Withdrawal from Iraq - Is it the right move?

[OldCorpse]

Most Americans think we should withdraw. However, there is a significant minority that thinks withdrawing will make the situation in Iraq worse. Surprisingly, some of that minority are Democrats.

So is withdrawal from Iraq the right move? Many people pretend to have the answer. Here, a very interesting person who does not pretend to have clairvoyance, has his view:

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2786/Rory_Stewart_Discusses_Withdrawal

Quote:

"What would I do in Iraq now? I am not an expert, but I believe that the time has come to withdraw, that our presence is infantilizing the Iraqi political system. That we're like an inadequate antibiotic. We are sufficiently strong to have turned what might have been a conventional civil war into a highly unconventional neighborhood conflict. But we're not strong enough to eliminate it entirely. At the same time I fear that, without intending to, we have discredited democracy in the eyes of many Iraqis. We have created a situation in which many Iraqis now feel that the only way to keep security is to bring back a strongman. They are extremely skeptical of our programs and suggestions for development.

I think that Iraqi politicians are considerably more competent, canny, and capable of compromise than we acknowledge. Iraqi nationalism, in my view, can trump the Shiite–Sunni divisions. Our continuing presence is encouraging Iraqi politicians to play hard-ball with each other. Were we to leave, they would be weaker and under more pressure to compromise. In our relations with the Iraqis we often blocked negotiations with Moqtada al-Sadr or Sunni insurgency leaders, or the offer of troop withdrawals and amnesties for former Baathists and insurgents, among others. Yet these will probably be elements in any kind of settlement.

And therefore, my belief—and I emphasize this is my belief, not a certainty—is that were we to withdraw, things would improve. I say belief because that may not be the case. I can't predict the future. Iraq and its neighbors and its internal forces are extremely difficult to understand."

[leekohler]

Of course things will get worse when we withdraw. I think that's a given. The only issue is when we withdraw. Nothing can stop the bloodshed that's going to occur once we leave, no matter when that is. Nothing is going to stop the hatred amongst the Sunnis and Shiites nad the Iraqi government won't even begin to worry about security until we leave.

[emw]

My belief is that if we were to withdraw, things would immediately get better.

For our troops, that is. Which is why, I think, most Americans favor withdrawal. Truth be told, I don't think most of us consider the impact on Iraq. We don't really care. We're pissed that we were misled into this war and simply want to get our troops out of there so we can stop burying them.

For the Iraqis, I think things would get much worse in the short term as factions fight for power in the space we leave behind. Longer term, things will improve - although I tend to think that democracy as we live it (such that it is) will not take hold in Iraq for some time, if ever. That's a significant cultural change, and isn't something you simply go and put into place and expect it to work immediately.

This is why withdrawal is more complex. We screwed up their country. Maybe it wasn't the best place before; Saddam was a ruthless dictator. But he was their dictator to dispose of, not ours. As a result of our interference, we've likely left them worse off than they were before we got there. And so simply pulling out and telling them "sorry we screwed you over; we'll be leaving now" makes some people uneasy. Although I'd tend to believe that it's the best thing we could do, both for Iraq and for ourselves.

Of course, I could be surprised - the Iraqis could be so happy we got the hell out that they'll actually work together just to spite us. But I doubt it.

[princealfie]

We should leave immediately regardless of the consequences. Shouldn't have entered the cookie jar in the first place.

[Dr.Gargoyle]

The Iraq situation is really interesting since no matter what you do, it will end in a huge disaster.
If there is a pull back, al-Quida controlled groups would be able to operate freely in the Sunni controlled areas. Moreover, it would leave Iraq open up for Iran to move forward their positions in the shiite areas and make Iran the controlling peace in the Mideast.
Somehow that prospect just doesn't appeal to me.

If US tries to tough it out, the bloodshed will go on forever. Just look at a similar conflict Israel/Palestine. The will soon celebrate their 60th anniversary.

What did Rumsfeld say now again? "they will greet us in the streets with flowers and flags."

