Why I've Concluded We Must Continue in Iraq

I agree, we can't just leave. Bush started it and he has to finish it. I was actually of the opinion in 2004 that he should be reelected so that the cons couldn't blame the democrats for mucking it up over there. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that the republicans should win the next presidential election and maintain control of both houses so that the people who continue to vote for them will get way more than their fill of them. Sort of like that method of when you catch your teenager smoking that you put a bucket over their head and make them smoke the entire pack until they're puking on their shoes and never want to look at another cancer stick ever again.

 

Excellent post, ghostofjk. You're the first person to put down in writing what I find myself thinking. My liberal credentials are well-established. What I really wish is that we could go back in time and choose the right path. Of course, we can't.

Reluctantly—and against all I have always believed—I am afraid I have to agree with you. My heart grieves for the thousands of lives already lost and the thousands more to come, all in the name of making the Middle East safe for American oil interests.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NoVaSnow @ Jun 22 2006, 05:24 AM) [snapback]275172[/snapback]</div>

I agree and am a DEM/LIB and fought in Vietnam. Saw the sme thing there, but where will it end? The muslim word will never get western ways, not in a million years. Their religion does not allow, condone, teach any of the Chrstian/Judeao concepts that we are familair with. It's a lost casue, there and elswhere in the world where the muslims reside. Kill em all.

 

Just to be sure this point is made...

We will never 'finish' in Iraq (or with any Muslim terrorists anywhere) until people are not given a pass into Heaven solely by killing themselves and others. If all you had to do to earn eternal salvation was one task, and you were 100.000000% sure this was as valid as living a clean life and all, would YOU pass up on the task?

Right now, no matter how many mainstream (I guess) Muslim leaders say peace is their ideal, there's a constant stream of people expecting the next thing they see after setting off their explosives is eternal reward they will enjoy. These would be the 'fanatical' terrorists, if a seperate label is required.

It will be almost impossible to wipe this doctrine out. Look at Mormons practicing polygamy in Utah: no matter how many years and how many generations pass, the practice lives on because somebody new thinks it's still right. While terrorists die every day or so, somebody new will suddenly realize what they 'need' to do, if it's blow themselves up or learn how to send others out to kill.

So I expect a never-ending battle, where if we EVER leave anyplace that fanatical terrorists want to destroy, that'll be the point at which whatever government we establish gets blown to pieces. Why would waiting 100 years or more matter to the faithful?...

 

I was against going there, and I am for getting out immediately. But I do sympathize with people who think we should stay and fix our problem to try to make up for going in the first place.

The flaw I see in all of these statements is the assumption that there is something we could do there to actually help.
I don't see any proposals that could work or improve things.

Now if we sent about half our country over there, and all had to live with them and train them, and brainwash them we might have some short term effect, but when we did leave the place would disintegrate again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ghostofjk @ Jun 22 2006, 06:30 AM) [snapback]275162[/snapback]</div>

Very well thought out and stated. I might not agree totally with what you wrote, but I find it very thorough and logical.

I also think we must stay the course. We must give the Iraqi's the ability to defend themselves. We have already drawn down our forces by 17% from its heights last year. Eventually we will only be there for air support and logistics - that will be great. I hear they may actually be decreasing tour time in country for our soldiers to 9 months from 12. I believe we can and will democratise Iraq - I think it is already happening from educating the young both male and female, to telephone access for 7.5 million Iraqi's today, to an economy that is growing over 30% per annum, to internet access for over 1,000,000 of them, to an elected government, to training hundreds of judges and lawyers, to exporting oil for the first time last week, to dozens of independant newspapers, over 100 radio stations, -- the world is opening to the Iraqi's as never before - the free flow of information both into and out of there will be constructive for all.

If we leave now - the results will make the killing fields look like a Sunday morning picnic.

I am actually more worried about the threat from Iran today.

Again, very nicely thought out and said.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tomdeimos @ Jun 22 2006, 09:16 AM) [snapback]275186[/snapback]</div>

What are your thoughts as to what would happen if we were to leave tomorrow to Iraq, to that region of the world, and do you see anything arising from our leaving that would affect us or others outside that region?

