, coupled with the diplomatic of Biden's would suit me best.

[trumad]

13. divisive declarations---divisive to who

those who want to say and those who want to leave?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. To Those Who Aren't Narrow-Minded.

Basically you're saying "If you don't think exactly as I do, then go fuck yourself".

With all due respect, that's the epitome of narrow-mindedness and divisiveness.

[Texasgal]

15. Word. n/t

[trumad]

17. Do you propose staying longer?

[Texasgal]

19. You make it difficult

for me to give my opinion, because what ever I say that dosen't agree with your analogy is wrong and I must be a neo-con. :eyes:

No thanks. Not today. I am not falling into THAT trap... thanks anyway! :hi:

[trumad]

23. But if you think we should stay longer

wouldn't you be right there with the Neo-Cons in their thinking?

[Texasgal]

29. Uhhh...no.

Like I said, I am not falling into this trap.

If you would like to have a discussion about how people feel about this...pointing fingers and and framing your debate one way will simply not work.

Thanks ANYWAY. :hi:

[trumad]

32. So you won't say if we should stay or get the hell out?

[Texasgal]

39. How many times is it going to take

me telling you that I am NOT falling into your trap?

Maybe all caps will help you. I AM NOT PLAYING THAT GAME WITH YOU.

Get it?

[trumad]

41. It's not a game---it's life and death

do you support us staying any longer in Iraq?

[Texasgal]

45. *sigh*

I don't what else to tell ya, except that I just need to ignore you.

C'est la vie!

[trumad]

49. Can't answer can you?

[trumad]

16. You never answered my question...

Do you propose staying in Iraq longer? And I promise that if you do, I won't go say go fuck yourself.

[Ravy]

18. You pretty much already did say that, by saying we were no better

than neocons.

[trumad]

If you support that we stay in Iraq longer

then I think that you are no better than the Neo-Cons---- because just like them, there is no decent rationale for staying.

[Ravy]

26. Thanks. But I have had enough of Bush using that tactic over the last

six years to be fazed by it.

[trumad]

27. Really

do you agree with the Neo-Cons and think we should stay longer?

[Ravy]

37. People who bader without listening for an answer are no better than Shawn Hannity.

Post #11.

[trumad]

40. First I'm Bush and now I'm Shawn Hannity

LOL--- Do you support the neo-cons and their quest to stay in Iraq?

[Ravy]

52. Flip-Flopper!!!! Why, that makes you no better than...

Once again, Post #11 outlines my position. *grin*

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

22. With All Due Respect, It Is Unwise To Initiate A Thoughtful Conversation With Someone Who Just

offered that narrow-minded of a declaration.

Had this thread been a sincere request for discussion, you may have had a shot at some thought provoking discussion. But doing in the way you had, as a completely narrow-minded divisive declaration, it would be a complete waste of time to even pretend that a productive discussion could take place.

My only feedback I felt inclined to give at all was my short statement and emoticon I left originally.

[trumad]

24. You won't answer the question will you....?

The Neo-Cons want to stay longer--- do you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Riddle Me This, Riddle Me That: I'm Not Gonna Set Myself Up Like That.

I'm pretty sure my previous reply had been blatantly transparent enough for you to understand the concept of.

Bye now!

:hi:

[trumad]

34. So you want us to stay... OK

[William769]

78. I'll answer the question

Yes I want us to stay longer than pulling out now, and guess what? Thats what our Democratic Congress is going to do. Maybe not as as long as Bush wants, but it won't be immeditae. Thats just the facts of life.

ON EDIT: call e a neo-con if you like wouldn't be the first time and damn sure won't be the last.

[KennedyGuy]

20. Excellent..

"Basically you're saying "If you don't think exactly as I do, then go fuck yourself".

With all due respect, that's the epitome of narrow-mindedness and divisiveness"

Well said..way too much of this around here lately.

[trumad]

25. Do you agree with the Neo-Cons and think we should stay longer?

[Ravy]

21. Well stated, and thanks. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

61. Truth hurts.

One could ask "how many more US troops do you want to die?"