I am most likely one of few people that actually have been to Iraq just before Desert war. I was in Fao at the build up before the Kuwait invasion. How it was possible to miss the massive gathering of troops and tanks is still a mystery to me.
Iraq at the time was like another country ruled by a insane paranoid dictator. Any opposition, religious movements as well believed political opponents were killed without a trial. How anyone in their right mind could have believed Saddam supported a religious group that despised him is beyond me, or even worse being able to sell the idea without any noticeable resistance.

[geese]

I am most likely one of few people that actually have been to Iraq just before Dessert war.

I cant imagine what that would have been like! Trifles, Ice-creams and jelly being thrown all over the shop:D

Sorry, couldn't help it.:o

[Dr.Gargoyle]

I cant imagine what that would have been like! Trifles, Ice-creams and jelly being thrown all over the shop:D

Sorry, couldn't help it.:o
LOL, I had that one coming...Too much emotions makes my spelling even worse than normal.

[Chef Medeski]

I think this is unfair for the Iraqis. I mean they did not do anything wrong. Their country gets invaded. Their industries, goverment, entire economy is turned upside down. And then you leave. How much do you really need to hurt Iraqis? It wasnt enough that America helped bring Saddam to power. That America supplied Saddam with Chemical weapons and allowed him to use them against Iraqis while vetoing any UN investigations into the use of them. Set up useless sanctions throughout the 90s. And finally invaded. ****ed up the entire country. And then left. Like seriously, is it any wonder why Iraqis think we are *******s? Like how deep to you need to penetrate their asses before you say they have been ******** over enough.

We should leave immediately regardless of the consequences. Shouldn't have entered the cookie jar in the first place.
So you think thats fair to the Iraqis? We ****ed up. So... ah yeah I'm just going to leave now. Thats like accidently knocking up a girl since you were half drunk and half forgot to use a condom (I didnt draw up the war plans!) and then bolt the minute she looks at u with that face. Is that the kind of person you want to be?

[zimv20]

half forgot to use a condom
"half?"

is that like taking it out of the package but not putting it on? or maybe it's putting on the wrapper by mistake...

[Chef Medeski]

"half?"

is that like taking it out of the package but not putting it on? or maybe it's putting on the wrapper by mistake...

Its sort of like knowing you need troops to invade a country, you really did not plan past that point. I guess taking it out and just leaving it on the floor would be a good analogy.

[geese]

So you think thats fair to the Iraqis? We ****ed up. So... ah yeah I'm just going to leave now. Thats like accidently knocking up a girl since you were half drunk and half forgot to use a condom (I didnt draw up the war plans!) and then bolt the minute she looks at u with that face. Is that the kind of person you want to be?

Its not fair at all. But do the coalition forces have the ability to improve things in Iraq at this point? That was the thrust of the original article.

Leaving might not be the most 'just' thing to do, but it might be the only thing the coalition is actually *able* to that might help Iraq.

[OldCorpse]

So... ah yeah I'm just going to leave now. Thats like accidently knocking up a girl since you were half drunk and half forgot to use a condom (I didnt draw up the war plans!) and then bolt the minute she looks at u with that face. Is that the kind of person you want to be?

Interesting.

Now let us see if we can make the analogy more accurate. If Iraq is the girl in this scenario, then it's clearly more accurate to say she wasn't willing. It was therefore rape.

As to plans not drawn up carefully - well, what can you say, our charmer is a spontaneous kinda guy. He doesn't do careful planning, he just makes up some lies and steps out for the night. He didn't plan out all the details. He thought he'd just pounce on her, deliver a few blows, she'd go into shock and awe, and give him her flower. Unfortunately he didn't plan on her resisting. She's still fighting. I guess he'll have to keep bludgeoning her until she no longer moves. That's when he'll be satisfied and can slink out with a clean conscience - cause you know, he doesn't want her to follow him home. Anyhow, she was asking for it, right? She provoked him, right? And you know how they are - she likes it! Besides, what if the whole neighborhood gets up in arms... there's that Syria guy, the Iran guy and so on - if he leaves now, they'll see him defeated by a girl, and his honor just can't stand that, cause as Cheney said "we want to come back with honor", see it's honor that keeping the rapist from leaving. Honor. Gotta keep raping. The night is still young.