 

Good post, ghostofjk, and by no means are you alone on the left with your assessment. For instance, the guy that conservatives love to hate, Al Franken, is very vocal about his opinion that we cannot leave now- on any given day, he’ll say that on his show. Don’t worry giving up your “liberal card.â€

As cavalierly as we may have made the decision to invade Iraq, it is now a very complex situation with no good solutions. If we remain, we continue to draw the wrath of the rest of the world and our troops are sitting ducks for insurgent attacks. If we leave, we will unquestionably leave a country in chaos (after all, it’s in chaos now.)

And this discussion may be moot anyway, because I believe that, no matter which party has control over the House and Senate after the elections this year or who is elected President in 2008, we will have a presence in Iraq for many years. This war was not about deposing Saddam Hussein or establishing a democratic government in Iraq (and it certainly wasn’t about WMDs or 9-11); it was a move to establish a foothold in the Middle East for the purpose of ensuring our access to their oil reserves. I don’t see us letting go of that foothold. Although, the House just voted to keep a provision in the defense appropriations bill that prohibits spending for the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, so that is a move in the right direction.

I believe that we have to make it clear to the Iraqi government that it must take responsibility for its own defense, and the way to do that is to establish a plan for troop withdrawal. More importantly, we need to send a message to the Iraqi people that we do not intend to occupy their country indefinitely. While we keep hearing from the right that Iraq wants us there, the evidence is to the contrary- a January 2006 poll indicates that 70% of the Iraqi people want us to establish a timetable for withdrawal, and 47% of them support attacks on U.S. forces. Clearly, they view us as occupiers, not liberators. And the longer we remain an occupying force, the more we will hear about incidents such as Haditha and Hamdania, and our troops will suffer more brutality such as the atrocity that occurred this week.

If we do decide to remove our presence from Iraq, which I believe is the right thing to do, it will not happen overnight. We have to establish a plan for troop withdrawal that ensures the safety and security of our troops while the withdrawal is taking place. And we do have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to do what we can to repair what was destroyed during the war (not to mention the suffering of their people resulting from years of sanctions.) The reconstruction effort should have been an international collaboration, not a boondoggle for Halliburton and other contractors. At this point it may not be possible to get other countries to participate but we should try.

I listened to a story on NPR this morning, where several troops in Iraq expressed the sentiment that we should stay there as long as it takes to get the job done, so that their comrades who gave their lives won’t have done so in vain. I can truly emphasize with that, but how long is “as long as it takes†and what “job†precisely are we trying to get done? As a man who ran for President once said about the war he fought in, “how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 22 2006, 10:04 AM) [snapback]275209[/snapback]</div>

There is little doubt that the majority of Iraqi's want us to stay - this has been polled by a number of independant european polling agents. Additionally, American troops support the effort overwhelmingly too - those are the only two polls that count.


Haditha looks as though it were a set up by the terrorists and NOT an Iraqi My Lai as many people here would like to see. BTW - do remember Hue or just My Lai - and do you recognize the differences between the two events. And the difference remains in that the US investigates and punishes those soldiers who do wrong while the other side REJOICES in torturing and murdering American POW's - you do see the difference. And do not think that the Iraqi people themselves see the difference too. There are too many here who are invested in an American defeat here - no matter what the cost. The original post has it correct - we can not leave now - the results would be devestating.

War for oil? tell me what the price of oil it and why we are not paying $.25 a gallon.

Question? What do you think would happen if we leave totally now - locally, regionally, globally?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 22 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]275228[/snapback]</div>

I have only seen polls that indicate that the majority of Iraqis do not want us there. But if there are polls that say otherwise I would be interested in seeing them- if you have any links, please post.
BTW, the poll that I referenced is here:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...nt=165&lb=hmpg2

Precisely! These are people who subject our troops to torture, brutality, and murder; and rejoice in it! And, apparently (unless you have polls to the contrary) they have the support of a large contingent of the Iraqi people. Why subject our servicemen and women to this insanity any longer?