[Kelly Rupert]

66. Thank you.

[sal paradise]

6. We would all like to see the troops come home now, but

I'm not sure that any of us are knowledgeable enough about the situation there or how to handle problems like this to make a call like that. There is an enormous amount of factors that go into an operation as huge as withdrawing all of our troops out of Iraq, say, tomorrow. I'm not an expert on an issue like that, and if anyone on here is, I would like to hear their opinion. Not to say I disagree with you; one more death is certainly unacceptable. However, it may be a lot more complicated than we think.

[trumad]

8. So

So we should stay longer because it's complicated?

I get what you're saying but so what if it's complicated....

[sal paradise]

9. I just think that its not worth creating a much worse

situation that could lead to terribly high numbers of innocent civilian deaths in Iraq. If that threat could be neutralized, I would be completely behind getting out immediately tomorrow.

[trumad]

12. So what do we do to prevent that?

What can we do....

I'll tell you what we can do...

We tell the guy who runs the country, Al-Sadr that we're leaving and if they fuck with us while we are leaving we'll fuck with them back. I don't think they'll fuck with us because they want their country back.

The argument that we can't leave because there will be innocents will die doesn't wash because 50 a day are already dying.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. al-Sadr doesn't have nearly the power you think he does.

Iraq has no strong central authority. Mr. al-Sadr controls several areas in southeast Iraq, but has seen his influence wane since he cast his lot with the political process. Unfortunately, the majority of the power in Iraq lies in the long tail, so to speak.

[trumad]

31. You're kidding right?

Who do you think got our road blocks lifted... Al-Sadr tells Allawi to jump and Allawi say how hi,

[Kelly Rupert]

36. Yes, al-Sadr had great influence over Allawi,

And has some influence over al-Maliki, though al-Maliki's prime allegience is to the Badr Brigade. And the Iraqi government only has the trifling influence it does because it's supported by American rifles. We leave, and so does the Iraqi government's biggest support base.

Al-Sadr isn't the puppeteer we'd like him to be. He's just the most notable in a long list of Shi'a thugs with private armies.

[trumad]

38. So I guess we can't leave because of that?

[Kelly Rupert]

55. Well, it kinda shoots a hole in your escape plan.

I suppose we could try to set him up as Grand Ayatollah of Iraq or something, but that would just lead to outright rebellion by all Sunnis and quite a few Shi'a. If you're going to set up an Ayatollah, though, al-Sistani is a better choice. Still, I don't think he'd have the power to rein in the militias, and all that doing *that* would do would be to draw Syria and Saudi Arabia into the conflict in order to prevent an Iranian Shi'a Crescent stretching from the Iran-Pakistani border to the Mediterranean sea.

[trumad]

57. Shi'a Crescent stretching from the Iran-Pakistani border to the Mediterranean sea.

and there you go.... it's going to happen and there aint a God Damn thing we can do about it.

[Kelly Rupert]

33. Oversimplify much?

I'd rather we not set up a genocide, thank you very much. A rush-for-the-door power vacuum really never ends well, especially with a fractured nation in a simmering low-level urban civil war and no central authority.

[trumad]

35. genocide

And what makes you think that will happen? AND what makes you think that our presence isn't making it worse?

[dailykoff]

44. On a staggering scale.

"Genocide" doesn't do justice to the slaughter being carried out by the US and its bogus allies for the last three years.

[trumad]

47. And remember--- it's only an assumption that Genocide will happen.

[Kelly Rupert]

62. That's ridiculous.

The United States has killed a large number of Iraqis. The Iraqis have killed several times more of their own--and that's with the United States surpressing the activities of the Shi'a militias.

Genocide is an attempted eradication of an ethnicity. That is what will happen if we leave. What we have now is an attempt to stop a civil war, with a guerilla insurgency thrown in the mix.

[dailykoff]

72. I'm sorry, but that's Kool-Aid for Mr. and Mrs. TeeVeeLand.

The US is running death squads on maximum overdrive in Iraq and have been for at the last two years. The "civil war" reported on the Kool-Aid News is a tired old lie they've been trotting out since the '50s.