[Chef Medeski]

Its not fair at all. But do the coalition forces have the ability to improve things in Iraq at this point? That was the thrust of the original article.

Leaving might not be the most 'just' thing to do, but it might be the only thing the coalition is actually *able* to that might help Iraq.

No I do believe the forces can still help Iraq. Probably not in their current numbers. Nah scratch that, probably still in their current numbers they can help Iraq. They really do would be smart to go after UN help. Like seriously.

[Chef Medeski]

Interesting.

Now let us see if we can make the analogy more accurate. If Iraq is the girl in this scenario, then it's clearly more accurate to say she wasn't willing. It was therefore rape.

As to plans not drawn up carefully - well, what can you say, our charmer is a spontaneous kinda guy. He doesn't do careful planning, he just makes up some lies and steps out for the night. He didn't plan out all the details. He thought he'd just pounce on her, deliver a few blows, she'd go into shock and awe, and give him her flower. Unfortunately he didn't plan on her resisting. She's still fighting. I guess he'll have to keep bludgeoning her until she no longer moves. That's when he'll be satisfied and can slink out with a clean conscience - cause you know, he doesn't want her to follow him home. Anyhow, she was asking for it, right? She provoked him, right? And you know how they are - she likes it! Besides, what if the whole neighborhood gets up in arms... there's that Syria guy, the Iran guy and so on - if he leaves now, they'll see him defeated by a girl, and his honor just can't stand that, cause as Cheney said "we want to come back with honor", see it's honor that keeping the rapist from leaving. Honor. Gotta keep raping. The night is still young.

Umm... well I think a great deterrent to the "continual rapage" of small, third world country were if the US actually had to clean up the mess after they made it. They've been smart in recent times to merely pay off terrorist groups to do their dirty work in Afghanistan, Columbia, Kosovo. Then you never have to worry about the mess-up afterwards cause it looks like it wasn't you who raped them. But you see on this positive ID of US as rapee, I think a great motivation to stop is to have to deal with the child.

[OldCorpse]

Umm... well I think a great deterrent to the "continual rapage" of small, third world country were if the US actually had to clean up the mess after they made it. They've been smart in recent times to merely pay off terrorist groups to do their dirty work in Afghanistan, Columbia, Kosovo. Then you never have to worry about the mess-up afterwards cause it looks like it wasn't you who raped them. But you see on this positive ID of US as rapee, I think a great motivation to stop is to have to deal with the child.

I think a great deterrent to the rapist would be to remove his balls, not give him an opportunity to molest the child of his rape victim.

Here's how you remove: we pass laws which prohibit war unless we are attacked, or another country is attacked. Any president who breaks that law by conspiring to forge evidence and lie us into a war should face mandatory trial with execution if found guilty. Same consequences for war profiteers, and their wealth is then confiscated and paid as reparations.

That would go a lot further in stopping the criminals than giving them more chances to steal from the till in the guise of "helping" the 3rd world country they raped in the first place.

[Chef Medeski]

I think a great deterrent to the rapist would be to remove his balls, not give him an opportunity to molest the child of his rape victim.

Here's how you remove: we pass laws which prohibit war unless we are attacked, or another country is attacked. Any president who breaks that law by conspiring to forge evidence and lie us into a war should face mandatory trial with execution if found guilty. Same consequences for war profiteers, and their wealth is then confiscated and paid as reparations.

That would go a lot further in stopping the criminals than giving them more chances to steal from the till in the guise of "helping" the 3rd world country they raped in the first place.
I believe those checks and balances as we like to coin them are present in the constitution. But when a president walks all over them.... well checks and balance really just became fancy little words.

