What really happens with Iraq with a Democrat Election victory?

posted by seagull

Forgive me if I read you wrong.

Sign of the Cross. “Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem peccatorum nostrorum, tribuat nobis omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen.” There, it is done!

If the only reason we went into Iraq was for oil (it was indeed one of them, granted), wouldn't it have been easier, not to mention less expensive in lives as well as treasure, to broker a sweetheart deal with Saddam, and/or his sons? [Edited by Don W]

No. Americans would not have endorsed going there for oil. Too crass. But to liberate a people, to spread democracy, to make the world safer, those are all readily saleable items in our culture. Plus, it was not “their” money or blood to be spent. By borrowing the money from China, they get the joy of spending it, but your grand-children get the task of repaying it.

The point I was making about the Montengards was that they were our friends and we turned our backs on them when we left Vietnam. Payback is a bitch, but there shouldn't have been an opportunity for it. We owed them, and we reneged on our obligation to an ally and friend. Honor.

Honor? Hmm? Honor is transitive. Honor is always subject to necessity. Oh, I know, we have our heroes, but they are few in number. We talk a good talk, but it is a hard walk to walk. Reflect: Matthew 7, v. 14. "For narrow is the gate, and straight the way, that leads to life, and few are they that find it."

The same applies in Iraq, we have people who are our friends, do we abandon them? For the sake of expediency? Politics? The truism that nations have no allies only interests is to my mind bunk. If a nation has no honor, or doesn't honor its obligations, or at least try to, what does it have? I submit, not much.

We did a foul deed on March 18, 2003. We destroyed a country. We can't speak their language. We misread everything, their history, their culture, their religion, their pride, their aspirations. You name it and we did it wrong. Except that one thing we are good at, waging war! At that, we're the best! But we have no concept of peace. Did not our own VP Cheney say it would be PERPETUAL war? Are they not fulfilling the prophecy of George Orwell in 1984? And Animal Farm? And ugh, Fahrenheit 451? How do you make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear?

Let’s look to history to guide us here, and to show us a way out of here. Greed got us there, so what is the opposite of greed? How about altruism? That - altruism - would get us out of there with honor and respect. Can we rise to the occassion?



[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

posted by gimmefootball400

What if Moqtada al-Sadr comes to power . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Excuse me, I thought he was already in power? Who ordered the US to release a high value captured insurgent two weeks ago?

“ . . The revolt [al-Sadar coming to power] even if it was non-violent, could lead the United States to invade Iraq again some years down the road after we get out of this current mess we are in over there.

Au contraire. America is out of the invading game for a generation. I’m not counting the SOF who will continue to violate borders at will. A dangerous practice. And far more disruptive of the international order than the people we are chasing. Not an uncommon happening to men who let a particularly unsuited part of their anatomy do their ‘thinking’ for them.

If Maliki sides with al-Sadr, the consequences could be catastrophic to the Iraqi people.

Why? Isn’t Iraq already a quagmire? Isn’t Iraq already a scenario made in hell? How could it get worse. 100 dead Iraqis found dead over the weekend. 20 or more dead every day. I do not follow you here, Mr G/F/4.

He [al Sadar] could purchase nuclear weapons technology off of the black market from the Russians and threaten to use those weapons against Israel or maybe even Saudi Arabia.

Well, what are we doing about that? Isn’t there a NFT - UN sponsored Non-Proliferation Treaty - out there somewhere? Are we energetically and sincerely bolstering that treaty and the 110 nations that have signed on? Or are you more worried about that than our own Bush43? Why’s that?

We could have a problem again in Iraq if another radical government were to come to power over there.

Sweet Jesus! What’s this “have a problem” in Iraq? Once bit, twice wary?

Al-Sadr is a Shiite Muslim, this could pose a problem for the Sunni and the Kurds in the north of Iraq.

Sunni, yes, Kurds, no. The Kurds have wisely kept the insurgents and the United States out of the territory they like to call “Kurdistan.” They have as close to an independent country as you can get in the Middle East.

IMO, I doubt they [Iraq under al-Sadar] will be friendly to the United States or any of our 'allies' [say Israel] in the Middle East. If those two join it could also pose a problem to what peace there is in the Middle East.

Which brings us back to the Arab-Israeli War going in since 1948. We, the United States, as patron of Israel, can settle that war anytime we feel it is in our interest to do so. The Arabs will accept the West Bank, Gaza and part of East Jerusalem. Anytime. That - the forced insertion of European Jews into an Arab land - underlies the Nine Eleven Event and all that has followed. The "window" of opportunity to end it could pass with a vengeance if any Arab really wanted to nuke Tel Aviv. So far, they don't. Despite the worst possible treatment we and Israel give them every day. Keep it up and at some point in time, the balance will be tipped. The other way.

