What If We Just Left ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=frQ3LvbQ0AE

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces \"a new type of fascism\" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement.

Rumsfeld alluded to critics of the Bush administration\'s war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, \"a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies.\"

Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said \"it is apparent that many have still not learned history\'s lessons.\" Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration\'s critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.

Speaking to several thousand veterans at the American Legion\'s national convention, Rumsfeld said that as fascism and Nazism took hold in Europe, those who warned of a coming crisis were ridiculed or ignored. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was \"a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.\"

\"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism,\" he said.

\"Can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?\" he asked.

\"Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world\'s troubles?\"

www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000455.php

Neeeto.

I'd pick some composite form of your options.

If we left, nearly immediately, a smaller U.N. force would be present to guard against an Iranian / Shia double-team takeover.

President Bush would enjoy a small bounce back in the polls of about ten points and as Iraq (as most world news does unless we are specifically involved) fades in to the background Bush's poll points would probably creep back up to the fifties within a few months.

Defense contractors, left with surplus merchandise would probably attempt to sell leftovers to China, Pakistan, and Iran.

In the end, the U.S. will probably continue to pour in monetary aide to help rebuild the fledgeling government.

It is also my wish that Halliburton and other defense contractors provide a four year phase - out plan where they would train Iraqis to work and rebuild their own country allowing employment and job skills to thrive - replacing the contractors as they leave the country. This would enable Iraqis to really make their state their own and give them an alternative to making themselves in to human bombs.

Without a U.N. force and some incentive for Iraqis to do something other then dabble in fundamentalism the place would probably look a bit like 1990's Afghanistan after Iran and Shia warriors decimate the area.

Nobody else has any fun theories? Oh, it's two o'clock. Fudge.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=d51poygEXYU

In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another -- and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong -- and together we will make it stronger.

In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom -- or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy -- or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership -- so the United States of America will continue to lead.

Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbours, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer -- so we will act boldly in freedom\'s cause.

Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time. In 1945, there were about two dozen lonely democracies in the world. Today, there are 122. And we\'re writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their liberty with purple ink, and men and women from Lebanon to Egypt debating the rights of individuals and the necessity of freedom. At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half -- in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea, and Iran -- because the demands of justice, and the peace of this world, require their freedom, as well.

-- president Bush

www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-7Q3AGCUJc

and why don't paramedics just show up to the home of a heart attack patient, hand them a bottle of oxygen, a mask, a handfull of nitro, a bunch of baby aspirin and maybe a dose or to of morphine and say, "here's all you need to overcome your problem, we came, we did all we could, the rest is up to you."

Sorry to see that you advocate leaving a job half done. Hussein violated the ceasefire agreement, if we (the US) aren't willing to hold him to it, then we are cowards for even signing on to it... Yes, Prs. Bush chose to enforce the ceasefire and hold Hussein responsible for his crimes, but in doing so, the U.S. led coalition also removed the infrastructor of the nation of Iraq. The Bacteria took advantage of that and are now fighting against both the people of Iraq and the Coalition. Do you think they would just pick up and leave if we gave them that kind of victory? Do you think, groups of people who have moved in to Iraq for no other reason than to kill for the sake of their political and social agenda would just abandon the stature we would hand them, take their toys and go home?

When we left Hussein in power in 91, we gave him the biggest boost in stature he ever enjoyed in his life. The Arab world watched as the victors of the war turned and fled... Leaving Hussein in power. Do you realize that, with the next election, when Prs. Bush was voted out of office, but Hussein remained, the Arab world saw that the American people who rather see Hussein running Iraq that Bush running the US?

I don't know where people got the idea that there is honor in quitting before the job is done. However, I am glad that we still have troops willing to continue fighting, and leaders willing to see the mission to a successful conclusion, even in the face of a bunch of whiners who can't stand anything that lasts longer than 30 mintues (with time out for station identification).

I hope that if you ever have to call an ambulance, you get medics who are more like Bush and less like Murtha.

Yes, Iraq would just fall apart. It would be a hell on Earth. Much worse than it is.

