What if the US up and left Iraq?

[Tmy]

Just what would happen? Everyone says tha we just cant leave. Why not??

What if the US said "OK UN your so high n mighty, well we're out of here come New Years day. Iraq is all yours"

How woudl teh UN respond, what would happen to Iraq, who'd come into power and how, how would this effect the war on terror?

Any thoughts or theories.

[geni]

Iraq as a nation would cease to exist. The kurds in the north would definetly leave as would large parts of southen Iraq. Turkey would probably invade resulting in evern more instability. The only people who would be able to excert any controll would be warlords and extramists so in fairly short order you would have the new Afganistarn.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just what would happen? Everyone says tha we just cant leave. Why not??

What if the US said "OK UN your so high n mighty, well we're out of here come New Years day. Iraq is all yours"

How woudl teh UN respond, what would happen to Iraq, who'd come into power and how, how would this effect the war on terror?

Any thoughts or theories.

As the UN only has the power, money and armed forces that its members choose to give it I imagine the UN would say to the US " you broke it, you fix it ".

Iraq would most likely descend into civil war with Islamic Fundamentalists being big winners. Kurds would go for independence making big problems for Turkey. All the neighbours and especially the Iranians would play in the very muddy waters and some might have their own stability compromised. The oil price would move upwards. It would be fun, fun, fun! Oh and of course all this might happen anyway in another year or so.

As for the war on terror, well I'm sure the above scenario would lead to an outbreak of sweet reasonableness in the Arab world wouldn't it?

[LuxFerum]

Everybody will mock Bush.




No wait, never mind.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just what would happen? Everyone says tha we just cant leave. Why not??

What if the US said "OK UN your so high n mighty, well we're out of here come New Years day. Iraq is all yours"

How woudl teh UN respond, what would happen to Iraq, who'd come into power and how, how would this effect the war on terror?

Any thoughts or theories.

Kofi Annan has already announced (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woiraq1031,0,4106028.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines) that the 60 UN staff who remain will pull out soon, and the only people in Iraq working for the UN will be locals.

Essentially, any attempt to 'hand over' responsibility for Iraq would amount to giving the UN more authority. There are no significant number of troops that aren't American that the UN can call on in any case. There is no significant amount of money that isn't American that the UN can come up with.

There is no such thing as a handover of power or responsibility to the UN.

If we left, Iraq would descend into civil war. The UN certainly couldn't stop it.

MattJ

[corplinx]

My guess is the kurds and shiites would try to "annex" the troublesome Sunni triangle with methods we ourselves wouldn't use.

Syria and Turkey would probably try to funnel arms to the Sunnis. Not sure what Iran would do. Shiites might try to flock to Iraq to help the southerners if it escalates.

It could turn into a real cluster-frog.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by Nikk


As the UN only has the power, money and armed forces that its members choose to give it I imagine the UN would say to the US " you broke it, you fix it ".

Iraq would most likely descend into civil war with Islamic Fundamentalists being big winners. Kurds would go for independence making big problems for Turkey. All the neighbours and especially the Iranians would play in the very muddy waters and some might have their own stability compromised. The oil price would move upwards. It would be fun, fun, fun! Oh and of course all this might happen anyway in another year or so.

As for the war on terror, well I'm sure the above scenario would lead to an outbreak of sweet reasonableness in the Arab world wouldn't it?
The UN has all the resources it's member states are willing to give it. If Iraq is divided into three semi-autonomus areas (kurd, sunni and shia) there would be peace. Then the shias don't have to seek support from Iran to fight for independence and hence Iran's influence would be limited.
Perhaps Turkey would be compelled to un-ban the kurdish language again, maybe grant some autonomy to the kurds in Turkey to avoid further conflict (this should be done anyway).

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by bangdazap

The UN has all the resources it's member states are willing to give it. If Iraq is divided into three semi-autonomus areas (kurd, sunni and shia) there would be peace. Then the shias don't have to seek support from Iran to fight for independence and hence Iran's influence would be limited.
Perhaps Turkey would be compelled to un-ban the kurdish language again, maybe grant some autonomy to the kurds in Turkey to avoid further conflict (this should be done anyway).

Wow.

Dividing the country will lead to peace. I want to see the lines you're going to draw.

[Zep]

It will be war...again. Someone fighting someone else, no doubt. Pick your enemy. The UN will simply pull out and stay out. It will look a lot like Angola...

Possibility that Saddam will pop his ugly head back up when the coast is clearer, too. Claiming "victory over the US oppressor," no doubt.

Also a strong possibility that the Ollie North's of this world will try to covertly influence one side or another against/for entrenched US interests... Happened in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Central America, South America, Iran...