I definitely think a trial is in order. Death penalty. Nah... I prefer recuitment into the army and he foots the bill of the war or as much as the repo man can snatch.



Helping. LOL. This is trying to clean up a mess, little different form helping.

[OldCorpse]

I believe those checks and balances as we like to coin them are present in the constitution. But when a president walks all over them.... well checks and balance really just became fancy little words.

The constitution is not frozen as it was 200 years ago. We've had amendments. Clearly when there is so massive a failure, it is time to address the issue. We did that with voting, civil rights, slavery etc. The issue of war and peace clearly needs to be addressed - we have failed repeatedly (Vietnam etc.). Time to address the issue in a more comprehensive way.

Helping. LOL. This is trying to clean up a mess, little different form helping.

Watch the documentary I linked to in the other post. There you'll see a perfect illustration of how "helping", "cleaning up", or that fashionable word du jour "rebuilding" is being done - all theft with no benefit to anyone except the war profiteers. Call it what you want - it's theft, pure and simple. Truly illuminating.

[mrkramer]

Right now I don't think that there is a right choice, the time for making the right choice came and went when we first invaded, now no matter what we do it will continue to get worse, but I of all of the bad choices out there, leaving now is the least bad, since less of our troops will be killed for no reason.

[Chef Medeski]

The constitution is not frozen as it was 200 years ago. We've had amendments. Clearly when there is so massive a failure, it is time to address the issue. We did that with voting, civil rights, slavery etc. The issue of war and peace clearly needs to be addressed - we have failed repeatedly (Vietnam etc.). Time to address the issue in a more comprehensive way.



Watch the documentary I linked to in the other post. There you'll see a perfect illustration of how "helping", "cleaning up", or that fashionable word du jour "rebuilding" is being done - all theft with no benefit to anyone except the war profiteers. Call it what you want - it's theft, pure and simple. Truly illuminating.

Well then we should stop the theft and start actual re-building. It really isnt that hard to build wells, roads, bridges. Like seriously.... talk about woefully bad mismanagement. If we cant help at all in Iraq, then I think this is our last escipade as a world power.

[OldCorpse]

Well then we should stop the theft and start actual re-building. It really isnt that hard to build wells, roads, bridges. Like seriously.... talk about woefully bad mismanagement. If we cant help at all in Iraq, then I think this is our last escipade as a world power.

Under the present structures not to mention this administration, it is not possible to "actually start rebuilding". Theft and corruption is deeply institutionalized (again, see the documentary I linked to in the other thread) and not fixable without pretty much a wholesale political revolution in this country. You may as well wish for a magic wand to make everything right. Ain't happening.

As to our no longer being a world power - it's like the samurai film image. The sword slices through the neck so fast, that the guy still looks just as he had before - until the moment, when the head slides off and rolls on the ground. GWB has just decapitated the empire. It may look quite the same from the outside for some time yet. Only as an empire - it is dead. With time, we'll slide down the rankings as an economic and military power - it is now happening. By the time the head is rolling around in the gutter, even the average redneck will feel something is not quite right. Until then, party on, just don't make any sudden movements, so as not to accelerate the head sliding (i.e. any more such "adventures" will merely speed up the process). The end result will be a mediocre country under a mountain of debt, and the world will yawn. A few historians will point to GWB's portrait and shake their heads, as they do these days with Nero and Rome. But the kids, nah, they won't pay attention - they rarely find history books inspiring :)

[Thanatoast]

Staying will not help. All it will do is make certain people richer. Not you or me, BTW. It will kill more Americans and Iraqis, it will cost tens of billions of more dollars and it will further drag America into the sewer.

We should leave. Yes, we ****ed up Iraq. There is nothing we can do now that will fix that. Our continued presence is only making things worse.

For my own analogy, I'd like to put forth the boy who burned down the house of the bully at school and ended up killing not only the bully, but his family as well and of course, destroying the house.