Well, it would never be 25 cent per gallon. But why hasn't the price of oil gone down, let alone why aren't Iraqi oil proceeds paying the cost of the war effort? Well, it seems production was less than anticipated. I'm not saying that their strategy worked, only that they had a strategy.
Nor would I suggest that our rationale for going into Iraq is as simple as "war for oil." But, knowing that Dick Cheney met with energy company CEOs in 2001, and they viewed maps of Iraqi oil fields- does it not seem reasonable that oil had a major part in this decision?

In Iraq, there will disorder and sectarian violence- like there is now.
Globally, a complex issue. Would some use our withdrawal to suggest that the U.S. cannot be relied upon to fulfill its obligations? Perhaps. But I suspect that we are doing more harm than good for our place in the world the longer we remain in this war.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 22 2006, 11:09 AM) [snapback]275240[/snapback]</div>

What do you think will happen in Iraq and the region if we were to leave tomorrow?

 

The flaw I see in Ghosts post is that of 'support my president right or wrong'. Bush et al are so methodically cynical they realized all Jr. had to do was get us over there by any means possible and then people would begin to think like Ghost. I don't support wrongness at any time and strongly believe when it is exposed the only proper action is to right that wrong, not belabor it. We're still dancing around the real reason to be involved in the mid east at all...to protect US corporate interests with the blood of our best and brightest, for the sake of oil. Now, if we invaded to 'get' Osama after he attacked us on our soil and STAYED TRUE TO THAT GOAL there would be mostly universal support for our invasion. To expect us to acquiesce to the fact that 'I got us there under false pretenses and I expect all to now support me' thinking goes against what our mothers taught us...Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right.

Again, I firmly believe in going after Osama or giving up and spending the money here to nation build in the US. This country is a mess and more so daily, and my tax dollars should be spent to improve my and my countrymen's station in life, not to protect corporate interests abroad and not to vilify my daddy's incompetence when he was president.

Oh, you think, but what about Iraq in the condition they are in now? Hey, for what ever reason, their dictator is gone. In our eyes they are better now than they were when he was alive. They've already benefitted.

'But what about they have little/no social conveniences like running water and electricity'. I say if they as a country want those things let them build them. For christsakes they are not Somalia where they have no major natural resources. They could exploit their oil resources to afford what they want. Further, they never had the standard of living we have come to enjoy, why force it upon them now? If they want it they can build it. If not, then OK too.

If we follow Jr.'s reasoning then no matter which president we have of either stripe all he has to do is what ever he wants and we must all fall in line once the dasterdly deed is done. This is dangerous thinking and will come back to haunt us again and again.

I love the way some of this board's most outspoken republicans pose the question 'we are there now and the dems have no way out, what do you dems propose?' To which I answer, I propose NOTHING!!! It is your mess, you did it, you deal with it, and when I make a mess I'll deal with it. Don't expect to shit in your pants and expect ME to clean up your mess.

This is what happens when you give the appearance of rigging elections...you never have the great majority of the country behind you, and you need major support to govern effectively. This is what happens when you install a second rate person as president. A true LEADER is born and can be effective against all odds. We have no LEADER, only a cheater and liar. Bush was doomed from the beginning and has made no strides at becoming the best he could be under the circumstances. Given the same shady circumstances of his claiming power, a greater man would be determined to overcome the odds and make the best of a bad situation.

Redeploy, GET OSAMA, be home by Christmas, and build the USA for a better tomorrow. or follow Jr.

No one "loses" thier liberal card. It is revoked for falling for the Con party line of thinking. However, no one ever loses their liberal card for thinking outloud or outside the box.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jun 22 2006, 12:54 PM) [snapback]275294[/snapback]</div>

Redeploy? To where, Okinawa :lol:

How do we get OBL? Do we invade wherever OBL is residing now?

And how do you propose we build the USA for a better tomorrow?

And what do you think the consequences will be in Iraq, in the region and globally if we leave Iraq abruptly? -

 

I have studied Islam quite a bit, and I can assure you that is not true. They are capable, given time, of becoming democratic (note that I did not use the term Western)... I think this to be true of more muslims than not. Also, I would figure to say that terrorists, in terms of numbers, are a MUCH smaller portion of Islam than you would like to believe.

