OT: What would happen if the US left Iraq completely tomorrow?

[smrz]

Originally posted by gr8fuldodd without really knowing what you are talking about, I know that there is no military that can stand up to the US when the US leaves a military conflict, it's for strategy or political reasons you're not going to convince me for one second that the US military can't defeat a muslim military force stopping day to day terrorism is a different story

 

 

the us army is making huge tactical errors, in part due to Rumsfeld's technocentric military fantasies. while the us military may have a greater budget by double than any other military in the world, and more high tech fighters, that doesn't mean they know how to fight a conflict...

 

in a sense, its a moot point whether we're talking about "day to day terrorism." the goal in the iraq invasion wasn't only to defeat hussein's military force. that was the easy part. the goal was to turn iraq into a "beacon of freedom" (or whatever they call it), a shining symbol of western democracy in the middle east. that, to say the least, this is not happening.

[NoKingButChrist]

I guess I will weigh in.

Saddam=tyrant=the cork who kept the genie of radical Shiite Islam in the bottle. Have fun getting in back in. My guess is that only another authoritarian will have the brutality it takes to do so.

The US leave Iraq? Only if we pull out it in defeat or mock victory. Ironically, winning means we will maintain a presence in Iraq indefinitely. Such a base would be too strategic to abandon. After all, the US still has bases in Germany and Japan.

[rushtallica]

Originally posted by gr8fuldodd I don't think Israel had their "asses handed to them" they had to leave due to political pressure I have to say, I don't know about the 6 times the US has turned and ran when Muslims have risen up please fill me in without really knowing what you are talking about, I know that there is no military that can stand up to the US when the US leaves a military conflict, it's for strategy or political reasons you're not going to convince me for one second that the US military can't defeat a muslim military force stopping day to day terrorism is a different story but I don't think lumping the "western" nations together really tells us anything furthermore, I never considered the Russians "western"

 

 

A major + 1.

 

There's definitely a difference, as well, between committing only a very limited force of soldiers in an area such as Somalia and having an all-out war with such a place. Political pressure has played a major role in the choices made in the past. People probably thought we couldn't fight Afghanistan back when we only launched a few missiles in to try and get OBL, but the political climate changed after 9/11, and the result is that there was almost no real opposition.

 

And I agree with the part about there being a difference between winning a war and preventing/stopping terrorism. The situation has to be right or it won't work. I don't imagine it working anytime soon in Israel, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

[Mistersuperfly]

We leave now and every different sect the Muslim community would drive the country deep into civil war in attempt to gain control... Iraq would be in a state of destruction for decades, and when all is said and done there would be left a country of war-mongers who despise the United States for ever starting the whole thing in the first place.

[gr8fuldodd]

Originally posted by Mistersuperfly We leave now and every different sect the Muslim community would drive the country deep into civil war in attempt to gain control... Iraq would be in a state of destruction for decades, and when all is said and done there would be left a country of war-mongers who despise the United States for ever starting the whole thing in the first place.

 

 

meh

the people there's plenty of people that hate the US

what difference does it make whether they're b/w the Iraq borders or Iran, Syria's, etc?

[gr8fuldodd]

Originally posted by MidnightOil It's true that US army is the king at the SKIES( I mean aerial war) and may be at the seas( with huge War Ships) with all that high tech toys. But, in the LAND war( where the real war begins chest to chest)......no go friend sorryy.. It is the land War that determines the outcome.

Are you {censored}ting me?

[MidnightOil]

Hey,


My point was clear....

PS: No. I'm not {censored}tin' anybody, look at IRAQ, Vietnam, ......

[gr8fuldodd]

Originally posted by MidnightOil Hey, My point was clear.... PS: No. I'm not {censored}tin' anybody, look at IRAQ, Vietnam, ......

where to start...

Vietnam. My father was a part of Operation Gamewarden. He's done extensive research on the conflict. He told me that there was a point in time when the goals of that operation were totally completed. But then politics got involved. Take a look at the statistics however. 1.1 million NVA were killed compared to 58 thousand US soldiers. Not exactly an ass kicking.
I wish no one had died in that war because the US shouldn't have been there. But they left (and rightly so) after public support for the war no longer existed.