The boy can't rebuild the house. He can't bring the family back to life. He just wanted to stop the bully but he played with fire. He will always have those deaths on his conscience and will never be able to forget them. He can't fix what he's done. He can only serve his time and try to live better, more honestly and less violently in the future.

How will the US serve it's time? By being an international pariah. We won't pay reparations, we won't rebuild the country. We'll simply be that country at the end of the block that killed somebody. And it'll suck. And maybe one day, far in the future, if we don't blame anyone else or try to weasel out of our guilt, we may become a credible world-stage player again. Instead of just the new bully.

[FFTT]

At this point, I think the only way we could hope to stop the fighting over there, would be to send them Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in return for a complete cease fire.

Face it folks, any chance we had to gain their trust was destroyed when all the jobs they needed so badly went to Halliburton and other corrupt entities and Abu Ghraib justifiably enraged them.

All that twisted political spin about bringing freedom and democracy to
the Iraqi people.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[macmama]

So it appears that at least one (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20705)right-wing columnist is taking the stance that withdrawing will be bad for Americans because it will mean "we lost". And that "We must win. The only thing worse than a long war is a lost war."

But we would do well to slog this war through. The consequences of defeat are too great for anyone who loves America -- Republican, Democrat, or Independent -- to allow that to happen. The troops in Iraq are not fighting for the ungrateful Iraqis as claimed by the demoralizers. They are fighting for America. They are fighting to avoid the worst-case scenario: defeat and its disastrous aftermath.

:rolleyes:

[SMM]

Toward the end of the Vietnam war, a reported asked Admiral Zumwalt, head of the Joint Chiefs, "Why can't we win this war"? His response was, "What should we do, bomb Saigon"?

The point was, the war existed in every Vietnamese citizen. It was part of them. They had known it their whole life. It started with the Siamese, then the Mongols, then the Chinese, then the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and finally the Americans. It was on their homeland, in the air they breathed, and every acre was stained with their blood.

Vietnam and Iraq do not share a common history. However, they do have important things in common. They are ancient cultures. Their histories go back so far that America is just a recent 'flash in the pan' to them. Americans look at them as backward. They see us as children.

I was leading a one-man crusade (locally) not to invade Iraq. I take zero pleasure in being able to say, "I told you so". There was no 'genius' required to see this catastrophe coming. There were no special hidden clues, which only the clever could see. This was as obvious as a 'fart in a space suit'. But, the sell job was in-place and America bought it.

This 'war' was over when Bagdad raised the white flag. It was at that moment, the Iraqi people had a chance to decide their fate. If they indeed wanted Hussein, and his party, out of power, they could have taken the matter into their 'majority' hands. Yet, they did not. That should have sent out a loud, clear message; we do not have this figured out right. We did not then, and we do not now.

It is unlikely we will figure it out until historians review the aftermath of what went wrong. But, we have a much higher responsibility today. We cannot breath life back into those we have lost forever. We will spend a couple generations repairing the mental anguish that has, or will be returning back to the world our young men left (but will never find again). Each day that passes, the casualties mount. They are not statistics. Imagine the person who means the most to you in life, suddenly dying. Every war casualty is effecting someone exactly that way.

We cannot escape this fast enough! Write your congressional delegation. Do what you can. I informed my employer I was going to half-time in January. I am going to work in Iraq veteran outreach. Those poor young men are going to need a lot of empathetic friends to help them re-enter their lives again.

[SMM]

So it appears that at least one (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20705)right-wing columnist is taking the stance that withdrawing will be bad for Americans because it will mean "we lost". And that "We must win. The only thing worse than a long war is a lost war."

But we would do well to slog this war through. The consequences of defeat are too great for anyone who loves America -- Republican, Democrat, or Independent -- to allow that to happen. The troops in Iraq are not fighting for the ungrateful Iraqis as claimed by the demoralizers. They are fighting for America. They are fighting to avoid the worst-case scenario: defeat and its disastrous aftermath.

:rolleyes:

I think Safari just seizured when I hit that site. Ann Coulter...hmmm..I wonder if that was paid for in a barter arrangement? You know..services rendered.