But the best thing would be that The Shrub would lose whatever shreds of prestige he had left from this debacle, and be turfed ungraciously next year.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by bangdazap

The UN has all the resources it's member states are willing to give it. If Iraq is divided into three semi-autonomus areas (kurd, sunni and shia) there would be peace. Then the shias don't have to seek support from Iran to fight for independence and hence Iran's influence would be limited.
Perhaps Turkey would be compelled to un-ban the kurdish language again, maybe grant some autonomy to the kurds in Turkey to avoid further conflict (this should be done anyway).

Well we can all hope for a rational solution to Iraq's and the region's problems and a federal state operating across racial and religious boundaries would be one such solution. Sadly there are more modern examples of such states failing instead of succeeding. Yugoslavia split apart and so did the Soviet Union.

Iraq is split in so many ways. Racially - Kurd/Arab; Religiously - Sunni/Shia/Christian; Religious Fundamentalists/Religious Moderates/Secularists; Tribally; Politically - Baathists/the non party majority(with old scores to settle).

In contrast to these divisive forces there is a strong feeling of Iraqi and Arab nationalism which would most likely resist efforts to split the country. The same feelings make foreign occupation particularly resented and the situation is futher complicated by the desire of Syrian Baathists and Iranian mullahs to benefit from Iraq's troubles.

So I stand by my view that if the coalition were to do the inconceivable and up sticks there would be civil war with incalculable consequences. If the coalition stays it might be possible to create a hardline "cruel but fair" Iraqi regime which would keep the show on the road for a few more years. As for a stable representative democracy of any sort in the next few years - most unlikely.

[Zep]

Which would mean, Nikk, that the US has to commit itself fairly wholeheartedly to Iraq for many years to come. Just like in Vietnam... And THAT didn't turn out too well either, did it.

Altogether, it really does show that it was a bad decision to go there in the first place. I wonder what Saddam said that got up GWB's nose to make him so mad...?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just what would happen? Everyone says tha we just cant leave. Why not??

What if the US said "OK UN your so high n mighty, well we're out of here come New Years day. Iraq is all yours"

How woudl teh UN respond, what would happen to Iraq, who'd come into power and how, how would this effect the war on terror?

Any thoughts or theories.

I am quite certain we could plan an expedited departure from Iraq. We certainly could manage that better than the occupation, based on results so far. Withdrawal does not mean abrogation of our responsibilities. It merely means that we are not going to impose our idea of government onto the Iraqis. Since they are unlikely to accept what we do in the long run anyway, there isn't much down side.

And it's not like we are going to lose face in the eyes of the rest of the world... we already have!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

I am quite certain we could plan an expedited departure from Iraq. We certainly could manage that better than the occupation, based on results so far. Withdrawal does not mean abrogation of our responsibilities. It merely means that we are not going to impose our idea of government onto the Iraqis. Since they are unlikely to accept what we do in the long run anyway, there isn't much down side.

And it's not like we are going to lose face in the eyes of the rest of the world... we already have!

Your suggestion is completely useless. Who, exactly, do we give power to when we leave? How would that NOT constitute imposing a government on them? Your position isn't even internally consistent. If we wish to allow the Iraqis to choose a government (by means other than bloody civil war, and I would hope you're not suggesting that), then we NEED to have elections. And for that to happen, we NEED to stick around until that can be done in a manner so that the election results actually make sense, that who gets elected actually gets control. And that simply wouldn't happen if we tried it right now. And we WOULD lose face. Our allies would think that we don't follow through with what we say we're going to do, and our enemies would think that we can be chased away and defeated by a small number of deaths. How is that NOT losing face? As it is, yeah, we pissed off a bunch of people, but we're doing what we said we were going to do.

[Tmy]

Maybe it wouldnt be so bad to leave.

-Our enemies wouldnt mess wh us cause theyd know we'd run over countries just for kicks. Last thing they would want is to have home based terror groups gain our attention.

-Terrorists would be too busy fighting for control in the mideast. Forget about harassing the US. Plus dont they WANT to see us go. Isnt that their big beef.

-Leave it up to the UN to put up or shut up.

-Oil. Heres the sticking point. But were in control of it now and gas prices are still high.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
And we WOULD lose face. Our allies would think that we don't follow through with what we say we're going to do, and our enemies would think that we can be chased away and defeated by a small number of deaths. How is that NOT losing face? As it is, yeah, we pissed off a bunch of people, but we're doing what we said we were going to do.

To some people, doing the wrong thing is preferable to the right thing - IF IT AVOIDS TACIT ADMISSION OF ERROR. You, sir, belong in that group.

