To all those who would stay the course

I'd like to ask a question of Iraq war supporters. Why stay the course? George Bush asked us to do that two years ago, and that's what we've done. Where has it gotten us? Iraq is still in chaos, our soldiers are still dying, VAST sums of money have been wasted, and our strength in the world has been diminished.

Furthermore, if you are an Iraq war supporter, I ask you this: what outcome are you hoping for if we stay another two years? Do you think that the Iraqi's will suddenly come to their senses one day, form a posse, lasso the terrorists and throw them in the town jail like they do on Bonanza? Because when I listen to conservatives, it often sounds like that.



[edit on 23-10-2006 by Flatwoods]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Flatwoods]

The quote below is a comment I made in another thread that might address your question.

Iraq is a mess and we have made many mistakes but leaving because of the high cost in blood and money is not the right thing to do. The objective should not be abandoned just because the cost is greater than we were promised. It should be abandoned when it becomes clear it's not acheivable.

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]

[edit on 10/24/2006 by darkbluesky]

I have always believed that the war in Iraq was a mistake, that the coalition has turned the country int a bloody mess through ignorance and incompetence. Winning "Hearts and Minds" was (and is still) a disaster. We've waded in and ****ed thing up royally.

However, if our troops leave what is in store for Iraq? It will become even more of a mess as warlords and gangsters become the rulers and civil war runs unchecked, what kind of person will emerge as the leader of this nation? The most powerful warlord, and he'll inherit a crippled angry country. And what does a country in such a situation tend to do? Attack it's neighbours.

Our governments owe it to all the people who've died there to sort the matter out, if it takes years then so be it.

Sadly, since the war was fought on a false pretence we've no support in the region and little internationally. We've even managed to antagonise Iran, Iraq's oldest enemy. So basically, either way the country is pretty screwed.

But guys 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.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Kramthenothing]

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.

Nice try. I'm not interested in your political flame baiting. I made my statement clearly enough. This discussion has nothing to do with the WH's recent attempts at word play.

sorry darkbluesky your statement was clear I just wanted to put that out their that Bush is changing what he has said all along

Thanks, Kramthenothing. You're right, the fact that even the white house is no longer using the phrase "stay the course" if perfectly relevent. By the way, I have absolutely no idea what "political flamebaiting" means. Anyway, here's a quote from CNN.

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.

You didn't really answer my question, Darkbluesky. What I asked was, "What outcome are you hoping for if we stay another two years?" I really want to know if people still believe that Iraq will become a stable, pro-western democracy. At this point, I can't see how that is even possible. The best, and only, hope for peace in Iraq at this point seems to lie with the Shiite majority gaining control(which will probably happen anyway, Al-Sadr openlys says he will wait for U.S. troops to leave, then take over) and this will result in a hard-line islamic government that is against the U.S. and Israel. I think that will probably be the outcome no matter what we do, because that is how the Iraqi's have been voting.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Flatwoods]

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.

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.

Now that's an answer! Furthermore, I agree with your estimate of the situation, Darkbluesky. We may well have to settle for an outcome that is far from perfect, but that's the unfortunate reality.