In Iraq I would say it's about the same thing. Obviously it took a very short amount of time to topple Baghdad.

It is very difficult to get people to participate in democracy, especially when forces beyoned their control like death squads and warlords stand in their way. I don't think imposing democracy by force is the right way to go. A public must fight for that and it must happen organically from within the society.

But this is not the argument we're having here my friend. You have asserted that the US ground forces are somehow not as stout as others. This is sheer lunacy. I would think that WII would tell you all you have to know about the American soldier.

I suppose the Turks could take them though

[percyexpat]

Originally posted by jasonfuzz Terrorist = Every brown person ever there I said it.

 

 

What the hell is this, the bass forum?

 

US leaves = horrendous, bloody civil war for a few years and eventually someone not entirerly unSaddamesque will take power again.

 

US stays = horrendous, bloody civil war for a few years and eventually the US gets fed up and installs someone not entirerly unSaddamesque to take power again and keep a lid on things (which is how Saddam got the job in the first place).

 

Or, Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria annex various parts of Iraq as they see fit and the US tries to blow them up (they're already making noises about positioning war ships as a 'warning' to Iran). This wouldn't quite be WWIII but it'd be pretty {censored}ing bad.

 

Take your pick.

[gr8fuldodd]

Originally posted by percyexpat What the hell is this, the bass forum? US leaves = horrendous, bloody civil war for a few years and eventually someone not entirerly unSaddamesque will take power again. US stays = horrendous, bloody civil war for a few years and eventually the US gets fed up and installs someone not entirerly unSaddamesque to take power again and keep a lid on things (which is how Saddam got the job in the first place). Or, Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria annex various parts of Iraq as they see fit and the US tries to blow them up (they're already making noises about positioning war ships as a 'warning' to Iran). This wouldn't quite be WWIII but it'd be pretty {censored}ing bad. Take your pick.

 

 

Ah ha! Exactly.

That's why I say leave now.

My heart aches for the families that are being destroyed over this.

[MidnightOil]

"I suppose the Turks could take them though "

I guess we would have made a deal with Saddam against Oil... instead of getting involved in a war. And since we have forseen where this war would lead in a couple of years, we never did get involved in it.(Didn't let the US. troops pass through our territories. But our politicians worked hard to convince our strategic partner US that this war was going to turn IRAQ in to a Hell Hole.)

Now I am thinking it would have been wise for Saddam and GW Bush to sit on a table and made a decent deal instead a fighting. But they both had bad feelings for each other I suppose.

As much as I hated that SOB Saddam, now its clear he is needed there again how sad....

And yes I agree that when US pulls out (which looks like couple more years later) IRAQ will become worse than today even if it is divided into 3 sectors.

[elctmist]

I suspect the biggest unknown factor is the price of oil.

As mentioned if the U.S leaves there will be a massive bloody civil war with Iraq and Saudi Arabia supporting their sides and getting drawn into the conflict. Possibly Turkey gets involved to stop a free Kurdish state as well.

There's no way to know what about long-term political effects in the region or what kind of problems it might bring for the U.S. the future so I'm not even going to try.

If Saudi and Iraq get into some sort of proxy conflict in Iraq, as seems a strong possibility I could see that drastically increasing the price of oil -- two of the major producers in the middle east going at it can't be good news. I suspect it could make the $5 gallon look like a bargin.

[MidnightOil]

Originally posted by elctmist I Turkey gets involved to stop a free Kurdish state as well.

This is true, we have been eyeballing the territory( Kerkuk and other major Northern cities) which were previously owned by us, but were taken away by Lozan agreement as I recall.

As for US geting involved in a war with IRAN,....oh boy oh boy... here comes WWIII for sure. Russsians and Chineese may get involved(suppliers of the Nuclear tech. knowledge to them)........ But no US will not do that. They will probably bomb couple of Nuclear plants which will cause IRAN to throw every missle to ISRAEL and start WWIII anyway....

Make love not war... ( yes sound so absurd to me too)

[gr8fuldodd]

Originally posted by elctmist Possibly Turkey gets involved to stop a free Kurdish state as well.