[solvs]

So you think thats fair to the Iraqis?

They want us to leave. They know we aren't making things any better, and won't be any time soon. Frankly though, there's nothing to do, but be mad at those who got us involved there and screwed up the war as badly as they did. I'm not saying things will get better if we leave. They probably won't. But things won't get better if we stay either, and they continue to get worse.

So, damned if we do, damned if we don't... might as well at least try to find a way out of dodge.

[takao]

what should have been done: a fixed timetable and a step by step withdrawal

without a fixed time table many people will think "omg they'll stay here forever" etc.

also having the core work still covered by US forces was/is an error.. the training of iraqy forces simply takes/took too long
we are 4 years in and they still haven't taken over

i would say: create a fixed time table and put the US troops in different locations like for border patrol issues or outside of town operations and let the iraqy forces finally handle the cities

iraq doesn't need isntant complete withdrawal.. it needs continues step by step withdrawal overall just as it needs step by step giving up responsibilities

[MACDRIVE]

I think we should withdraw Halliburton, KBR, Titan and Blackwater from Iraq first; then blow up their headquarters buildings. :mad:

[FFTT]

I think we should withdraw Halliburton, KBR, Titan and Blackwater from Iraq first; then blow up their headquarters buildings. :mad:

If we were ever to do anything that would begin to reinstate our place of respect in the world, these corporations would have all their assets seized
and their leaders would face criminal prosecution.

We must also remind George Bush and Dick Cheney and every single one of their political appointees that they are public servants and they serve at the pleasure of the people.

They have served us poorly!

Frankly, every last one of them belongs in prison.

[MACDRIVE]

I think it's time for a violent fatal pathogen to surreptitiously arrive in Bush/Cheney's blood stream. :mad:

[mactastic]

Well then we should stop the theft and start actual re-building. It really isnt that hard to build wells, roads, bridges. Like seriously.... talk about woefully bad mismanagement. If we cant help at all in Iraq, then I think this is our last escipade as a world power.Have you seen the rebuilding stories? Buildings where the sewer system flows backwards, power plants with expensive equipment that is sitting idle for lack of operator training, a money market being managed by a young inexperienced political hack, etc etc. Our rebuilding efforts have been an utter failure so far. What makes you think this crowd can do better even if they decided it was suddenly "game time"?

It would take a complete revamping of the US administration who are calling the shots here. And it would take a complete revamping of the Iraqi administration too. Not to mention that if you give the Iraqis enough freedom to satisfy them, the rebuilding aid will be free to be used against us. Do we know how many of the Iraqis we have trained for the Iraqi army have stuck with it as opposed to taking their training and their gun and throwing their loyalties behind the insurgents?

[Thomas Veil]

So it appears that at least one (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20705)right-wing columnist is taking the stance that withdrawing will be bad for Americans because it will mean "we lost". And that "We must win. The only thing worse than a long war is a lost war."Oh please. That columnist might want to take note of the fact that the only wars we seem to lose in this country are the ones we've idiotically blundered into in the first place.

As far as withdrawal, the people over there are going to kill each other whether we're there or not. Chef Medeski is to be admired for his willingness to take responsibility for our ****ups, but the fact is that we obviously can't stop what's going on in Iraq. All we're doing now is getting our own soldiers killed needlessly in addition to the Iraqis.

I do think that once things settle down (and that could be five or fifty years from now), we owe Iraq reparations. But we can do nothing positive while the country is in chaos.

Will our withdrawal mean al-Qaeda will have a new safe haven in Iraq? Maybe. Not much we can do about that either, except blame the Moron-in-Chief for setting up the situation so perfectly for them.

[MACDRIVE]

As far as withdrawal, the people over there are going to kill each other whether we're there or not.

EXACTLY!!! So why don't we just get the hell out of there and let them just kill each other off? 'Seems like a no brainer to me.

[FFTT]

Well Bush's 'Mission Accomplished" statement certainly hits home with the way this misguided plan went down.