Think there's a lot of death now? We, at least, observe the rules of war and use a little human consideration (which is exactly why we're not doing so well). The barbarians who would come in after us and squabble over what we'd left wouldn't stoop that low.

"Rumsfeld alluded to critics of the Bush administration\'s war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, \"a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies.\"
Without explicitly citing Bush critics at home or abroad, he said \"it is apparent that many have still not learned history\'s lessons.\" Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration\'s critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras." - Friday Night Boredom (Anonymous User)

Without wishing to be pitted to a debate with the Secretary of Defense (whom you cleverly and generously quoted), isn't this thinking an apparent misconception of where we are right now- - not a WWII scenario with ground troops, conventional armies, and territories which could be contained or destroyed using conventional forces? The only comparison I see to this era is the evil ideology of Nazism. Otherwise, today's war is clearly a guerilla warfare that is being employed against us, and with an ideology twisting a globally spread religion, there are no set territories to identify except those they lure us to attack, so as to gain more recruits. Exactly by using conventional force against an unconventional force, we already lose, as events in the clearing up opns in Iraq have shown. We're not in WWII anymore. Our strategies have to be more innovative than the enemies'. Ever hear of "one step backward, two steps forward"? For heaven's sake, why do we need to identify ourselves in uniform when the enemy doesn't ?
.

"Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world\'s troubles?\" -Friday Night Boredom (anonymous user)

Another Rummy quote (jeez, I can't believe I'm responding to this) which is actually a non sequitur. When somebody (say, a general) notes fighting isn't going well among his troops, he orders a withdrawal and devises a totally new strategy. Would that be an equivalent to a declaration that his country is "the enemy and the real source of the world's troubles"?. Certainly not. What seems to be more destructive is to go along with the same strategy even if you see how it's killing your men. my 2 cents.

"If we left, nearly immediately, a smaller U.N. force would be present to guard against an Iranian / Shia double-team takeover.
President Bush would enjoy a small bounce back in the polls of about ten points and as Iraq (as most world news does unless we are specifically involved) fades in to the background Bush's poll points would probably creep back up to the fifties within a few months.
Defense contractors, left with surplus merchandise would probably attempt to sell leftovers to China, Pakistan, and Iran.
In the end, the U.S. will probably continue to pour in monetary aide to help rebuild the fledgeling government. - Deference

not bad for a post-goodbye scenario. -not at all the chaos and destruction the "stay the course" followers say it will be. plausible.

"Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it." - Obsession (Anonymous User)

-Now it's the President's quote I'm suppose to answer. Jeez. Well, I'll just say we could commit ourselves to the very same goals without necessarily using outdated military concepts and strategies which have proven inimical to our forces. This withdrawal has nothing to do with a loss of face but a loss of more lives. The strategy of invading every suspected Muslim country in the Middle East (or elsewhere) just isn't working against the Terrorrists. It's feeding them.

"and why don't paramedics just show up to the home of a heart attack patient, hand them a bottle of oxygen, a mask, a handfull of nitro, a bunch of baby aspirin and maybe a dose or to of morphine and say, "here's all you need to overcome your problem, we came, we did all we could, the rest is up to you." - Parated2K

Of course the comparison between a one-on-one stituation (paramedic and patient) and an invading military force and an Iraqi insurgency are quite far, so alluding to them might give in to simplistic conclusions. But let's take try to work on your analogy. In this case the patient wasn't only rushed to the emergency room, given all the CPRs,defib, epineph. possible, but the patient was resuscitated, stabilized, even coronary angios were done , hell even a heart transplant, which was equivalent to 2,000 plus American lives in addition billions of dollars which could be used for.. well, reconstructing the lives of flood victims in New Orleans, among other things. Now the patient (Iraq) was able to carry out meaningful steps ( government in place, democratic elections,etc.) and he needed just cardiac rehab and outpatient follow-up which would say take a few years. Why , in Heaven's name would it be wrong to say, "this is all the help we're giving you. We have to say goodbye now." ? We're not God. At least, I don't like to think we are.