 

 

So why is Turkey so against the Kurds having their own state if it isn't infringing on their borders?

[elctmist]

Originally posted by gr8fuldodd So why is Turkey so against the Kurds having their own state if it isn't infringing on their borders?

 

 

V. long standing disagreement, i think the kurds should be free but I suspect the US will want to keep their flyover rights so it won't happen.

[MidnightOil]

Originally posted by gr8fuldodd So why is Turkey so against the Kurds having their own state if it isn't infringing on their borders?

Thats the whole point, it is not their borders its IRAQ's border..see

Well...its more complicated than Kurds having their own land..The story is different. Kurds are slaughtering our people for many years both in and out of our borders( now they are doing it to Turkmens in IRAQ) with the support of some European Countries previously and now we know by the support of who. Kurds have always been used by many countries against us as a puppet. We used to have a developed relationship with both Barzani and Talabani before the war in IRAQ hey they even used to carry Turkish passports. But with the arrival of US Troops( we don't now what they promised them...oh yes Talabani is the President now right?), they chose to betray us, and cut a deal with US. Now US is using them as puppets against us. Thats their destiny.

We need to look at the history of Turks and Kurds before we make a judgement about why we are against( which we are for many reasons, that type of things.) We didn't used to have a conflict with them, but other countries who have plans on us have been using them as a cause for sometime now....They never had any plans or reasons of having their own state some years ago, but now others put that in their minds and armed them against us. Its a shame since we have the same ancestors with them, we are relatives with them.

Thats shortly the reason.

PS: Oh yes, if we have let the US troops pass thorugh our land for the war in IRAQ, this problem would'be here right now? Am I right? But relationships between the countries is always a chess game. Neither US nor Turkey can afford to make themselves enemy for each other. They are just trying to make use of each other accordingly. Which is completely natural.

[gr8fuldodd]

Originally posted by MidnightOil Thats the whole point, it is not their borders its IRAQ's border..see Well...its more complicated than Kurds having their own land..The story is different. Kurds are slaughtering our people for many years both in and out of our borders( now they are doing it to Turkmens in IRAQ) with the support of some European Countries previously and now we know by the support of who. Kurds have always been used by many countries against us as a puppet. We used to have a developed relationship with both Barzani and Talabani before the war in IRAQ hey they even used to carry Turkish passports. But with the arrival of US Troops( we don't now what they promised them...oh yes Talabani is the President now right?), they chose to betray us, and cut a deal with US. Now US is using them as puppets against us. Thats their destiny. We need to look at the history of Turks and Kurds before we make a judgement about why we are against( which we are for many reasons, that type of things.) We didn't used to have a conflict with them, but other countries who have plans on us have been using them as a cause for sometime now....They never had any plans or reasons of having their own state some years ago, but now others put that in their minds and armed them against us. Its a shame since we have the same ancestors with them, we are relatives with them. Thats shortly the reason.

 

 

well that doesn't sound like anything that can't be solved with a nice potluck at the park

who's bringing the tater salad?

[Brian Marshall]

for over a year, the shiites, and sunis have been killing each other, and all american forces can do is get in their way.

This is a war, that never should have been. I was against it from the day bush uttered the words "axis of evil" That was name calling, and no different than chavez calling bush the devil. Not to mention that none of those countries were alied. wtf

then the ever shifting reason for the war... WMD, Regime change, Decmocracy in the middle east, war on terror...

What used to piss me off was that back in '03, everyone seemed to think it was a great idea, and just seemed blind to all the warning signs, and arrogance of the administration. People speaking out against cause for a war, were smeared, at best, and conspired against at worst.

Guess what all you pundits, commentors, and news people. This is just as much upon you, as the government. If i hear another phrase that starts out with "well, initially i was for the war, but..." I'm going to throw my TV through my window.

And it's not just them, its the citizens of our country. The iraq was is like a bullet wound to the head to america given to us by GWB. In 04, we had a chance to at the very least send a message. Kerry would have been a bandaid on a bullet wound, but why stick with the guy that shot us in the first place????