Meanwhile, we are bashing our head against a wall in Iraq. Our hopes for creating a stable, democratic government favorable to the US are as likely as finding the 500 tons of WMDs that 1400 searchers cannot find...

You can avoid the obvious, but we will be ultimately be leaving Iraq no better off than after we trashed Vietnam. The only question, as in Vietnam, is how long to we do this to ourselves before we wise up?

Repeat after me: Americans are great at ruling America... Americans are great at ruling America... Americans are great at ruling America...

[peptoabysmal]

OMG!

Fighting breaks out again in Liberia! It must be a UN quagmire!

Liberian peace shattered by clashes (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F7B69702-7111-4587-AAFF-79B66D868BD7.htm)

(The news source is Al-J, so take it with a big grain of salt)

[Skeptic]

I am quite certain we could plan an expedited departure from Iraq.

I suppose you realize that "expedited departure", like "UN control", are merely euphemisms for "running away".

Withdrawal does not mean abrogation of our responsibilities. It merely means that we are not going to impose our idea of government onto the Iraqis. Since they are unlikely to accept what we do in the long run anyway, there isn't much down side.

Boy, talk about pathetic rationalizations...

And it's not like we are going to lose face in the eyes of the rest of the world... we already have!

Perhaps with France. With the arab world, what will determine whether or not face is lost is whether the US runs away or not.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

To some people, doing the wrong thing is preferable to the right thing - IF IT AVOIDS TACIT ADMISSION OF ERROR. You, sir, belong in that group.


You never answered any of my questions.

If we left now, WHO would we leave in charge? How is that NOT choosing the government for the Iraqis? How can you possibly think that our leaving now would lead to anything other than increased chaos? You don't want us to admit defeat, you want us to essentially surrender while the war is still going on.

To some people, the fate of the Iraqi people themselves is irrelevant - IF IT GETS IN THE WAY OF THEIR POLITICAL STANCE AGAINST THE U.S. You, sir, belong in that group.

Hey, that's fun. And thoroughly useless, just like your statement. Want to take another spin on the rhetoric ride?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You never answered any of my questions.

If we left now, WHO would we leave in charge? How is that NOT choosing the government for the Iraqis? How can you possibly think that our leaving now would lead to anything other than increased chaos? You don't want us to admit defeat, you want us to essentially surrender while the war is still going on.

To some people, the fate of the Iraqi people themselves is irrelevant - IF IT GETS IN THE WAY OF THEIR POLITICAL STANCE AGAINST THE U.S. You, sir, belong in that group.

Hey, that's fun. And thoroughly useless, just like your statement. Want to take another spin on the rhetoric ride?
If there is a war going on, what is our objective? There is an occupation going and our presence incites rebellion. We cannot win over the hearts and minds...

Since we obviously have no idea what we needs to be done, and we are definitely an obstacle to progress: A multi-lateral group needs to oversee Iraq on an interim basis. The US could even be a part of that group, but we shouldn't control it. UN is the logical choice to head it up.

I did laugh, by the way...not bad, Ziggy.

[Tmy]

Cant we just install a puppet government and beat feet already. Geez how hard can it be, its been done to death for centuries.

It didnt take us long to appoint an Afgan stuffed shirt. We should do that in Iraq. Itll give the "insurgents" someone to focus on. (aka target).

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
If there is a war going on, what is our objective?


Roughly our objectives are to create an interim Iraqi government that can create a constitution and hold democratic elections, and to create an Iraqi police force and army that can handle security for Iraq and secure its borders. That is happening, but it takes time.


There is an occupation going and our presence incites rebellion. We cannot win over the hearts and minds...


Much of this "rebellion" consists right now of attacking anyone who is helping rebuild Iraq, not just the US but the UN, foreign embassies, the red cross, and even other Iraqis. And much of this is from people comming into Iraq from abroad. The Iraqis already want peace, we don't need to "win them over" in this regard. And the outstanding job that the Iraqi police are doing, despite not having enough manpower yet, is a testament to that. We cannot win over the hearts and minds of those who attack red cross buildings, but we don't need to either. We need to catch them and stop them, and I think long-run we can do that. And again, it's not just us. The Iraqis themselves are playing an increasingly important role in their own security.


Since we obviously have no idea what we needs to be done, and we are definitely an obstacle to progress: A multi-lateral group needs to oversee Iraq on an interim basis. The US could even be a part of that group, but we shouldn't control it. UN is the logical choice to head it up.


