Help please

UOPokerPlayer · #1 02-16-2005, 02:48 AM

I have to say this forum is pretty vicious, but i also think the intelligence and political awareness level here is really high. That said I take no side, I have no revealing article, I have no one to expose. I just have a simple question.

Why should the U.S. pull out of Iraq? It's a paper that I'm writing and I have some good thoughts in work but i was wondering what you guys thought. Even if you disagree with pulling out, you can see some reasons for doing it, just as i have to defend the disadvantages of pulling out in my paper.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Felix_Nietsche · #2 02-16-2005, 03:09 AM

Advantages for leaving Iraq:
*Save money
*Save American Lives
*Free American military resources to deployed in other theaters to combat terrorism.
*Make chicken-doves at home happy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Disadvantages are too numerous for me to list...

UOPokerPlayer · #3 02-16-2005, 03:22 AM

Thanks, I won't be saying an immediate withdrawl because that would be an absolute disaster. What do you think this would do for our international image and Bush's political capital?

sam h · #4 02-16-2005, 04:45 AM

A lot depends on whether you mean a fairly immediate withdrawal or a longer-term phased one.

Personally, I think withdrawing would be bad at this point since we have screwed up the occupation so badly and anybody with half a brain can tell that without American forces there the place would be engulfed in civil war.

The best argument for withdrawal basically says that the country is going to implode anyway and we might as well not piss any more money away or get any more of our soldiers killed in what is basically a lost cause at this point.

QuadsOverQuads · #5 02-16-2005, 05:19 AM

If you're serious about this question, start here:

juancole.com

q/q

Utah · #6 02-16-2005, 09:20 AM

Whether one was for or against the war, I think it is plainly obvious that the U.S. cannot pull out anytime soon. Forget the Iraqi's for a second. Pulling out would be a disaster for Americans as it would signal to the world what the insurgents already think - kill a few Americans and the Americans will leave. We are still paying the price for Somalia.

If we pull out, we would send a clear signal to terrorists that we are cowards who wil not fight. Heck, the actions of Ted Kennedy and othe liberals are already costing American lives as they are sending a signal that we might pull out.

Felix_Nietsche · #7 02-16-2005, 01:17 PM

"What do you think this would do for our international image ...?"
************************************************** **
It would improve out international image with Old Europe.
But having the approval of old Europe is only SLIGHTLY more valuable than a warm-bucket-of-spit.
The facts are countries like France will ALWAYS act in their own interest regardless of their approval or disapproval of the USA.

The image of the USA in the middle east will plummet. The Arab culture respects strength. The best way to deal with the Arabs is to CLOSE YOUR EARS and WATCH THEIR ACTIONS.
E.g. For the first time in years, the Palestinians and seriously negotiating peace with the Jews. And which Jew made this happen, Sharon. Sharon is a tough mean bastard that the Arabs hate. BUT...they respect Sharon. There have been peaceful Jewish prime ministers that the Arabs 'liked' better than Sharon, but what kind of results did these 'nice peaceful' Jews get? ANSWER: NONE.

There is a book by N.Machiavelli called, 'The Prince", which explains it is,
1. Best to be feared and loved.
2. Next best is to be feared.
3. The third best is to be loved.

No Jew will ever be loved by Arabs in our lifetime so the 2nd choice is the best Israel can do. Sharon fits this role perfectly. All that matters in life are RESULTS. Sharon is getting RESULTS. If the USA retreats from Iraq, the Arab world will view this as weakness. The insurgents will claim victory and the prestige of these terrorists will sky rocket in the middle east. THEN....the USA will have lots of problems. The USA needs to follow Sharon's and Machiavelli's lead and be tough and mean with the terrorist. RESULTS will shortly follow.

One example how to screw things up in the middle east is Jimmy Carter's dealings with the Iranians when the American embassy was overrun and the entire staff was taken hostage for a year. Legally every US embassy in the world is US territory. What did Carter do? Practically nothing. Carter was quite civil towards the Iranians and how did the Iranians respond? By seeing his civility as weakness. As a teenager I remember the nightly news showing the Iranians burning effigies of Jimmy Carter dressed like Hitler. This comparison was HIGHLY UNFAIR to Hitler for at least Hitler had a pair of balls. It was not until that wild "Cowboy" Reagan got elected that the Iranians released the hostages. It was perfect timing for the Iranians for they could claim victory without having to lose face by being forced by Reagan to release the hostages. A simply naval blockade of the Iranian oil exports would have CRUSHED their economy...

"and Bush's political capital?"
************************************************
ZERO effect.... Do you remember when Bush first took office he stressed bi-partiship?
He even made a historic move by shairing the committee chairs in the US senate EVEN THOUGH THE REPUBLICANS HAD A SMALL MAJORITY. Then Jim Jeffords left the Republican party and sided with the Democrats. So how did the Democrats respond to Bush's grand bi-partisan gesture. The f*** him over. With Jeffords, they voted themselves to head all the committees and the gave Bush the BIG MIDDLE FINGER... Bush is not dumb enough to try to share power with the Dems again. At least I hope so. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
The Dems are using a scorched earth startegy against Bush and I believe comprimise with them is practically impossible. The best Bush can do is to implement policy with just the Republicans and perhaps a few moderate Dems and continue his agenda...

nicky g · #8 02-16-2005, 01:27 PM

"If we pull out, we would send a clear signal to terrorists that we are cowards who wil not fight. Heck, the actions of Ted Kennedy and othe liberals are already costing American lives as they are sending a signal that we might pull out. "

On that subject, do you think the same of Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon follwing the attack on the marines barracks?

Utah · #9 02-16-2005, 01:35 PM

"On that subject, do you think the same of Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon follwing the attack on the marines barracks?"

I really don't know much about the Lebanon situation or the barracks attack (other than it happened and 200+ marines died).

However, if it was a Somalia type quick response pullout I would be inclined to believe that it was a disasterous choice and that the reprussion is still felt today.

It would also single a massive policy failure in that a mjor strategic direction - i.e., being in Lebanon - could be so easily changed with an attack that was an obvious possibility.

Felix_Nietsche · #10 02-16-2005, 01:43 PM

"On that subject, do you think the same of Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon follwing the attack on the marines barracks?"
************************************************** *
The terrorists claimed this as a victory.
Pulling out the US troops was the correct decision. The American Christian Phalangists 'allies' fell under the category, "with friends like these who needs enemies". There was nothing to be gained by Reagan by staying in Lebabnon. The USA correctly left to let the civil war rage on...

The difference is no one doubted Reagan's toughness nor his desire to use the military against America's enemies.
Consider this example. When Britain retreated from Dunkirk during WW2, the Germans did not say "Wow, the Brits are wimps.". They celebrated their victory and they STILL RESPECTED Britian's might. After Lebabnon, Reagan still commanded repect from America's enemies. Unlike Jimmy Carter...