Ask Rummy, if you can find him. :rofl:

[Kelly Rupert]

75. That's past ludicrous. n/t

[The Straight Story]

46. On that note: who is getting killed more there, us or the Iraqi's?

And who is killing most of them?

In this case, liken it to a us city where people are going bonkers and blowing up crap and lots of people. Do we abandon the city, after we made the mess, or do we stop it?

Personally, I would like them all home right now. Morally one must wonder if our actions added to the cause (or was the cause) are we not in any way obligated to help with the solution (and I am in favor of the UN and others being asked to come on board, us leaving, etc).

It is also because so many of ours have died/been wounded there that one could actually make the case to stay longer - so as not to let their sacrifice be in vain. Keep fighting for peace in the region, etc.

Again, I would prefer to bring em all home. But I can certainly see the many sides of the issue and why some are conflicted on what to do about it.

Debate is good on the issue, as it helps us to see something maybe we did not see before.

[Kelly Rupert]

65. The Iraqis are dying in enormous numbers. The vast majority are killed by Iraqis.

We need to leave Iraq. This is obviously true. But simply walking out after we've pushed it into this condition would be a crime against humanity, in much the same way that the initial invasion was.

[The Straight Story]

70. and that may be what the neo-cons really want (tinfoil time I guess)

Instead of us there killing them, they get us to pull out, watch civil war erupt, and use the cia to prop up the side they want to win.

Hell, I would not put it past em :)

[Kelly Rupert]

74. That might be a decent plan, actually.

God knows there aren't many plans left. The reason you're not hearing any great plans coming from Washington is that nobody has the first clue what to do. Every plan is bad.

[Kelly Rupert]

50. Do you pay any attention to Iraq?

Have you not noticed the nature of the war? Have you not noticed how Baghdad has fractured into distinct ethnic neighborhoods due to mutual threats of (and attempts at) ethnic cleansing? Have you not noticed the dynamic of Shi'a militias and death squads against Sunni retaliation bombings? Have you not noiced that the Iraqi army and police are overwhelmingly Shi'a and comprised in large part of Shi'a militiamen? Have you not noticed how our primary targets of operation have become Shi'a militias and death squads instead of Sunni terror networks? Do you remember al-Maliki's ominous statement that if he was given a free hand, he could end the war in six months?

We are the only thing keeping the Shi'a from butchering the Sunni. If we leave, there will be an open civil war.

And most likely, the Syrians and Saudis, fearing Shi'a dominance, will support the Sunnis. And the Iranians, looking to expand their influence, will support the Shi'a. If this happens, we'll have a bloodbath of a proxy war. If it doesn't, we'll have a bloodbath of a genocide, as Iraq falls into a Shi'a theocracy.

Personally, I'd rather attempt to bring the Syrians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Turks, and Iranians into it above the table, set up peacekeeping zones and spheres of influence, and split Iraq into three states sharing oil revenue, with US forces out of Iraq within a year from commencement of the plan. That seems a slightly wiser idea long-term.

[trumad]

54. LOL--- Like the Shia are going to give the Kurds oil....

and like Turkey is gonna love that arrangement....Face it--- our Iraq Democracy plan is now the Iraq Theocracy plan. You can't fix this...it's over....

So your pony is a year? LOL... at least that's better than 6 months the Neo's are proposing.

[Kelly Rupert]

59. The Shi'a don't have to give Kurds oil. The Kurds have plenty of oil of their own.

The problem is getting the Kurds and Shi'a to give the Sunnis some money. Are you paying attention?

Turkey will undoubtedly be unpleased with a Kurdish state, but since it would not be autonomous in name, it would be little different than the current state of affairs. Offering them the chance to engage in peacekeeping along the Shi'a side of the Shi'a-Kurdish border--as well as position troops on the Turkey-Iraqi border--might be enough to quell their fears of a pan-Kurdish state arising.

The problem with an Iraq Theocracy plan isn't so much that Iraq becomes a theocracy--it's that no central government can control all of Iraq without committing genocide in the process.

[dailykoff]

42. Blunt but honest.

This war must be trickle-down nirvana because nearly everybody in DC seems to be lining their pockets with it.