Why would the UN have any more success than the US? They got attacked just like we are getting attacked. All I see is a shift in who gets blamed if things go down the crapper, but frankly I don't think that covering our rear from blame should be a priority. "Let someone else deal with it" is not a solution. Countries like France keep saying the UN should be in charge, but the UN can only act through member nations, and what I DON'T see France doing (or anyone else, for that matter) is saying they'd like to come in and try to fix things, that they have ideas for what needs to be done. Their money is NOT where their mouth is on this issue. Matter of fact, their money isn't really anywhere on this issue (see recent donor's conference). In the absence of something more concrete than "we should put the UN in charge," I see no viability to any plans to cede US control, all I see is a shifting of responsibility. But just shifting responsibility doesn't solve anything.


I did laugh, by the way...not bad, Ziggy.

I aim to please. :D

[SFB]

If we leave we'll be soundly criticized by the rest of the world for ............... well, not living up to our stated goals. If there is war we will be blamed!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by SFB
If we leave we'll be soundly criticized by the rest of the world for ............... well, not living up to our stated goals. If there is war we will be blamed!

...and if we run away we richly deserve the blame.

Clinton tried that in Somalia. The Bin Ladens of this world learned that killing a few Americans and abusing their corpses on tv is all that is needed to control the actions of the world's strongest and wealthiest democracy. No need to go up against stealth planes and cruise missiles. Just kill Americans...the more the better, and make sure it gets great news coverage. If there's any one event that has inspired terrorists worldwide...it's the Black Hawk Down episode in Mogadishu. That's what happens when you promote form over substance....when public perceptions are considered more important than real military exigencies. (Clinton's secdef didn't want armor in Mogadishu because it looked as if we were an occupation force)

Conclusion....liberal democrats/appeasers are terrorism's best friend.

-z

[c0rbin]

Corplinx:

Not sure what Iran would do.

I think Iran would roll into as much teritory as it could.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


...and if we run away we richly deserve the blame.

Clinton tried that in Somalia. The Bin Ladens of this world learned that killing a few Americans and abusing their corpses on tv is all that is needed to control the actions of the world's strongest and wealthiest democracy. No need to go up against stealth planes and cruise missiles. Just kill Americans...the more the better, and make sure it gets great news coverage. If there's any one event that has inspired terrorists worldwide...it's the Black Hawk Down episode in Mogadishu. That's what happens when you promote form over substance....when public perceptions are considered more important than real military exigencies. (Clinton's secdef didn't want armor in Mogadishu because it looked as if we were an occupation force)

Conclusion....liberal democrats/appeasers are terrorism's best friend.

-z


Laffable analysis. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a connection between Clinton's actions in Somalia and Bin Laden's subsequent actions. You are guessing. I could guess that it is in fact the election of Bush in 2000 that was the root cause of 9/11. Unless Bin Laden inks his autobiography for Random House, I doubt anyone will ever really know. The rest is pure speculation.

Conclusion: Conservative warmongers are the paranoid terrorist's best friend.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Laffable analysis. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a connection between Clinton's actions in Somalia and Bin Laden's subsequent actions. You are guessing.


No, actually, he's not guessing. There IS a connection. Bin Laden has said so himself. He has claimed responsibility for some of the attacks against US forces in Somalia, and Al Quaida repeatedly uses Somalia as an example of how terrorist activities can produce victory against the US. On this matter, rik seems to understand what's going on a lot better than you do.


Conclusion: Conservative warmongers are the paranoid terrorist's best friend.

Those who hide their heads in the sand, who think that terrorists can be appeased, or that they'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone, are a terrorist's best friend.

[Skeptic]

Laffable analysis. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a connection between Clinton's actions in Somalia and Bin Laden's subsequent actions.

Yes, it IS a guess to think Bin Laden might have become convinced terrorism will defeat the USA when he saw it running away from terrorism in Somalia. It's also a guess to say that Hitler became convinced nobody will do anything about the 1939 invasion of Poland because nobody did anything when he invaded other countries in 1934, 1936, 1937, and 1938. But it's a rather educated guess in both cases, isn't it?

Unless Bin Laden inks his autobiography for Random House, I doubt anyone will ever really know. The rest is pure speculation.

Precisely. Which is why I am TOTALLY opposed to those unfounded rumors that Hitler was encouraged by defeatism and passivity in the democracies, and think it's pure guesswork to think that 1930s appeasement didn't work. After all, Hitler never wrote down whether he was encouraged by Chamberline's deafeitism or not, so how could we tell?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


No, actually, he's not guessing. There IS a connection. Bin Laden has said so himself. He has claimed responsibility for some of the attacks against US forces in Somalia, and Al Quaida repeatedly uses Somalia as an example of how terrorist activities can produce victory against the US. On this matter, rik seems to understand what's going on a lot better than you do.

