Why America should STOP the war in Iraq

[Dr Mindbender]

- They're only there for oil
- (and prolonging Dubya's pride)
- The insurgents will keep coming until they leave
- The present situation is only perpetuating islamic animosity towards the west
- It is costing the UK and US taxpayer a fortune
- The money cost would be better spent on our own civillian infrastructure

Nuff said <_<

[Publius]

Fairly convincing arguments, but I really do worry about what would happen if we leave. I think you have to acknowledge that what is a bad situation could, actually, get a whole worse should we leave. It could better, but don&#39;t doubt for an instant that&#39;s a serious risk.

It might be that leaving is the only viable option, and staying is pointless, but I&#39;d really hate to leave and have a full-on genocide break out.

That wouldn&#39;t look good on our resume either.

Really, it seems to me that the Bush administration has so fucked up the situation that it doesn&#39;t matter what we do because we&#39;ve harmed it irreparably. Why don&#39;t impeach him?

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:23 pm
Fairly convincing arguments, but I really do worry about what would happen if we leave. I think you have to acknowledge that what is a bad situation could, actually, get a whole worse should we leave. It could better, but don&#39;t doubt for an instant that&#39;s a serious risk.

It might be that leaving is the only viable option, and staying is pointless, but I&#39;d really hate to leave and have a full-on genocide break out.

That wouldn&#39;t look good on our resume either.

Really, it seems to me that the Bush administration has so fucked up the situation that it doesn&#39;t matter what we do because we&#39;ve harmed it irreparably. Why don&#39;t impeach him?
To impeach Bush, might be an even worse thing to do, because it would take the attention away from Congress on to other things, when they should be focused on the war.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:23 pm
Fairly convincing arguments, but I really do worry about what would happen if we leave. I think you have to acknowledge that what is a bad situation could, actually, get a whole worse should we leave. It could better, but don&#39;t doubt for an instant that&#39;s a serious risk.

It might be that leaving is the only viable option, and staying is pointless, but I&#39;d really hate to leave and have a full-on genocide break out.

That wouldn&#39;t look good on our resume either.

Really, it seems to me that the Bush administration has so fucked up the situation that it doesn&#39;t matter what we do because we&#39;ve harmed it irreparably. Why don&#39;t impeach him?
Replace the americans and british with soldiers from muslim nations like Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi and Eqypt. Having western troops there is the worst of both worlds. Its provoking more insurgents to go there, and its increasing the hurt feelings of the muslim world against the west.

[ECD Hollis]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+July 20, 2007 05:41 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ July 20, 2007 05:41 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 05:23 pm
Fairly convincing arguments, but I really do worry about what would happen if we leave. I think you have to acknowledge that what is a bad situation could, actually, get a whole worse should we leave. It could better, but don&#39;t doubt for an instant that&#39;s a serious risk.

It might be that leaving is the only viable option, and staying is pointless, but I&#39;d really hate to leave and have a full-on genocide break out.

That wouldn&#39;t look good on our resume either.

Really, it seems to me that the Bush administration has so fucked up the situation that it doesn&#39;t matter what we do because we&#39;ve harmed it irreparably. Why don&#39;t impeach him?
Replace the americans and british with soldiers from muslim nations like Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi and Eqypt. Having western troops there is the worst of both worlds. Its provoking more insurgents to go there, and its increasing the hurt feelings of the muslim world against the west. [/b]
I actually agree.

[Andy Bowden]

Theres a good possibility though that Saudi, Pakistani, etc soliders would enforce their own designs on Iraq if they were the occupiers. In fact I&#39;d say it was a virtual certainty.

Remember Saudi Arabia is a Sunni monarchy - they&#39;re not going to want to back anything or anyone who might transform Iraq into a (imagined or real) Iranian proxy. IE the 60-70% of the population who are Shia.

Capitalist states are capitalist states, whether they&#39;re Saudi Arabia or the US.

[Publius]

Replace the americans and british with soldiers from muslim nations like Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi and Eqypt. Having western troops there is the worst of both worlds. Its provoking more insurgents to go there, and its increasing the hurt feelings of the muslim world against the west.

That&#39;s a good idea, but I can&#39;t really imagine those countries lining up to toss their boys and girls into the meat grinder.

And can you really blame them?

Maybe they have the practicality to see that a a failed state in Iraq would hurt them, but then again who&#39;s to say it won&#39;t Iran&#39;s troops &#39;keeping order&#39;? That would hardly be ideal either.

I do agree though, some significant shift has to be made.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:13 pm


Replace the americans and british with soldiers from muslim nations like Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi and Eqypt. Having western troops there is the worst of both worlds. Its provoking more insurgents to go there, and its increasing the hurt feelings of the muslim world against the west.

That&#39;s a good idea, but I can&#39;t really imagine those countries lining up to toss their boys and girls into the meat grinder.

And can you really blame them?

Maybe they have the practicality to see that a a failed state in Iraq would hurt them, but then again who&#39;s to say it won&#39;t Iran&#39;s troops &#39;keeping order&#39;? That would hardly be ideal either.

I do agree though, some significant shift has to be made.
the theory is muslim soldiers would provoke less animosity therefore insurgency than american or british ones, which stands to reason when you consider the history of the latter part of the last century and by in large the start of this one.

[RNK]

Long-term bloody suffering or one short, quick, brutally violent campaign?