[trumad]

43. Billons of dollars and waisted lives

but it appears there are some who have no problem with us staying put.

[dailykoff]

53. And that's not counting reparations.

I've been thinking about this all week. How the hell do we begin to pay our victims what the world will eventually demand from us?

It truly beggars belief.

[LittleClarkie]

48. Everyone who disagrees with me is the enemy

O-B-K-B.

[trumad]

51. Not my enemy.... I'm just stunned that there are some who think we should stay

just like the Neo-Cons.

[Kelly Rupert]

67. There are also some who think that red meat goes with red wine.

Just like the Neo-Cons.

Sometimes geopolitical reality is more important than who the messengers are.

[meisje]

56. Then you'd spend the next 10 years posting about how we left Iraq in such a mess

There should be an honest attempt to fix things. If it fails, then we pull out. Unfortunately for the DU armchair politician, it will be later rather than sooner.

[trumad]

58. honest attempt to fix things?

It's broken--- we can't fix it.... no amount of troops will fix it.... we need to get out now!

[Kelly Rupert]

71. So our choices are:

1. Throw up our hands and declare that we need to allow a genocide because some members of the American body politic don't think that we can stop it.

2. Be neocons.

------

I'd say that's a false dichotomy.

[Jcrowley]

60. K & R

American dignity
So far, what have the US invasion and occupation of Iraq led to - other than a staggering bloodbath, killing fields galore and a secret landscape of detention centers and torture chambers?

As a start, an already badly battered Iraqi economy was turned into a looting ground for Bush administration crony corporations and thoroughly wrecked. (Tall Afar, for instance, is considered a US "success" story when it comes to security, though part of the city is now a "ghost town" of rubble, and unemployment there is estimated at almost 70%.)

The Iraqi education system is in tatters; the medical system in ruins; basic social and urban services almost undeliverable; oil production barely up to pathetic prewar levels (if present-day figures are even real, which is in doubt); the position of women now disastrous; child malnutrition on the rise; and well over a million Iraqis have fled their homes in a country of only 26 million people.

In addition, national sovereignty has been destroyed; the national police system is on its last legs, its ranks well stocked with men loyal to various murderous Shi'ite militias; a Sunni insurgency rages ever more violently; a Kurdish form of independence seems ever more likely (though inconceivable to neighboring states); corruption is rampant; and a central government, whose sway doesn't reach most streets in its capital, is now considered "the least accountable and least transparent regime in the Middle East". (The Interior Ministry alone "reportedly employs at least 1,000 ghost employees, whose wages amount to more than $1 million a month".)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=141003

[Hosnon]

63. Sorry...I made it clear with Bush that I don't deal in Black and White. nt

[Ian David]

64. I propose the following schedule for withdrawing our units for Iraq

The troops should be withdrawn, by home state, in the REVERSE order of this chart:
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateBushApproval061116.htm

Perhaps units from Idaho, Utah and Wyoming could be left behind indefinitely to guard our permanent bases in Iraq.

Or, we could just give the units from those states as a "gift" to the Iraqi people, to be incorporated directly into the Iraqi army, free of any future control by the U.S. Government. We could even revoke the American citizenship of units from those three states, and declare them to be Iraqi citizens.

[cali]

68. Belligerent and

stupid in one short post. Sweet!

[Kelly Rupert]

69. Not to mention his hounding of everyone who walks in.

[leftofthedial]

73. yup

fact

[MrSlayer]

76. I wish it were that simple.

A damn shame that it's a lot more complex than that.

[Kelly Rupert]

77. Indeed. n/t

[Clarkie1]

79. Hmmm, I didn't know Barbara Boxer and John Kerry were neo-cons. Get real.

It's not just about our own selfish interests and the lives of American troops. I'd like to think we are better than that. It's about the lives of Iraqis and others in the region. Most Iraqis do not want us to leave now, as a new public opinion poll released today shows. 68% say wait a year or more.

This problem will not yield to simplistic, feel-good solgans.

[Moderator]

80. locking....

This is flamebait.