Those who hide their heads in the sand, who think that terrorists can be appeased, or that they'll just leave us alone if we leave them alone, are a terrorist's best friend.

Might help if you read what I said BEFORE you began reciting your usual gibberish. I said "There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a connection between Clinton's actions in Somalia and Bin Laden's subsequent actions. You are guessing." Please note that your comment does not address mine.

As to heads in the sand: now that your man Bush has failed to find a single WMD - the basis for immediate war with Iraq - and has admitted there is NO connection between Iraq and 9/11... what does terrorism have to do with not leaving Iraq tomorrow (please re-read title of the thread of understand the signoificance of my question)?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, it IS a guess to think Bin Laden might have become convinced terrorism will defeat the USA when he saw it running away from terrorism in Somalia. It's also a guess to say that Hitler became convinced nobody will do anything about the 1939 invasion of Poland because nobody did anything when he invaded other countries in 1934, 1936, 1937, and 1938. But it's a rather educated guess in both cases, isn't it?



Interesting parallel... NOT.

First, no one knows what led Bin Laden to his 9/11 plot. It could have been his desire to hurt the US, a desire which had nothing to do with Somalia. It could have been that he hated Bush. Who knows? The US acts in many ways around the world, and it is pure speculation as to what effect - if any - Clinton's actions had to do with 9/11. Clinton took military action against Bin Laden prior to 9/11, something "cowardly appeaser" George W. never did. So at least Clinton tried. Bush didn't. Blame Bush if that's your "logic". Happened on Bush's watch, etc etc.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Might help if you read what I said BEFORE you began reciting your usual gibberish. I said "There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a connection between Clinton's actions in Somalia and Bin Laden's subsequent actions. You are guessing." Please note that your comment does not address mine.


I'm well aware of what you said. To repeat both my point and skeptics' point: Clinton entered Somalia, and pulled out after a few US troops were killed. Al Quaeda has stated rather explicitly that they viewed US involvement in Somalia as an example of our agression against Islam. They have also repeatedly used Somalia in particular as an example in their propaganda of how they can achieve victory over us by killing relatively small numbers of US troops. Not only Bin Laden but many other terrorists have learned from Clinton's Somalia withdrawl that they can win. So perhaps you are partly right: we cannot tell what effect this had on Bin Laden in particular, but we DO know that it encouraged terrorists in general. We know this because that's what they are saying. And that was Skeptic's point, which you haven't really refuted. If your reply to Skeptic, you seem obsessed with showing that Bush wasn't better than Clinton before 9/11 regarding acting against Bin Laden. Yes, that's true, and that's also rather irrelevant to both skeptic and my point, which was that pulling out of Somalia was a disaster for US counterterrorism efforts, and that pulling out of Iraq now would be an even bigger disaster.


As to heads in the sand: now that your man Bush has failed to find a single WMD - the basis for immediate war with Iraq - and has admitted there is NO connection between Iraq and 9/11...


Bush is not my man. Not was Saddam's current WMD stockpile ever my reason for supporting the invasion.


what does terrorism have to do with not leaving Iraq tomorrow (please re-read title of the thread of understand the signoificance of my question)?

That's rather exactly what we've been going over. What would happen if we left Iraq? Terrorism in Iraq would continue. It would probably increase significantly in the absense of coalition forces to keep it in check. Iraq might descend into chaos, and become a true breeding ground, rather than just a magnet, for terrorists. And the arab world would learn the terrible lesson that terrorism works, that they can get what they want (the US out of the region) by encouraging and supporting violent extremism (note also that the arab world doesn't care much about the Iraqis themselves - they haven't in the past, they're not going to start to now). And there's nothing like a massive demonstration of the success of a behavior patern to encourage its repetition. So why would anyone think that pulling out of Iraq now DOESN'T have anything to do with terrorism?

[SFB]

Originally posted by rikzilla


...and if we run away we richly deserve the blame.

Clinton tried that in Somalia. The Bin Ladens of this world learned that killing a few Americans and abusing their corpses on tv is all that is needed to control the actions of the world's strongest and wealthiest democracy. No need to go up against stealth planes and cruise missiles. Just kill Americans...the more the better, and make sure it gets great news coverage. If there's any one event that has inspired terrorists worldwide...it's the Black Hawk Down episode in Mogadishu. That's what happens when you promote form over substance....when public perceptions are considered more important than real military exigencies. (Clinton's secdef didn't want armor in Mogadishu because it looked as if we were an occupation force)

Conclusion....liberal democrats/appeasers are terrorism's best friend.