..nice hearing from you, Ted.

"I don't know where people got the idea that there is honor in quitting before the job is done." - Parated2K

I know what you mean. It doesn't feel right. But I guess the bone of contention here is who defines actually when" the job is done". Usually the goals you set out when you start a serious thing such as an invasion, are defined and you use them as your yardstick to measure when the job is "done" (even half-done). As we already know, the goals set out at the start (historical terms such as WMDs, Saddam) are not valid anymore. We are now confronted with "we seek the end of tyranny in our world."(-Pres. Bush)as our current goal. This goal is attainable without necessarily using invasion of suspected countries as a strategy. In fact, the last historical example of the USSR, and Iron Curtain Countries dissolving before the Western democracies, succeeded without any actual US invasion into Russia or the Eastern Bloc states.

"Yes, Iraq would just fall apart. It would be a hell on Earth. Much worse than it is." - Rightwinger

This is of course a valid assumption, but we've heard a lot of these scenarios(in fact, too much), that I just thought of balancing it out with my
"what if.." post. When you really take a look at the alternative options and try to be objective about it, it would be disturbing because it does make sense.

This is of course a valid assumption, but we've heard a lot of these scenarios(in fact, too much), that I just thought of balancing it out with my "what if.." post. When you really take a look at the alternative options and try to be objective about it, it would be disturbing because it does make sense.

---scatter629

But you neglected to quote my reasons for believing as I do.
The people we're fighting make no pretense of adhereing to any rules of conduct or decency. They consider it a virtue to use open deceit and treachery in dealing with infidels. They attack and kill unarmed civilians and innocent children with the same gleeful, zealous, self-righteous attitude they use when they attack and kill armed soldiers. They wear no uniforms, they hide in and attack from crowds of innocent people and use supposedly-off-limits hospitals and mosques to hide and stow their weapons.

Why do they do all these things when we refrain from doing so?

Because Western (read: Christian-based) morality is vastly superior to their Islam-based morality.

Iraq, as bad as it is, would be a hundred times worse if we just dropped the ball and took off. Like it or not, we toppled their government and we're responsible for seeing the new one in place and as stable as it can be before we leave. What we have to learn is how to deal with barbarians such as these. Though I, on general principal, support Saddam's removal, I have to admit that he seems to have had the right idea in his methods of keeping the peace.
Put a boot on their necks and a gun to their foreheads. Let the military do their job; break things and kill people.

On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. - President Bush, State of the Union Address, February 1st, 2006

Tuesday, August 22, 2006:

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Video from Fox News:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911,

The lesson we have not learned is that when we support a government not supported by the majority of the people we loose. That is what happened in Vietnam.

When ever we leave there will be fighting in Iraq and either one faction will, by force, subdue the other two or Iraq will split into three sections.

In this case the patient wasn't only rushed to the emergency room, given all the CPRs,defib, epineph. possible, but the patient was resuscitated, stabilized, even coronary angios were done , hell even a heart transplant, which was equivalent to 2,000 plus American lives in addition billions of dollars which could be used for.. well, reconstructing the lives of flood victims in New Orleans, among other things. Now the patient (Iraq) was able to carry out meaningful steps ( government in place, democratic elections,etc.) and he needed just cardiac rehab and outpatient follow-up which would say take a few years. Why , in Heaven's name would it be wrong to say, "this is all the help we're giving you. We have to say goodbye now." ? We're not God. At least, I don't like to think we are.

Becuase, while you make some good points in the analogy, there is still bacteria attacking the cardiac patient, killing the doctors and nurses, and other bits of mischief.

The sad fact is, while I would love to see my buddies come home, the job isn't completed and to leave now would make us look worse now than leaving did back in 1991.. which btw, led Hussein to become one of the most powerful leaders in the eyes of the Arab world.

To leave now is to quit.. to surrender.. to leave now is nothing less than to turn our backs on the people of Iraq, and leave them to the bacteria saying, "well we know they'll rape you, but who the heck cares, we're missing episodes of LOST".

www.youtube.com/watch?v=McRRD_XbHUQ

Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning.