To be honest with you, it could very well be possible that the new government in Iraq, with a-Sadr and Maliki at the controls, could be sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah [and Hamas]. With all the hatred that most radical Muslims have shown toward the United States and our allies [Israel], it would not really surprise me if they did.

If you and I know that, then we must assume our leaders know that. And if they do not do the logical thing, then there must be a reason for that, too. Does Bush43 know something we don’t know? Will he ever tell us?

It would be a larger threat since Al-Qaeda would have more funding to go around.

OBL wants to establish a caliphate which I do not think appeals to many Arab Muslims. OBL has outlived his usefulness to the radicals. Sort of like Santa Ana did in Mexico. Both lived too long.

Not only would the threat of an attack increase here, the risk of a major terrorist attack would go up ten fold across the world. I honestly believe they won't say that was because we backed out of Iraq. I think what will happen is that they will still fight us to the death.

I share your frustration but I don’t reach the same conclusion.


[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

Plan D

I don't know what to expect from the Democrats with respect to Iraq, but hopefully they will realize that handling it the way they handled Vietnam (i.e., cutting funding and allowing the nation to collapse in chaos and genocide) would not serve them well in this case.

Since I'm pretty sure they don't want to hand the Republicans certain victory in 2008 by sealing defeat in Iraq, I expect they will demand some changes in strategy -- mainly to reduce the profile of U.S. troops as targets for IEDs and snipers.

This may include a replay of the way Yugoslavia was handled: heavy dependence on airpower and minimal involvement of troops, although such a strategy would necessarily have to be adapted to the unique issues being faced in Iraq.

There's been some rumblings among some Democrats of actually negotiating with insurgent leaders, although that seems unlikely, if not impossible.

Considering the alliance which exists between the Democrats and the majority of press agencies in the U.S. and abroad, no matter what happens, I think we can expect a gradual (perhaps even dramatic) reduction in the emphasis and reporting of the drumbeat of U.S. casualties in Iraq, since it "won't be a problem anymore."

I could be wrong about that, but I remember the way the press handled things during the Clinton administration, and I expect the return of that legendary press love affair with the Democrats (if indeed it ever left).

Some things won't change, some things will. Hopefully whatever changes will be positive.

posted by Majic

Plan D. I don't know what to expect from the Democrats with respect to Iraq, but hopefully they will realize that handling it the way they handled Vietnam i.e., cutting funding and allowing the nation to collapse in chaos and genocide would not serve them well in this case.

1) Congressional funds were not cut until 1974. 6 years after Nixon won the presidency on the promise to end the Vietnam War.
2) Congress funded the Vietnam War for 6 years, during the so-called Vietnamzation process of Nixon-Kissinger.
3) The South Vietnamese did collapse, but that was both foreseeable and unavoidable and unrelated to the US.
3) There was no genocide.

Since I'm pretty sure they don't want to hand the Republicans certain victory in 2008 by sealing defeat in Iraq, I expect they will demand some changes in strategy - mainly to reduce the profile of U.S. troops as targets for IEDs and snipers.

1) The President remains the Command in Chief of the Armed Forces and the only spokesperson in foreign affairs. He has however, been demoted from his self anointed position of Lord Protector of the United States.
2) Dems are Article 1, legislators, and not Article 2, executives. Congress has oversight to see if the laws they have enacted are dong what was expected. They are not national policymakers.

This may include a replay of the way Yugoslavia was handled: heavy dependence on air power and minimal involvement of troops, although such a strategy would necessarily have to be adapted to the unique issues being faced in Iraq.

1) Air power is a valuable aid to attacking troops. Blitzkrieg.
2) Air power has never lived up to the claims made by its stanch advocates. I give you Shock and Awe. I give you total dominance of the air space over Iraq since 1991. I give you free operational capability for Predators and other UAVs.
3) Air power, like an air show, is flashy and loud, but not much in the way of substance.

There's been some rumblings among some Democrats of actually negotiating with insurgent leaders, although that seems unlikely, if not impossible.

Is that from the Drudge Report?

Considering the alliance which exists between the Democrats and the majority of press agencies in the U.S. and abroad

1) False. Who do you think owns the media? Wake up, please. Lackeys follow owners orders, not the other way round.

I could be wrong about that, but I remember the way the press handled things during the Clinton administration, and I expect the return of that legendary press love affair with the Democrats

1) Are you kiddin' me? See above about ownership of the press.

Hopefully whatever changes will be positive. [Edited by Don W]

1) Changes cannot get worse. Thank you Bush43, Herr Oberfuhrer and VP Cheney.


[edit on 11/9/2006 by donwhite]

Nothing Personal

Originally posted by donwhite
1) Are you on ‘meth?

No, I'm on this.

Your opinions on this topic and disagreement with my own opinions are quite welcome, but personal digs like that are not.

Please refrain from them.

Thanks.



Related topic:

Courtesy Is Mandatory

posted by Majic

Nothing Personal

Your opinions on this topic and disagreement with my own opinions are quite welcome, but personal digs like that are not.