ASIDE FROM YOUR SERVICE.... I perceive your thoughts on the same level as I do terrorists... I think your ideas are of scum and worse then Anne Coulter's.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(powrfuel @ Jun 22 2006, 09:01 AM) [snapback]275181[/snapback]</div>

 

I think something desperately needs to be said here of Muslims...

Firstly, please note that I was well aware that powrfuel was a liberal and democrat, and that I think I could have and should have made my condemnation stronger. Also... I consider myself to be liberal... and the worst I have said to a right winger was that they were ignorant, and temporarily had them on my ignore list.

I grew up in a Muslim background, and I can attest to a lot of what is said on here about Muslims is far from accurate. It is for the following reason alone that I believe the message is important: I am a proud atheist defending Islam... if for that reason alone, I think is a considerable reason to pay attention to the message.

Things are getting very interesting on PC lately... first a conservative defends Democrats, a liberal supports continuing with the iraq war, a liberal UTTERLY condemns a liberal far beyond any other PC member, and now an atheist is defending Islam.

Going back to the message... I grew up in a relatively rural place... The majority of people are Christians (in America, of course), but there is a significant (American) Muslim community integrated with it. More than half of the younger generations in the Muslim community have graduated from the high school. The adults have largely stayed in the area.

Myth 1: All Muslims are a murderous people.

About 95% of the adults in the community are physicians. They have an utmost respect of life, and as phycians they spend the vast majority of their hours defending this sanctity of life. And guess who is the primary benefactor of this aid? It is not the other Muslims, but the majority American Christians that are benefitting from their presence. If you could snap your fingers and make the Muslims disappear from this community, there would be at least several IMMEDIATE AND DIRECT negatives... IE a SIGNIFICANT loss for the community.

Not only that, but they have spawned generations of will-be doctors who will only help American communities... and dedicate their lives to that cause! I myself will be starting medical school in August.

Myth 2: Muslims did not condemn terrorist attacks.

In the american mosques I have visited.. particularly the one I grew up in, have been involved with the community... like showing up to the 911 vigil and raising money for the local fire and police departments as well as donating money to 911 funds. The major American Islamic associations such as CAIR, ISNA, ICNA repeatedly denounced terrorism.



Myth 3: Judeo-Christian ethics are infinitely superior to those of Islam.

That is true for terrorists, but NOT the majority of Muslims. My friends and I (as Muslims, and I too at the time) were on the whole very well integrated with others in our schools... although we probably ate many more dinners at each other's homes, we had plenty of American Christian friends and often hung out with them.

As for values, they were the highest of the community. None of us tried drugs. The vast majority of us have held on to our virgin till marriage principle. Only a couple have tried drugs and alcohol in college, but they all quit. None of that can be said of hardly anyone else in our community. A few children of the strictest Christians parents (IE ministers) had a reputation of being quite the opposite.

I went to London and Turkey (land of the former Ottoman Empire... a secular Islamic empire that prided itself on tolerance of other beliefs) a month or so ago on a family vacation... and there are a few things of significance to note:

Turkey is a nation in which 99% of the population considers itself Muslim. There are numerous mosques in even the small towns. Of importance are two sites... the hagia sofia and House of Virgin Mary. The Hagia Sophie is about 1500 years old... it has been a mosque and church in different times throughout history. It is now a museum. The basics of what I want to say is that whenever the Muslims took over they respected the Christian building and preserved the murals of Mary and jesus and so forth. The House is a very respected place and muslims do visit it. My relative took pictures of it (from the outside; they dont allow taking pictures from inside) to give to her Christian coworkers. There are Muslim guards (decked out with their big guns) walking around to protect the place.

A separate story... one time I was dating a girl... a totally self-proclaimed liberal and damn proud of it... we had the sex talk and I told her I was seriously considering being a virgin until marriage... to which she eventually responded (when I basically got dumped) that she did not understand my culture, and that it would prevent a meaningful relation or some bull like that. And it is supposed to be a liberal thing to be accepting of other peoples and their cultures/values.

(and as an atheist what that means to me is dedication to the one I fall in love with and marry... another myth is that atheists don't have morals)... Point is that Muslim ethics, morals, and values are VERY strong (not for terrorists, of course).

