If we pulled the troops

Can't help but wonder what would/will happen if/when the troops are pulled.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=48585

 

Do you suppose a lot of young Americans would avoid serious injury and death, it seems like that would be one outcome. As for in Iraq it would probably cool down, we are inciting all that crap over there.

 

cool down, yeah right.

 

It will be all out civil war...sadr top guys have said as much...one top aid was quoted with this bright prediction: When the US leaves, much blood will spill, then shiites will take over completely and it will gradually get better...

He pretty much said that the shiites will slaughter the sunni and take over...at this point I say...whatever. Have at it...let the civil war happen...let the shiites take over (something we spent 20 years trying to prevent)...let them institute harsh shira law...Iraq becomes Irans biggest ally...but at least we got rid of Saddam (the only real secular government in the middle east).

 

Don't worry, the media will tell us and the rest of the world we are wrong either way...

 

BTW...I should explain that I thought the Shiites were worse than Saddam which is why I was against this action...knowing that the Shiites were a majority and would take over once we removed the only thing keeping these Islamic fundies at bay.

I am not saying Saddam was good, in some ways he was, he was secular, he was western friendly (at one time), he was progressive in some ways (women's rights and education), He industrialized Iraq...almost any source will say that in the first 10 year of his rule Iraq made leaps and bounds into the 20th century and Iraq was seen as a model of a modern middle eastern nation with one of the highest living standards, educational standards, women's rights, etc...he went out of control. I may sound nuts to some, but I think Iranian backed Shiite fundies WERE trying to kill him, not because he was brutal and mean because they are as well...they wanted him dead because they could not stand living in a progressive nation that was not run on Islamic laws they wanted to over throw the government because the mean and cruel wasn't their brand of mean and cruel, they wanted to make Iraq into another Iran. I think thats why we backed him in the beginning and turned a blind eye to many of his...misdeeds.

Certainly he went too far and started becoming aggressive towards those we DIDN'T want him to be aggressive towards...if he had attacked Iran again...I dont think we would have tried very hard to stop him. I am starting to think that brutality is just the norm there and I cannot see any way to change that...it didnt start with Saddam...it was already there well before him. He was the dam holding back a flood of Shiite power grabs...those Shiite graves? maybe they needed to be made...maybe if there was a group like the Shiite fundies here in America we would understand why things were the way they were there and why maybe someone like Saddam was just a sad necessity. I do not see them as victims of Saddam...I them as just as brutal trying to implement just as brutal (if not much worse because its fundie Muslim under ayatollahs) government.

If it is between and ayatollah or a secular dictator...I have to say, give me the later....

The only ones I feel sorry for in this situation are the very real moderates who might be stuck there...many have simply fled the country...others cannot get out...those people who are not political or overly religious...the doctors, shopkeepers, family people and hard workers who just wanted to live their lives. Under Saddam...they had to watch what they said and did...but they could drive on decent roads, they had water, electricity, and a surprising amount of freedom in everyday life as long as they steered clear of politics. Now the nice cities and roads and infrastructure is destroyed...women are back to wearing burkas...

I also feel for the kurds...I think they deserve their own nations to get away from all the crap nut jobs down south...I feel sorry for our men there who are now in what might seem like a quagmire, damned if you do, damned if you dont situation.

I am not an apologist for Saddam...he was brutal and terrible.... If there was something I thought we could do to make people want freedom...a secular progressive government...I would say we should do it...I just dont think there is anything we or anyone can do sadly. If I thought that once we remove Saddam that all would get better...I would be overjoyed and gladly say I was wrong when I thought going there in the way we did was a bad idea...I do not assume we were wrong in what we were trying to do...I just think they didnt want what we were offering at all... just a few opinions.

 

Saddam was never pro-west. He would use the west when it fit his purpose but he was never pro-west. He was a member of the Baath party and based his regime on Stalin. Even his statues and public wall paintings had that eastern european feel. And oh yes, Stalin also industrialized Russia.

As for leaving Iraq, perhaps it is in the best interests that the United States allow the Sunnis and Shias to continue their holy war against each other. Remember the more busy they are killing each other the less non-muslims they get to kill.

 

you misunderstand...his society was westernized. He was a leader in the pan-arabic secular movement. Indeed he was FAR more willing to work with the west than say...Iran...but I should say they were 'westernized'. Without a doubt he liked the secular western style lifestyle. Russia is westernized in this sense as well. How he was painted in portraits has nothing to do with the western style society that flourished there at one time that stood in stark contrast to what was around him. Women could wear mini skirts for god sakes...he wasnt an islamic government...this is almost unheard of in the area...just one of many many many reasons why he was our partner there.