-z


rikzilla:

Yes, perhaps so. And if we stay we'll continue to receive criticism from within the US and from outside the US. That was my only point. We're screwed either way, as far as criticism goes. Lame, I know.

Your language is a bit colored.

So we are going to show the "Bin Ladens of this world" we are worth our mettle by tossing around Iraq? I don't understand the connections between Ladens and Iraq.

Are we gonna scare the bejeeeeeeeeezus out of Middle East countries with our presence in Iraq? Well maybe, and maybe it will take time, lots of it.

And not that you think this way but, is this a war that transcends politics; a war of religion, as some would have it?

Show me.......

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrChinese


Laffable analysis. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a connection between Clinton's actions in Somalia and Bin Laden's subsequent actions.


As usual, you are wrong.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/miller_binladen_980609.html

JOHN MILLER: You have said, "If the Americans are so brave they will come and arrest me." Do you think that is something my country will try?

OSAMA BIN LADEN: We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah.

[Ion]

I disagree that this quote brought up by Tony, shows a connection between bin Laden (Saudi Arabia) and the U.S. actions in Somalia that supports the idea that when U.S. is in Iraq then U.S. must win in Iraq in Bush's (U.S.) own terms:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
OSAMA BIN LADEN:...
...
It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is important for U.S. to choose its wars, to win the justified ones and to get rid of the ones based on bogus reasons.

Bush's own terms in Iraq are wrong, the U.S. war in Iraq is not justified, it is bogus and it is a useless drain on the U.S..

U.S., under a new president in 2004, might as well leave the unjustified war in Iraq altogether and try to pay Iraq for damage done in the war (if that is possible, including resurrecting the dead...), or better, it might win the peace in Iraq when monitored by an international coalition of countries providing a U.N. scrutiny -which Bush tries to escape since creating this war-.

This is because under the current conditions, Bush's U.S. war in Iraq has no foundation of valid reasons worth fighting and dying for.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Tony
As usual, you are wrong.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/miller_binladen_980609.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN MILLER: You have said, "If the Americans are so brave they will come and arrest me." Do you think that is something my country will try?

OSAMA BIN LADEN: We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. We are ready for all occasions. We rely on Allah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Good, you make my point perfectly with this quote. Please note the following:

1. You take one of Osama's interview's and assume it is a true representation of his thoughts. In reality, his actions are unpredictable and inconsistent as are his public statements. But for the sake of argument, let's assume what he is saying is true...

2. He references the Beirut bombing in 1983 as an example, which occurred on Reagan's watch. Reagan did not retaliate. By this logic, Reagan is guilty of cowardice.

3. On the other hand, after the Somalia incident - supposedly an example of Clinton's appeasement - Clinton later retaliated against Bin Laden.

4. It is not possible to determine if Bin Laden's rage and determination against the US increased more because of Somalia or because he hated that the US sent cruise missles at him in 1998.

5. When you look at the total picture, there is no clear causal pattern of any kind. What you have is thin and inconsistent anecdotal evidence, no different than reports of a house that is haunted by ghosts.

[Skeptic]

1. You take one of Osama's interview's and assume it is a true representation of his thoughts.

...and the deafening sound of goalposts being moved is yet again heard from the left.

Remember Communism? "Communism is great, it's just evil capitalist propganda that says life in Russia sucks!". "Actually, most of those who come from there agree." "Well... er... Russia was never REALLY communist!"

Remember Reagan? "Reagan will destroy the economy with his evil anti-social plans!" "Actually, the economy surged under Reagan and most Americans were significantly better off when it ended than before." "Well... er... but he was STUPID!".

Now we have Osama: "You can't tell that Osama was encouraged by Somalia, he never said it!" "Actually, he did, repeatedly." "Well... er... he said it, but how do you know he MEANT it?!"

On second thought, though, I DON'T hear the sound of goalposts being moved. Like a dripping faucet, leftists moving goalposts is so common you only "hear" it when it stops.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just what would happen? Everyone says tha we just cant leave. Why not??

To quote Louis Armstrong: "If you have to ask, you ain't never going to know".

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Tmy
Just what would happen? Everyone says tha we just cant leave. Why not??

What if the US said "OK UN your so high n mighty, well we're out of here come New Years day. Iraq is all yours"

How woudl teh UN respond, what would happen to Iraq, who'd come into power and how, how would this effect the war on terror?

Any thoughts or theories.

If the USA just cut and ran in Iraq, then I expect that Iraq would wind up looking a good bit like Afganistan did after the Soviets cut and ran.