Myth 4: All Muslims are Arabs, and all Arabs are Muslim.

Not true. There are many Arab Christians.

Arabs make up only a portion of the community... people are originally from Pakistan, India, China, etc (among those originally from predominantly Arab nations such as Syria and Lebanon).

To get a better idea: I suggest the following book: "Arab Voices Speak to American Hearts" is an excellent book for understanding Arab Muslims and Christians... and is a call to reason, logic, and understanding between the East and West. The Muslims in the book utterly reject terrorism... and I think there are more Muslims than not who reject terrorism... what that percentage is I have no clue. Anyhow, some of those interviewed are Arab Christians... and before reading that they were Christian you would be very surprised because it would seem their take on things are simply 'Islamic notions.'

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/097691008...5Fencoding=UTF8

I am SICK and TIRED of this one. I have been degraded by racists slurs and attacks against Arabs and Muslims... I have been called everything under the sun from OBL to a sand n**ger from oil kingdom... AS AN ATHEIST!!!!!!!
---------------------

I suppose that you can say what you want about Muslim fundamentalists in certain regions of the world... but ultimately what this amounts to is a despicable slander of fine and morally upstanding American citizens!
-----------------------------------------------
What many Muslims around the world are against:

-terrorism
-US foreign policy
-the hijacking of their religion and the stuffing of others' words into their mouth (and I am tired of this one myself as a liberal)
-------------------
I apologize for any grammar/spelling mistakes made... I did not have the time to double check and proofread and make drafts and come up with a final paper to express all the points.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 22 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]275460[/snapback]</div>

Could you also address how they treat their women?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 22 2006, 02:49 PM) [snapback]275460[/snapback]</div>

Excellent post! Thanks for that. I have a muslim woman working for me who is a naturalized American citizen (her family fled Afghanistan when the Russians invaded), so I'm familar with much of what you said. I'd like to ask a couple of questions, though.

It seems to me that some of the "factions" in Islam are the ones that create most of the problems we see (I have "factions" in quotes because I'm not sure what Islam calls their different groups ... I don't mean to be disrespectful with that term). Years ago, when Iran had their revolution, we heard about Shia and Sunni Muslims, with the Sunnis the "good" Muslims and the Shia the "bad". Now we hear about "factions" like the Wahabis, within the Shia community, and it seems our former explanations were oversimiplifications.

Do you think there's a possiblility of real reform in the religion, similar to Christianity's Reformation (Martin Luther, et. al.)?

Beyond those two questions, I'd like to add the Kingdom of Morocco to your list of countries where democratic elements are making headway. Jordan, without the outside intervention of Syria, would also be among those two.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Jun 22 2006, 05:49 PM) [snapback]275460[/snapback]</div>

First of all, we tend to put people into categories (certainly here on PC), and people can call themselves whatever they want, but anyone who makes a wholesale declaration of "kill them all" about any group of people is not a liberal as far as I'm concerned.

I believe that most educated people understand all of the points you made. Most Muslims in this country are good citizens and peaceful people who deplore the violence of the fundamentalists. Unfortunately, there are a lot of ignorant people in this country- such as those who attacked a convenience store in a community in RI a few years ago (the owner was actually a Sikh, but hey, all those guys with things on their heads are the same, right?)

The month following 9-11, I began a course in World Religions at my church (I am also an atheist, but I belong to a Unitarian church.) I'm not an expert, but I studied the subject intensely so that I could at least semi-intelligently lead discussion groups. The course was so popular that we had to give it several times. That was the reaction of our church community to 9-11; not to despise Muslims, but rather to desire to learn more about them.

Every Muslim that I have personally known (and I do know a number of them) has been an exemplary representative of their faith. The terrorists who call themselves Muslims are no more representative of the teachings of that religion than hatemongers such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are representative of Christianity. Religion is used by some as a shield to justify their own despicable actions which actually have nothing to do with the philosophy their supposed faith. We need to better learn to separate the acts of hatred, violence and bigotry from the faiths of the much larger communities of decent, nonviolent people that these faiths truly represent.