The only thing he's "Accomplished" is taking what was a very small group
of Bin Laden extrememists and now absolutely guaranteed decades of
sympathetic reprisals.

The infinite enemy, the necessary evil that drives funding for the military industrial complex. It's SO OBVIOUS!

If we would have concentrated on getting Bin Laden, none of this crap would have been necessary.

Unfortunately it was Bush and Cheney's misguided plan that " emboldened the enemy".

It still pisses me off that the media plays along calling all these copy cat groups Al Qaeda, when in fact they are nothing more than wannabes.

They are nothing more than "Al Qaeda sympathizers", motivated by our own corruption.

It was our fault for giving them a reason to unite under that banner.

[emw]

I think this is unfair for the Iraqis. I mean they did not do anything wrong. Their country gets invaded. Their industries, goverment, entire economy is turned upside down. And then you leave.
This was exactly the point of my post as well. Although I agree that we've screwed them over, I think they want us to get out before we screw them over even more.

There's simply no more good we can do there right now. Let's stop doing more damage in the inaccurate belief that we'll eventually make things right.

[MACDRIVE]

If we would have concentrated on getting Bin Laden, none of this crap would have been necessary.


Yes! And we could've wiped the Taliban out too. All we had to do is just keep a lid on Iraq; nothing more.

[skunk]

The infinite enemy, the necessary evil that drives funding for the military industrial complex. It's SO OBVIOUS!What is almost as obvious is the 800lb gorilla who isn't in the room. Bin Laden is in all probability dead, killed by organ failure as the French Secret Service reported back in August last year. But, as The Art Of War says, you must keep your enemy around - the "necessary evil" - so nobody has followed this up. It's much more convenient to have Bin Laden hanging about as a threat so the endless GWoT can carry on regardless.

[FFTT]

The fact is Saddam was no threat with hundreds of thousands of our troops
sitting on his borders. He was for all intents and purposes shut down.

We could have just sat there and eventually the weapons inspectors would have come up with nothing of any major importance.

Now we have 3,400 families who will never see their loved one's again
and more than 20,000 seriously wounded, not to speak of the carnage left
in the wake for the people of Iraq.

Our world image is tarnished so badly that it will take decades to repair the damage.

Bush and Cheney should be removed from power immediately along with
every last one of their cronys.

Isn't that why the articles of impeachment were drafted in the first place?

Where is Congress on this.

Spineless, corrupt and pandering to their owners.

[MACDRIVE]

Bush and Cheney should be removed from power immediately along with
every last one of their cronys.


With all morals and ethics aside, can't we just shoot the bastards? January 2009 is an awful long ways off under the current circumstances.

[Chef Medeski]

With all morals and ethics aside, can't we just shoot the bastards? January 2009 is an awful long ways off under the current circumstances.

I'd go for it. Now that Rumsfeld is out I think its safer. It would have been better if we could have made Powell president. But I guess Condi will do....:rolleyes:

[FFTT]

I would be much happier knowing all of them were rotting away in prison for the rest of their miserable lives.

[Swarmlord]

With all morals and ethics aside, can't we just shoot the bastards? January 2009 is an awful long ways off under the current circumstances.

How did your chat with the Secret Service go? :cool:

[FFTT]

Call it rumor or theory, but some people suspect that Bush will not make it to the end of his term and that Cheney will stand in and then declare martial law in order to undermine the 2008 elections.

[miloblithe]

Call it rumor or theory, but some people suspect that Bush will not make it to the end of his term and that Cheney will stand in and then declare martial law in order to undermine the 2008 elections.

Nonsense. They've proven to be effective with far less clumsy methods than martial law.

Besides, that scenario would make far more sense with Cheney resigning, someone with a shred of popularity being installed, and then taking over.

[MACDRIVE]

How did your chat with the Secret Service go? :cool:

They'd never find me, MACDRIVE only exists in cyberspace; much like the infamous mad jew. :D