[rikzilla]

Ziggy, Tony, and Skeptic,

Thanks for rebutting Dr.C for me. I've had little time for the forum lately. :( Also you guys have, as usual, done a better job than my own meager efforts.

Dr.C as usual is his own worst enemy! His naked movement of the goalposts in front of "EdGod and everybody" here on the forum is yet another concrete indication of his lack of scruples. A true victory of freedom of speech...the ability of us to be spectators as Dr.C executes his own credibility upon the gallows of his own words.

-z

Oh BTW, Reagan was wrong to order the Marines out of Beirut after the bombing there. He failed to see the long term damage caused by rewarding terrorism. That Reagan made that mistake does not excuse Clinton of his mistake in Somalia. Sooner or later, no matter WHO the President is, the United States government is going to have to recognise that ANY reward of terrorist aims will have the effect of PROMOTING TERRORISM.

It has to stop somewhere, and that's what the WOT is all about. OBL was too clever by half on 9/11. I sincerely doubt, based on what he knew about past US actions, that he thought he'd be provoking a comprehensive war against terrorism worldwide. If there's to be a firm stand against terrorism, I'd rather it be in Baghdad and Kabul than DC.

[Skeptic]

Dr.C as usual is his own worst enemy! His naked movement of the goalposts in front of "EdGod and everybody" here on the forum is yet another concrete indication of his lack of scruples.

Pathetic, wasn't it? "Nononono, don't listen to what bin Laden says about what he believes! Let ME tell you what he REALLY MEANS! Here, I have this bulls--t pop-psychology 'theory' about what makes him tick that PROVES I'm right!"

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Dr.C as usual is his own worst enemy! His naked movement of the goalposts in front of "EdGod and everybody" here on the forum is yet another concrete indication of his lack of scruples.

Pathetic, wasn't it? "Nononono, don't listen to what bin Laden says about what he believes! Let ME tell you what he REALLY MEANS! Here, I have this bulls--t pop-psychology 'theory' about what makes him tick that PROVES I'm right!"

I said the exact opposite: ASSUME HIS WORDS ARE TRUE. Read what I say, not what you wish I'd said.

I don't trust Osama, and I doubt many do. But since we were discussing his statements as being representative of his mindset, that's what I did. Here it is again if anyone would care to discuss the assertion that "cutting and running" encourages Osama and other terrorists.

1. You take one of Osama's interview's and assume it is a true representation of his thoughts. In reality, his actions are unpredictable and inconsistent as are his public statements. But for the sake of argument, let's assume what he is saying is true...

2. He references the Beirut bombing in 1983 as an example, which occurred on Reagan's watch. Reagan did not retaliate. By this logic, Reagan is guilty of cowardice.

3. On the other hand, after the Somalia incident - supposedly an example of Clinton's appeasement - Clinton later retaliated against Bin Laden.

4. It is not possible to determine if Bin Laden's rage and determination against the US increased more because of Somalia or because he hated that the US sent cruise missles at him in 1998.

5. When you look at the total picture, there is no clear causal pattern of any kind. What you have is thin and inconsistent anecdotal evidence, no different than reports of a house that is haunted by ghosts.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla
That Reagan made that mistake [in Beirut] does not excuse Clinton of his mistake in Somalia.

Why is that, dear hypocrite? Are they both guilty, or both not?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

2. He references the Beirut bombing in 1983 as an example, which occurred on Reagan's watch. Reagan did not retaliate. By this logic, Reagan is guilty of cowardice.


Yes, that's true. So what? Like I said earlier, you seem obsessed with the idea that we're on an anti-Clinton kick. I for one am not. Clinton made a terrible mistake in Somalia, but he is not alone, and I never claimed otherwise. This isn't about Clinton himself, it's about the mistake of turning tail and running, of teaching our enemies that it takes very little to defeat us.


3. On the other hand, after the Somalia incident - supposedly an example of Clinton's appeasement - Clinton later retaliated against Bin Laden.


No, Clinton TRIED to retaliate against Osama, but largely as a result of the African embassy bombings, not Somalia. And those efforts were completely ineffective, so why would that disuade him?


4. It is not possible to determine if Bin Laden's rage and determination against the US increased more because of Somalia or because he hated that the US sent cruise missles at him in 1998.