And to say he was western friendly only when it suited him...of course...we are middle eastern friendly when it suits us...its politics and nations...countries are out for their own best interest...but then again...even if it were in Irans best interest to be friendly to the US (and it would as we could dump money for oil there), they still wouldnt...so...he was willing to work with us whether it was in his interests or not doesnt matter.

All the same...I am not a fan of him, I was just giving a few opinions, I wont defend him.

 

Iran could not be happier with the developments in Iraq. They are just licking their lips waiting for and contributing to the eventual failure of U.S. forces. We have given Iran something they could not achieve on their own namely a friendly neighbor and the lion's share of the Middle East. I just have to wonder if they are even going to bother to send George Bush a Thank You note. Probably not those rude bast***ds!

The Saudis have to be throwing up in their keffiyehs over all of this.

 

yeah...that was my main point, in the end, we have negated many years worth of work fostering someone who would oppose Iran...now...if we leave...we will be handing Iraq to them.

 

But on the other hand, if we don't leave, the situation will not improve, will not get worse, but will bog us down there for the foreseeable future. The same thing we did to the former USSR in Afghanistan. They lasted, what, ten years before they pulled out with no appreciable gains? They just had a body count of 15,000 soldiers to show for their efforts. In an ill-conceived venture, you sometimes have to cut your losses.

 

yep...and after they left...look what afghanistan became...a ****hole with one of the most oppressive islamic governments that made Saudi Arabia look like the land of the free.

 

So now we are back to my idea of building a great big base out in the middle of Anbar and watching from the sidelines as they kill each other and helping them where we can.

 

thats not your idea...I am sure you have heard of what we are already going to be building there...they call it embassy...I call it a military base:

The United States is building a massive embassy complex in the heart of Baghdad that is already becoming a symbol of America's imperial ambitions in the Middle East.

nearly $1 billion to build the largest embassy in the world. A significant portion of that money is for security infrastructure. This future "fortress" is housed in Saddam Hussein's former palace -- providing more bad symbolism to the Iraqis.​

eventually house a U.S. staff of 5,000. According to a recent report in the Washington Post, it has more than twice the staff and 20 times the budget of our Beijing embassy. The embassy will surpass all others in terms of size and staffing. We will be attempting to legitimize our presence with a "negotiated" agreement with the government of Iraq. ​

 

The US rarely leaves anyplace we set up military operations. Vietnam is the only major exception I can think of, and that was for obvious reasons. The presence in Iraq will probably be maintained for the remaining lifetime of everyone in this forum unless we are militarily defeated. This will happen regardless of political party in office.

 

project power, build bases, spread democracy. These are the tenets we should be living by. You want to be the world freaking police we're gonna have to put some people in jail. You want us to give aid to some countries, then we should get something back, concessions, oil, gold, blood diamonds, land, bases, friendly governments!

 

If anyone still believes this country is interested in building democracies, study what we did to the democratically elected government in Chile. Democracy is nice but if it doesn't meet our needs, it is quickly disposed of in favor of the next best alternative. Often that alternative is a military dictatorship.

 

Hamas is another example. They were democratically elected but still unacceptable to the US. Spreading democracy is just a head fake.

 

Please, what was the election..The PLO a terrorist group against Hamas another Terrorist Group.
In Japan and in Germany puppet governments were propped up after World War II and first they had the Emperor of Japan tell his people he was not divine and in Germany the cult of nazism was outlawed. We did nothing with the arab muslims. What we needed to do was set up puppet governments that gave women equal rights as men and then quite down the clerics. For democracy to truly work, and not the generals in Turkey or Pakistan that run the show, in the muslim world then Islam needed to be undermined step by step and it would have taken a few generations.
Bush forgot that democracy starts out as a seed not as a Burning Bush that is quickly embraced or understood. For remember even if our president is a bush he is not god.

 

There were many secular democratic governments set up in the Middle East after WWII. The rise of Muslim fundamentism came about in the 70's in response to many of these corrupt western leaning governments. We sort of helped to creat this problem and now we are seeing the problems that our earlier interference help set up. The question is how do we deal with it now? But you still have to acknowledge the roots of the problem if you want to avoid repeating them.