If we left Iraq & it descended into chaos, how exactly would we know?

[Philosoraptor]

Cause like right now, it's sort of in the same ballpark as chaos, what with folks strolling into the parliament building in the heavily fortified magic green zone in Baghdad and blowing themselves and others to paradise, is it chaos yet?

And if this AIN'T chaos, maybe I'm using the wrong dictionary. If this isn't chaos in Iraq, then what pray tell is it?

What do you honestly think would happen if we did the right thing and left Iraq? What exactly do you expect would happen? Would it get even worse? I guess when you live in hell, anything is possible.

Is our military presence keeping chaos at bay, preventing it from becoming 10 times worse, or only adding to the chaos?

Why do we even have to ask such ridiculous questions?

[TygrBright]

1. Beautiful. I want EVERY journalist...

...covering EVERY Bushflack, to ask this question. Repeatedly. With the cameras running.

approvingly,
Bright

[Robbien]

2. There are at least a hundred bodies being dumped daily in Baghdad

I don't know about you, but in my dictionary a hundred dead bodies dumped on a city's streets pretty much is the definition of CHAOS.

In the Iraqi's diaries they talk about the problems they have getting anyone to come pick up the corpses.

[Atman]

3. They'll, like, use bigger car bombs! And nicer cars! Total chaos, man!

Can't you see it? Sheeesh.

.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. maybe even trucks!

or people!

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

4. Well, first probably every Iraqi who supported the US would

be murdered. Sort of like what happened when we left 'Nam.

I don't know what the answer is. I doubt there is a good solution. The whole thing is a crime. And we did it. Or at least dumbya & his criminals did it. But the Iraqis will pay if we leave right now. Of course they're paying now. And our soldiers are paying.

I keep thinking that there has to be some way out of this disaster.

[Greyhound]

11. No, you were right the first time, we did it, and no, there is no way out of the

imminent disaster (well there is one way, but it is unthinkable). All we can accomplish by delaying the inevitable is a higher American body count. The worst part is that few, if any, of the guilty will pay the price, and it is all our fault.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

12. That more of our soldiers will die if we stay is what puts me

in the 'leave now' camp. What are we accomplishing? Not a damned thing, just more American deaths.

OTOH, we've absolutely destroyed their country. Us leaving isn't going to stop the murder & slaughter of innocents. It will stop when a new dictator takes over who will probably be just as bad as hussein.

What a fucking disaster.

[enid602]

13. assylum

Can't we accept the collaborators into this county? Maybe bring them home with the troops. Least we can do considering the trouble we've caused.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

19. We gave the Vietnamese asylum.

Too little, too late, but we did give them asylum. (The ones who could make it out alive.)

The thing is, why should they be forced to leave their country because we fucked up? And would they feel welcome here? I gotta doubt it.

It's all so far over my head it's like the SSTs going by.

[chknltl]

22. Here is some recent background to your question

http://thegroundtruth.blogspot.com/2007/03/iraqi-volunteers-iraqi-refugees-what-is.html

I believe that bushco will NOT grant many collaborators OR their likely doomed as well families asylum here claiming that they are MOSTLY terrorists. This is an ace in the hole for bushco because should the Dems manage to actually force a pull-out and the collaborators/their families be killed, this will be in ADDITION to the chaos which is ongoing. The extra sum then can be pointed at by bushco as "Proof" that the pullout cost lives. (Lives which could have and should have been spared via an ongoing rigorous Iraqi refugee program).

I watched the referred to Senate hearing, (see link), and the best bushco's minion could do was say the reason why America has "all but closed it's doors", (my words not hers), was because Homeland Security was not prepared to handle this many refugees. She pointed out the screening process required to determine that the thousands of Iraqi collaborators and their families were safe to be admitted would be lengthy and require resources that Homeland Security did not currently have.

So I ask, Why can't these Iraqi citizens who's only "crime" was to believe in bush's "plan" for Iraq, who now seek refugee status here in America, why can't they be brought out of Iraq to ANYWHERE and be provided a safe enclosed refugee camp AWAY from the fighting in Iraq? They can easily be brought here. A large safe refugee compound here where they can be "screened" at our leisure is something 90% of the American public could get behind. Leaving these folks behind to be slaughtered is sick. (Sick, oh of course, how consistently typical of busco)

[Hamlette]

5. we would know because Fox "news" would tell us it was "MUCH worse" since we "surrendered"

[Philosoraptor]

6. & of course, the cut & runners would be blamed for eternity.

And of course, THEY supported the troops.

[Hamlette]

8. just like we're blamed for getting us out of Vietnam.

as a Vietnam protestor it has been interesting to watch "history" change.

First we thought we kids had stopped a war with our protests. So, the establishment slapped us around and told us it had nothing to do with the protests, the war ended because the government and military realized it could not be won. Then when they wanted to do the same thing in Iraq they changed "history" again to say we could have won Vietnam had it not been for the dirty hippy protestors who just hate America. Now, you see, it WAS the protestors and dems who "lost" (by ending) the war in Vietnam.