Please refrain from them.

Thanks.

I've complied. See Edit above. Sorry about that. Over exuberance, I'd say.

Political Exuberance

Originally posted by donwhite
I've complied. See Edit above. Sorry about that. Over exuberance, I'd say.

No worries -- I hope I didn't come across as too cold or authoritarian, and I'm certainly not angry. :shk:

I just don't swing that way is all.

I think you made some good counterpoints and I'm happy to let our different positions on them stand as is without further comment. Maybe my opinion of how the Vietnam War ended is overly simplistic, for example.

My overall opinion remains, however, that there will be some changes to U.S. strategy in Iraq as a result of the elections, and that it is unlikely the Democrats would want to do anything that might be seen as losing the war there.

Rather, I think they will simply want to U.S. to try a "new direction" (their theme for this election), and -- who knows? -- it might well be a better one.

posted by Majic

No worries -- I hope I didn't come across as too cold or authoritarian, and I'm certainly not angry. I just don't swing that way is all. [Edited by Don W]

Well, trying to be objective, I’d say it was a “cheap shot.”

Maybe my opinion of how the Vietnam War ended is overly simplistic, for example. My overall opinion remains, however . .

It was messy. The end of the war. The bombing of Laos. The excursion into Cambodia - which got Kissinger indicted before the ICC Tribunal at The Hague - and later Pol Pot did inflict genocide on his people. But that was not our fault. We may never know what deals were made with the Montegards vis a vis the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The 1975 incident involving the spy ship, the SS Mayaguez was the “last battle” of the Vietnam War.

“ . . that there will be some changes to U.S. strategy in Iraq as a result of the elections and that it is unlikely the Democrats would want to do anything that might be seen as losing the war there. I think they will simply want the US to try a "new direction" their theme for this election, and - who knows? - it might well be a better one.

1) I’m listening to CSpan - Friday AM - and it is remarkable - to me - how many callers believe the Democrats are “cut and run” types. I am happy to say we are not George Armstrong Custer types. One caller my age reminded the audience that in our youth, the popular rant was the Democrats were the "War Party” and the Republicans were the "poor economy" party. Hobson’s choice.
2) Keeping in mind our stated national objectives - an independent, stable, democratic, pro-America Iraq - there is no known solution to take us there from the conditions on the ground today.

We do not have sufficient manpower - nor national will - to occupy the country. We have no allies willing to undertake that assignment. Our economy cannot afford to fund the War on Terror endlessly. I prefer the impossible Regional Conference to include Iran and Syria. This offers the best approach to prevent or blunt a likely Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

I have written, we must stop fighting dumb and begin to fight smart.


[edit on 11/10/2006 by donwhite]

The Senate voted on Feb. 12, 1999

First Count, Perjury, 55 to 45 For Conviction, Second Count, 50 to 50 Tied on Obstruction. Note: 67 votes For required to convict.

Unless specified, the following voted NO to both counts.

John H. Chafee RI
Susan Collins ME
Slade Gorton WA
James M. Jeffords VT
Richard C. Shelby AL NG and G
Olympia J. Snowe ME
Arlen Specter PA
Ted Stevens AK NG and G
Fred Thompson TN NG and G

Originally posted by davenman
I expect that there would be key Democrat leaders who would step up and initiate some laws that would specifically tell Bush how to lead more effective control within Iraq. With more effective control, we could actually turn the government over to the new Iraqi government and get out within the next 2 years.

Unfortunately, Bush would get some of the credit for that. Fortunately, we would have our young men and women home again where they belong. That's a fair trade.

I was just looking back at some of the threads that I was previously a part of and noticed that the Democrat Party is doing about what I thought they would. I don't know that it is the best thing today.

Today, it would seem that pressure should be applied to do what we should have done in the first place....gained the support of the UN. Bush seems to be suggesting it now, but he still wants absolute control in Iraq. Our Democrat Congress could do well to push things in the direction of turning the whole mess over to the UN.

The current problem that we have with our presence in Iraq is our Commander in Chief. If he were not in control of the forces there and the decisions being made, then we, as Americans, would be more willing to endure a couple more years of U.S. troop involvement there.

My vote....

Turn it over to the UN and let them decide which General should be in charge of operations in Iraq. Our current Commander-in-Chief has failed too many times already.

Unfortunately, I don't think that our congress has the ability to take the issue out of Bush's hands and place it in the hands of the UN. We seem to be stuck between a rock and a briar Bush. No matter which way we try to get out of this mess, it's going to hurt....unless the Bush chooses to step aside. Have you ever tried to reason with a Bush? I'll stick to banging my head against the wall....it might give in sooner.

First Congress has no power to stop a war, and can dictate strategy by dictating how funding is distributed and for what purpose (such in Iraq no missions into other nations etc).

Second, going to Arabia isn't an option the Saudis don't want our troops there destabalizting their government.