we have to go BACK TO IRAQ to stop the humanitarian nightmare that our "cut and run and fuck the Iraqis" policy will create?

or is that not important to the cut-and-runners?

8/15/2007 8:32:59 PM

There is an underlying premise in what you said: That the US Government gave/gives a damn about Iraqis to begin with.

That's a completely false premise.

If the US goes back to Iraq ostensibly because of the "humanitarian nightmare" created due to withdrawal, that will just be the reason given to the world, to cover up the real reasons. Just as in this war of aggression.

The whole world knows why the US is there.

8/15/2007 8:45:30 PM

8/15/2007 8:55:34 PM

You mean like how we stopped humanitarian nightmare in Sudan?

8/15/2007 9:01:07 PM

^ actually, that's my point exactly. We will eventually be in the Sudan. It's just a matter of how long it takes for us to actually give a damn

8/15/2007 9:03:39 PM

lol.

8/15/2007 9:20:11 PM

Quote :

"we have to go BACK TO IRAQ to stop the humanitarian nightmare that our "cut and run and fuck the Iraqis" policy will create?"

Never.

If we leave for the right reasons.

If we leave because the American military's only responsibility is the direct protection of our borders and people, realizing the War in Iraq harms our security, then we will never be back. And rightly so.

If the Left pulls us out of Iraq, we will be back in short order, with a greater disaster on our hands than we have now.

If the Right Wing of the Republican party pulls us out, we will not be back, and will be safer, more prosperous, and most importantly, a more morally respectable country.

8/15/2007 9:32:51 PM

^ what a clever and insightful summary

8/15/2007 11:53:03 PM

well, we didn't do anything after we left them hanging the first time, so why should this one be any different?

8/16/2007 9:24:22 AM

^^^That's hilarious. The height of partisan whoresmanship.

If Group A does X it's bad, if Group B does X it's good.


And to answer the original post-- *if* something does go wrong, probably as long as it took us to go to go back to Vietnam and Cambodia.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/16/2007 9:44:02 AM

Quote :

"We will eventually be in the Sudan. It's just a matter of how long it takes for us to actually give a damn"

i really dont know about that. Fighting in Sudan isn´t exactly new and we haven´t done too much about it, I doubt that more time is going to make the government suddenly care about the region. Hell, the entire UN peacekeeping force recently agreed to looks more and more like it will be made up entirely of african troops.

8/16/2007 9:49:06 AM

Seems to be the case so far. I think AU troops under the UN banner are probably the only acceptable option for the Sudanese government. They're not about to allow western forces into their country.

8/16/2007 9:52:28 AM

yeah, thats precisely why it will be nearly all african. i just don´t know if an all african peacekeeping force, UN or otherwise, will garner enough international attention to really bring an end to the fighting. However, it does appear that the future un force will have much more favorable rules of engagement when compared to the current au force.

8/16/2007 9:55:45 AM

Quote :

"They're not about to allow western forces into their country."

Just a quick interjection, but what a state like Sudan "allows" could not possibly be of less concern to me or, frankly, to the United States as a whole.

If it were powerful, we'd have no choice but to pay attention to what they allow. If government were morally superior to the pack of fucking butchers that the Sudanese leaders are, we'd be morally obligated to pay more attention.

As it is, they're not even a third-rate power and they're run by some of the worst murderers going, so please save your breath when it comes to what Sudan will and will not "allow."

8/16/2007 10:03:30 AM

So how long after withdrawal until we create another humanitarian nightmare with our "blow up the infrastructure, dismantle the governance structure, have no postwar plan, engender sectarian conflict, and empower warlords, factions, and terrorists" policy?

Or have the chicken-hawks learned anything this time?

8/16/2007 10:09:14 AM

Oh, I'm sure if push came to shove, then invading Sudan wouldn't be much trouble for the United States or even the European Union. However, given that at this point we want to provide protection for these camps working within the UN framework and without having to wage full war with the Sudanese army, this is the best approach we can take.

So yes, what they allow and don't allow may not matter in terms of us knocking them over and certainly I'd like nothing better than to wipe out that regime, but given the current political climate, our current military obligations, the Chinese veto, and the lack of will amongst all other nations, going with what the Sudanese allow is the only realistic option right now.