Sheesh. I wish they would get their stories straight. Now I'm not sure WHAT happened AND I WAS THERE!!!!!

You have to just not care what they are going to say about you and do what is right for the country. Not what is right for the party or anything or anybody. What is right for the country and the world.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

10. I've always turned that argument back on them &

said that the military had the responsibility to get us out without creating a worse situation. Americans had turned against the war (actually years before we pulled out) & government had plenty of time to figure out an exit strategy.

[Hamlette]

15. yes, a terrifying number to me is that 50% of Americans wanted us out of Vietnam in 1968

and it took nearly 6 years after that.

its a bummer dude.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

20. This is 'Nam redux.

The public will no longer support the war: there's no answer; no easy way out; no military operation that is going to work.

The military & the government have to find a way out as fast as possible & that will cause as few deaths as possible. If they mess around for a few more years & the public says 'enough, get them out now' then the bushies & his 28 supporters are responsible, not the protesters.

[Skink]

9. We don't want Bush to have an army to send into Iran.

[Balbus]

14. LOL!

I like that question! :thumbsup:

[Disturbed]

16. US Troops and Mercs will be in Iraq for many years.

Those that think otherwise are engaging in wishful thinking. The level of the US Force might be less than 60K but they will remain indefinitely even if there is a Dem Presidency in '09.

[wakemeupwhenitsover]

17. That's what DH, a 'Nam vet, says too.

:cry:

[ninkasi]

18. My own opinion

Is that with civil war already a reality in Iraq, we are only adding to the amount of death and destruction. If we leave, if nothing else, the damage that the U.S. military causes will stop. All of the provisions put in place by Bremer, handing over Iraq's oil to the U.S. oil giants need to be rescinded. It's a small enough thing to do to begin repaying our debt to the country we have destroyed.

The money we now spend on war can be put to better use by taking care of the victims of the war, both American troops, and Iraqi innocents. Bush and the neocons have plunged that poor country into the depths of hell, and the Iraqi people, and our troops, don't deserve what his administration has done in order to sate their greed.

[bvar22]

21. The CHAOS they fear:

ALL Corporate looters would be immediately killed, and the stolen (privatized) Iraqi resources would be claimed by the biggest dog in the street fight. This would be ugly, and possible spread to Iran (Shiite) and Saudi&Syria (Sunni) fighting over the carcass. The Kurds will get steamrolled as Turkey moves in to claim the Northern Oilfields.

The point is: THIS (or something much like this) WILL HAPPEN whether we leave NOW, or 10 years from now.

I tend to believe that delaying our inevitable departure will make the coming storm WORSE as each side will have more time to acquire more powerful weapons and fanatic recruits.

OUT NOW!
Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT (as usual). Prolonging the illegal Occupation of Iraq by giving more money to the architects of this evil is NOT a moral option.

[NNN0LHI]

23. Is what Bush and his minions are worried about is that after we left there would be no chaos

And someone would start digging up the mass graves made over the past 4 years.

Don

[sanskritwarrior]

24. It would get worse to the tune of this:

Instead of rampant civil war in 4 provinces effecting 12 million people (Baghdad. Diyala, Salahdin and Al anbar) you would have rampant civil war in 18 provinces effecting 27 million people. Don't mistake me for a freeper, but do remember I have been there twice and am due back around Christmas. It could be so much worse than it is now. We fucked it up and IMHO and my humble experiences spanning 727 days in country we are the only thing holding genocide back. That doesn't make us super or awesome it just is what is going on. Iraq is not pleasant anwhere, but to say the whole country in flames is an incorrect statement. If we leave then yes you could definitely say the whole country is in conflict. We're in the middle so what is more ethical, leave a mess we created by lies and deceit and watch genocide take place or stay in the middle of the mess and keep it to medium grade horror.......I'm glad it's not my decision.

[BeFree]

25. Well

We leave and the people who want to kill will kill each other until there are only peaceful people left. We stay and not only are we in the middle but we become just another faction of killers.

I say we make a few refugee bases, allow in all the peaceful people and let the rest of them fight it out. That way we save those we can: that's about all we can do.

[bvar22]

26. And do you see this situation changing?

In 6 months?

In 6 years?

In 16 years?

[sanskritwarrior]

27. No and there is the conundrum

The situation will only change when one side either

A. Wins and by wins I mean gets enough leverage to clear out an area. It's not ethnic cleansing so much as <insert branch of Islam> cleansing. The Shiites want the Sunni Arabs out of shiite areas, the Sunni Arabs want the Shiites out of Sunni Arab areas. The Sunni Kurds want Kirkuk and then to build a wall around their Kurdistan. It becomes ethnic cleansing when we talk about the heavy Shiite Persian population in southern Iraq and the Sunni Kurdish and Sunni Turcoman population of Northern Iraq.

B. All sides grwo exhausted from the fighting.

The conundrum remains the same, do we leave tommorrow leaving Iraq to a social darwinism or do we beat our heads against the wall wasting our blood, treasure and prestige........Again I'm glad it's not my decision.

[Philosoraptor]

28. Anyway you look at it, we're fucked.