The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels -- but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C.

Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We\'ve adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefited from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.

With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candour. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission.

-- President Bush


www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FgiNq0yBts

Obsession, I don't think you've anything to add but quote propaganda from Mr. Bush without any point but to reverberate what he says. That tells us very much about you and your objective.

Speak your mind, make a point, or fuck off.

We already have a resident automaton.

Sincerely,

Deference

Deference, may you someday be forced to live the life you would gladly push on the people of Iraq. You deserve it.

Deference, may you someday be forced to live the life you would gladly push on the people of Iraq. You deserve it. Parated2k

Don't start with phony humanist b.s., Parated2k. This is about calling on a fellow blogger to do more then cut and paste, wouldn't you agree?

The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true.

watch this video nwo:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZFDnB27CCc


No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it. And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam -- the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death. Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder -- and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder.

Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it.

In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores. There is no peace in retreat. And there is no honour in retreat. By allowing radical Islam to work its will -- by leaving an assaulted world to fend for itself -- we would signal to all that we no longer believe in our own ideals, or even in our own courage. But our enemies and our friends can be certain: The United States will not retreat from the world, and we will never surrender to evil.

-- President Bush


And this one: Radical Islam\'s War Against the West

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vypKSWHlnKA

I could waste much of my time carving up quotes (particularly the ones provided on this thread) from Pres. Bush, a man who has said:

"I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." —as quoted in Bob Woodward's Bush at War. (A book I OWN)

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, as quoted by Robertson

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator..."
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect

Etcetera, etcetera. Please, throw your lot in with this pres. and expect not to get hammered - I'll try to sell you some weapon labs from Iraq....

I could give reams of quotes from Bush and his advisors contradicting themselves with each dubious word they attempt to pound in to gullible, impressionable American citizens' heads but I'm not going to waste the time on ideological, politically motivated true believers such as yourself.

I've already made a very poignant illustration of the continued backpedaling the administration has made from their previous misleading statements regarding Iraq in this thread alone.

On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. - President Bush, State of the Union Address, February 1st, 2006

Tuesday, August 22, 2006:

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Video from Fox News:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911,

The American public has already begun to sour on the words from this president and his administration.

More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans. - Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

The poor reception by the public of the Iraq War is THE reason Bush continues to be pounded by the majority of American Citizens in the polls:

Only three in 10 Americans approve of how he is handling the war, and more than twice as many -– 65 percent -- disapprove. Since early this year, only about three in 10 Americans have approved of the president’s handling of Iraq. - CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/22/opinion/polls/main1924599.shtml

But what about the troops? What do they think of the Iraq debacle?

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. - Zogby International

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075


Anything you have to offer, Obsession, in the form of Bush Quotes I am not threatened by as you are preaching to the ever - shrinking choir. I simply wish you had the Nnnnnuts! to speak for yourself instead of spamming a thread wherein JU citizens are attempting a discussion without kiddie cut'n'paste antics. You support a war but are too cowardly to even verbally battle. You pathetic pile.

Good luck!

Auf Wiedersehen!

Take Care!

*ahem*

And Fuck Off.

Warmest Regards,

Deference

*smiles and high fives all 'round*



..and a special treat for all you supposed haters of the Iraqi people, hippies, unpatriotic Bush-bashing leftists who are now the majority; a complete rundown of all major polls from Zogby to Fox to any mainstream news organization showing the complete lack of support and confidence in Pres. Bush doing his job as compiled by a non-partisan site PollingReport.com

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Ok, Deference, I'll stop with the phoney humanist stuff and just say that you deserve to be the next guest of an Islamist Extremist terrorist. Plain enough for you?

Plain enough for you?

Charming. Do you wish death on all your political foes? If so, what's the point? Why even bother having enemies if they don't get to know they're losers every single day of the rest of their pointless, empty lives.

By wishing the deaths of your enemies (and enemies on an internet forum, for chrissake!) you're not really doing your reputation any favours.