It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
quote: Originally posted by forestlady
There is nothing more that we can do in Iraq to help them. They have no WMD's, they aren't connected to Al Quaida, and even our own President Bush has said that. So why the hell are we still there?
WMDs and potential terrorist connections were two of the reasons we went to Iraq to remove the Hussein government. There were other reasons as well.
To establish a stable Iraq friendly to the US
To establish a greater US military presence in the region to reduce the risk that regional conflicts could disrupt the flow of oil. No matter how much people don't like it, the fact is the world runs on oil, and it will be the cause of many more conflicts before it's gone.
The establishment of a stable, US friendly Iraq is still in question. IMO we stay, because if we leave, Iraq essentially becomes a sattelite of Iran. The insurgency is basically being run by Iran. Many many errors have been made by the US in Iraq, but in Colin Powells words "We broke, we have to fix it".
Leaving now means many Suni Iraqis will live under the same political and religious persecution that the Kurds and Shia did under Saddam. Only this time the persecutors will be Persian Shia Muslims from Iran. By the way the Iranian (Persian) shia dont like the Iraqi (Arab) Shia all that much either, Right now their operating under the old axiom "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
It is a mess, but leaving is not the right thing to do IMO.
[edit on 10/24/2006 by darkbluesky]
Originally posted by Kramthenothing
But Darkbluesky the plan was never to stay the course what gave you that idea? It couldn't have been Bush that said that was it? Look on MSN or CNN.com you will see that Bush is no longer going to say stay the course cause it puts out the wrong message that he meant that we planned on staying the course.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the United States would adjust its Iraq strategy but would not issue any ultimatums to the Iraqis. "Are there dramatic shifts in policy? The answer is no," Snow said Monday.
He acknowledged, however, that Bush no longer is saying that the United States will "stay the course" in Iraq.
"He stopped using it," Snow said of that phrase, adding that it left the impression that the administration was not adjusting its strategy to realities in Baghdad.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
Realistically, the only outcome that can be hoped for now is that a stable, legitimate government can get a foothold, stop the daily violence, build an army that defend itself from Iran and set the country on a course toward stability. I concede that it may very well end up being a govt that is not overtly friendly to the US, but I believe they will still sell oil to us, and we'll maintain a military presence outside the Sunni triangle in the form of forward bases.
I also think that Sadr does not have the popularity to win a legitimate seat in the government other than local representation. I admit, I'm not sure excactly how the govt is set up, but I dont think he could win election as PM, Pres, etc.
Again, hopefully, the govt and the army will be strong enough to prevent Al-Sadr from "taking over" by coup after the US leaves. If he can get elected and turns Iraq into an Islamic anti-US state then I guess the whole plan would have failed. Time will tell. This certainly wouldn't be the first failed foreign policy of the US and surely won't be the last.