8/16/2007 10:10:03 AM

^^ I think we're running on a pattern right now of one major war every 10 to 20 years. So given how messy this last one was, I'd say we're due for another war in about 2027.

8/16/2007 10:12:03 AM

I think the iraqis needed help so its like how in africa now there are people needing help, so we can only help one person at a time, after we finish the job though

8/16/2007 11:04:32 AM

Missioncreep FTL

8/16/2007 11:24:13 AM

Quote :

"we have to go BACK TO IRAQ to stop the humanitarian nightmare that our "cut and run and fuck the Iraqis" policy will create? or is that not important to the cut-and-runners?"

The reality is, there's going to be a major civil war no matter what we do (unless we divide the states). As with Sudan and Ethiopia, there's no a damn thing we can do to prevent ignorant people from killing other ignorant people. Letting them kill each other is only a net bonus for the rest of the world. Sad as that is to say, you can't help people who don't want to be helped, it only makes them hate you more.

8/16/2007 11:27:39 AM

Quote :

"So how long after withdrawal until we create another humanitarian nightmare with our "blow up the infrastructure, dismantle the governance structure, have no postwar plan, engender sectarian conflict, and empower warlords, factions, and terrorists" policy? Or have the chicken-hawks learned anything this time?"

& ^

Actually, progress is being made and the right people are making the right decisions at this point . . . or as close to the right decisions that can be made. I think a lot of that will come out in GEN Petraeus' report next month.

8/16/2007 11:30:52 AM

^actually the admin is already looking into ways to censor a full report, now that crunch time is near and they know no real progress is being made.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20290144/

8/16/2007 11:44:51 AM

I don't take that report too seriously. The administration probably floated that idea to see if they could get away with it but are probably not serious about it, nor are they going to press hard for it. Given that the presenters haven't heard any instruction from Washington about it yet, and also given that this report probably isn't going to present any sort of groundbreaking or shocking new facts that are going to favor the anti-war Democrats, the administration is probably better off just making it public.

8/16/2007 11:50:43 AM

^ & ^^ The competence level and reliability of this admin is, umm, yeah. I'll leave it at that.

Either way, I'm basing what I'm saying on what I heard GEN Petraeus say in a video teleconference last week, not on how the administration or news outlets will spin it.

8/16/2007 11:57:59 AM

no matter how well the military part of the war is being handled, nothing will ever happen of long-term consequence until the politicians decide they actually want to compromise. i haven't seen that yet.

8/16/2007 12:00:49 PM

Yeah, it'll be curious to see the fallout from Petraeus' report.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 12:02 PM. Reason : Meh.]

8/16/2007 12:01:30 PM

^^ well, thats just it, the military is taking into account that there is more to the solution than the traditional military responses. GEN Petraeus is big on developing as many tools as he can so that you avoid the old, "when all you have is a hammer, you tend to make all your problems look like nails" solution. In essence, they're looking beyond what are now termed "kinetic" solutions into "non-kinetic" engagement.

The question is though, will this be too late in the ball game for us to sustain it politically?

8/16/2007 12:13:15 PM

Quote :

"The whole world knows why the US is there."

why's that?

8/16/2007 12:18:11 PM

Quote :

"GEN Petraeus is big on developing as many tools as he can so that you avoid the old, "when all you have is a hammer, you tend to make all your problems look like nails" solution."

Even if Gen Petraeus is a good carpenter, how is his hammer going to help us if we are already screwed.


By the way, the only guys on the crew with the proper screwdriver (Robinson head) have no interest in coming to work.

8/16/2007 1:39:59 PM

No, my point was that Petraeus is developing more tools than just the hammer. Clever turn of a phrase though.

Again, maybe it'll work, maybe it won't, but we're doing more than just hammering away at this point.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : V that is being addressed as well]

8/16/2007 2:14:01 PM

problem is they clear out one area, insurgents move to another....military goes into that area, rinse and repeat...

also, it's not going to help that they just suffered the deadliest attack to date, (over 2x the casualties of the next biggest) and now look to be engaged in what amounts to genocide.