Now everyone seems to be waking up... and acting like they are smart about it or something. {censored} that, the alarm clock has been going off at 130db since before we even invaded Iraq, and you want credit for something???? YOU WERE THE GOD DAMNED PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Saddam got the death scentence for gassing a few kurds. Well, since we have invaded, conservative estimates say well over 100,000 iraqis have died as a result.

as for iraq, if we leave, people will die... but they are dying anyways. We have stayed to long to be effective. There was a moment after baghdad fell that we had a chance to do this right. It's long gone.

I have no hope that the Iraq study group, or cabinet changes will make any difference. It's a dollar short and a day late.

[MidnightOil]

Originally posted by gr8fuldodd well that doesn't sound like anything that can't be solved with a nice potluck at the park who's bringing the tater salad?

Darn right!!... I'm bringing the Beer, whos bringing the the strip dancers?

[gr8fuldodd]

Originally posted by Brian Marshall If i hear another phrase that starts out with "well, initially i was for the war, but..." I'm going to throw my TV through my window.

 

 

time for you to make like Keith Moon...

I agree with everything you said

unfortunately, I was one of those people that agreed we should go in

and it was difficult for me to arrive at that place since I'm a fairly liberal, peacenik

but I fell victim to the lies about the WMD

if you want to tell me I was a fool for believing that crap, then fine

but it's the truth

[Brian Marshall]

Originally posted by gr8fuldodd time for you to make like Keith Moon... I agree with everything you said unfortunately, I was one of those people that agreed we should go in and it was difficult for me to arrive at that place since I'm a fairly liberal, peacenik but I fell victim to the lies about the WMD if you want to tell me I was a fool for believing that crap, then fine but it's the truth

 

 

You were a fool... but. to be honest, it's the media that bugs me the most... they all want to be heros for changing their minds, even though they fell down on the job in the first place.

 

Guess the execs wanted war to boost ratings for those 24 hour news channels.

[Nico de Roode]

There is now way that this is gonna end peacefully. And it was very naive to think otherwise.

[gil1]

We should have gone in to Afghanistan, kicked ass, then helped rebuild the infrastructure while showing American respect for moderate Muslim culture. Built moderate Muslim support and international support through that.

A few years after that we would be in a better position to see what to do with Saddam, with Afghanistan settled down, and our international standing secure, able to move without being over extended. Of course, not giving away our national surplus in tax breaks to the rich would have helped us to not be over extended financially.

We had, and still have, an uncompleted, and maybe uncompletable at this point, job in Afghanistan. {censored}ing unreal that the initial issue has been so drowned out by the ill-advised action in Iraq, though at this point we almost have no choice but to pay primary attention to it.

As far as what would happen if we left tomorrow, Iraq would continue in internal battles, we would continue to look like assholes, and Bush Co, Inc would loose their oil-grab. And we would eat some humble pie, which would be for the best.

[gil1]

Originally posted by percyexpat What the hell is this, the bass forum? US leaves = horrendous, bloody civil war for a few years and eventually someone not entirerly unSaddamesque will take power again. US stays = horrendous, bloody civil war for a few years and eventually the US gets fed up and installs someone not entirerly unSaddamesque to take power again and keep a lid on things (which is how Saddam got the job in the first place). ..... Take your pick.

 

 

 

+1000

 

That's what usually happens when we try to micromanage other countries governments.

[PeelingPaint98]

Originally posted by gr8fuldodd I never bought that argument. You can fight for freedom without blowing up civilians, women, and children indiscriminately.

 

What is this garbage? Blowing up civillians has been a tennent of war forever, it is the best way to break the moral of an army. A small poorly armed group would be stupid to target anything else but civillians.

Now some of you might freak out at this statement and let me further prelude this by saying, shut up and don't vote because you are entirely to uninformed.

This false morality and stupidity thinking that that the insurgents or al queda or whatever the hell the enemies name is today should fight up to our level is just retarded thinking.

Guess what america, we are fighting the same idiot way the british did in the american revolution, this is a new type of enemy that needs to be fought in a new type of way, and sadly our military and public are woefully unprepared to fight down to their level.

So we should creep out of iraq with our tails between our legs, because unless you are prepared to commit genocide on some level or pump money that we don't have into a country that may or may not end up friendly with us, there is no way we can "win"