Pay attention: Somalia is not WHY Bin Laden hates us. Somalia is part of why he (AND others like him - you keep ignoring that part) think they can defeat us. It is one of their models for success, which they will try to emulate and repeat again and again. They are repeating it already in Iraq. And if we just pack up and leave NOW, then the arab world outside of Iraq, which cares about rebuilding Iraq even less than you do and would gladly see Iraq suffer in order to spite us, will learn that such terrorism works. And they will encourage and support it. How can you possibly think they would do otherwise if they see that it achieves the goals they want?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Yes, that's true. So what? Like I said earlier, you seem obsessed with the idea that we're on an anti-Clinton kick. I for one am not. Clinton made a terrible mistake in Somalia, but he is not alone, and I never claimed otherwise. This isn't about Clinton himself, it's about the mistake of turning tail and running, of teaching our enemies that it takes very little to defeat us.


In your theory that "cutting and running incites terrorism (or CARIT), and thus leaving Iraq now would incite terrorism too": Where does Desert Storm fit in? I.e. did Bush Sr. do good by standing up to Saddam - i.e. send a good message to the bad people of the world? Or did he do bad because he didn't hammer the nail in the coffin and therefore was the biggest appeaser of all? After all Bush Sr. RACED out of Iraq, and was content with the idea that Iraq would crumble into chaos when Saddam was inevitably overthrown!!

In other words, it should be obvious - even to you - that nothing can be construed as so white or black as is depicted in the CARIT theory. For example, at least Clinton tried to off Osama. Bush Jr. didn't even do that, so maybe he incited Osama by his inaction. You can pick whatever events you like to fit this absurd ad hoc theory and the results will always be the same: there is always another event that will run counter to your theory.

After all, who was saying before the recent Iraq War: "If the US doesn't remove Saddam immediately, then the US is encouraging worldwide terrorism"? Answer: No one, this is strictly made up today to justify your absurdist position as to why we must remain longer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by DrChinese

In your theory that "cutting and running incites terrorism (or CARIT), and thus leaving Iraq now would incite terrorism too": Where does Desert Storm fit in? I.e. did Bush Sr. do good by standing up to Saddam - i.e. send a good message to the bad people of the world? Or did he do bad because he didn't hammer the nail in the coffin and therefore was the biggest appeaser of all? After all Bush Sr. RACED out of Iraq, and was content with the idea that Iraq would crumble into chaos when Saddam was inevitably overthrown!!


I would have liked to see Bush Sr. take out Saddam. But the fact that he didn't isn't equivalent to what we have been discussing, particularly Somalia. Why? Because he never said that was the goal. In GW1, we never said we would depose Saddam. We did exactly what we said we were going to do, we didn't back down at all in that regard.

Failing to back the uprising against Saddam after we encouraged it was, however, a major mistake. We should have either not encouraged it or been willing to stick out our necks.

But why exactly are you bringing this up? Do you actually want to find out what I think, or are you just trying to make sure that Bush (Jr. and Sr.) get enough sand kicked on them as well? Not that I'm necessarily opposed to that idea, but it's also rather secondary to what was being discussed.


In other words, it should be obvious - even to you - that nothing can be construed as so white or black as is depicted in the CARIT theory.


You mean it's not as black and white as your attempted charicature is.


For example, at least Clinton tried to off Osama. Bush Jr. didn't even do that, so maybe he incited Osama by his inaction.


Yes, maybe Bush Jr. did encourage Osama by his inaction against terrorism before 9/11. Again, what's your point? Are you still confusing me for a Bush supporter?


You can pick whatever events you like to fit this absurd ad hoc theory and the results will always be the same: there is always another event that will run counter to your theory.


What are you talking about? What event has been counter to my theory? The examples above? Hardly.


After all, who was saying before the recent Iraq War: "If the US doesn't remove Saddam immediately, then the US is encouraging worldwide terrorism"? Answer: No one, this is strictly made up today to justify your absurdist position as to why we must remain longer.

The reasons I think it was the right thing to take out Saddam are numerous. We don't need to go into them right now, I've expounded on them before. But for me, Al Quaeda and similar terrorist organizations were not a direct reason for doing so (but it was an indirect reason - that's a more involved discussion though which isn't critical in the current context). But such terrorist organizations are very much a reason to not leave the job half-finished. You seem to want to conflate the two issues: they are very much related, but they are not identical. So if you can't figure that out, don't try to label me as the one who only sees things in black and white.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by DrChinese
...

2. He references the Beirut bombing in 1983 as an example, which occurred on Reagan's watch. Reagan did not retaliate. By this logic, Reagan is guilty of cowardice.


Just to set the record straight... (as if that even counts in this forum anymore)...

The USS New Jersey was involved in the retaliation against the Beirut bombing. It sat off shore and pelted Beirut with its 16"/50 guns in February of 1984.

Sources (besides "common knowledge") here (http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-n/bb62.htm) and
here (http://www.battleshipnewjersey.org/index.cfm?fa=history).

Oy!