8/16/2007 2:18:12 PM

^ With regards to the attacks, you could use that argument for both sides. Anti-war activists will say that the continued American presence inspires militias to attack civilians to drive the Americans out. Pro-war activists will say that if the Americans withdraw, then you'll see these attacks occur tenfold.

As for the initial comment, supposedly what the surge is supposed to do is allow the army to clear out an area and then hold it. They're not going to be able to hold the entire country (if we could, we would have done it by now), but at least they can maintain a large enough space for long enough to let the Iraqis get their act together (again, theoretically).

8/16/2007 2:56:40 PM

The thing is we can do this





WE STAY IN IRAQ



WE BEAT THE INSURGENTS


We build them schools and temples so they know we care because if we leave they'll think the arab lies about us going to war for oil will be true


if we stay we can make an example out of iraq and they could help us beat iran

8/16/2007 3:00:00 PM

Quote :

"Anti-war activists will say that the continued American presence inspires militias to attack civilians to drive the Americans out"

I think anti war people will say there wouldn't have been any attacks had we not invaded.

8/16/2007 3:13:11 PM

^ exactly, had there been no war, there wouldn't be any issue.

^^ are you in middle school?

8/16/2007 3:17:21 PM

well they keep blowing up each others temples so if we help them build them back the people will start trusting us
because the religion is really important to the arabs

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM. Reason : the sunnys and the other ones that kill each other]

8/16/2007 3:19:47 PM

Quote :

"I think anti war people will say there wouldn't have been any attacks had we not invaded."

They certainly say that too in order to rightly place blame on the current situation with the administration. Yet to justify pulling out while answering the question of a potential humanitarian disaster (answering the "Pottery Barn" question), they need a response such as the American-inspired insurgency answer (or plans to just partition the country).

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 5:24 PM. Reason : .]

8/16/2007 5:23:57 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we turn a blind eye to Iraq's previous humanitarian nightmare when we were allies with Saddam? Or did that occur when we were no longer allies? And did he seriously get those chemicals from us?

Quote :

"I think we're running on a pattern right now of one major war every 10 to 20 years."

Keyword: major. It seems like we're always involved in something.

8/16/2007 6:46:42 PM

We should pull out and pay reparations.

At least that would have a chance of improving the humanitarian situation.

8/16/2007 7:44:38 PM

Quote :

"We should pull out and pay reparations. At least that would have a chance of improving the humanitarian situation."

Funniest thing I have read all day.

8/16/2007 8:46:38 PM

Quote :

"As with Sudan and Ethiopia, there's no a damn thing we can do to prevent ignorant people from killing other ignorant people."

You do realize that in Sudan, the problem is that mercenaries armed by the national government are killing innocent civilians by the droves while the government denies any wrong doing...

And I don't mean with machetes and Kalashnikovs like in Rwanda, but with helicopter gunships and bombers painted to look like civilian airliners.

8/16/2007 8:48:03 PM

Quote :

"Funniest thing I have read all day."

I'm completely serious.

That's what I'd do if I were in charge.

8/16/2007 9:15:13 PM

Quote :

"actually the admin is already looking into ways to censor a full report,"

i'm not sure how in the hell you got that from the article you posted, but I guess if you want to look hard enough, maybe you can make 2+2 = 5

8/16/2007 10:16:58 PM

^ looking....

Quote :

"White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony."

looking....

Quote :

" Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told the White House that Bush's presentation plan was unacceptable. An aide to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said that "we are in talks with the administration and . . . Senator Levin wants an open hearing" with Petraeus."

still looking....

Quote :

"Those positions only hardened yesterday with reports that the document would not be written by the Army general but instead would come from the White House, with input from Petraeus, Crocker and other administration officials."

Found! I guess either 2+2=5, or aaronburro just got:



[Edited on August 17, 2007 at 12:20 AM. Reason : ef]

8/17/2007 12:19:21 AM

Quote :

"If the Right Wing of the Republican party pulls us out, we will not be back, and will be safer, more prosperous, and most importantly, a more morally respectable country. "

This type of ignorant narrow minded thinking is why Iraq is such a mess.

Because every country should have good ole American Christian morals . Kinda like how Iran thinks every country needs to have the morals of a good Fundamentalist Islamic Society.

8/20/2007 9:56:59 AM