Good news in Iraq, bad news for Democrats?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Okay, then how do we do that? By pulling out now? By staying the "course"? Or something else?

Well, staying the course obviously didn't work (guess Bush was unpatriotic because he obviously didn't want to win). Staying only breeds more anti-US sentiment and violence. So my guess would be "something else", maybe like actually wanting international help and believing that the US might not be the answer. The problem is that Bush wants a US presence in the Middle East, and as such the US has to be the solution. What's more is that many think that we are the only one's smart enough to fix Iraq.

Let me ask this, which would you rather see:

1) a US pull-out (read by some as a US military loss) that led to an international plan for Iraq

2) US military victory and a US plan for Iraq

Take note that neither of the choices give any indication as to the results. The point is that it seems that some are more interested in #2 even if #1 might actually be better for the Iraqi people.

[PeterMP]

Well, staying the course obviously didn't work (guess Bush was unpatriotic because he obviously didn't want to win). Staying only breeds more anti-US sentiment and violence. So my guess would be "something else", maybe like actually wanting international help and believing that the US might not be the answer. The problem is that Bush wants a US presence in the Middle East, and as such the US has to be the solution. What's more is that many think that we are the only one's smart enough to fix Iraq.

Let me ask this, which would you rather see:

1) a US pull-out (read by some as a US military loss) that led to an international plan for Iraq

2) US military victory and a US plan for Iraq

Take note that neither of the choices give any indication as to the results. The point is that it seems that some are more interested in #2 even if #1 might actually be better for the Iraqi people.

Well, it is difficult for me to imagine the circumstances under which #1 is better for the Iraq people.

[chomerics]

Bull****, if that were true why haven't they tried to come up with plans that actually would help us succeed instead of just trying to surrender.

Take your head out of your arse, they have but you have neglected to read them.

If more than a couple Dems had even TRIED to come up with a plan for victory I might believe them but they have NEVER even offered a plan that would result in anything other than defeat.

Says who? you? The person who is STILL supporting Bush? Why on earth would ANYONE with the slightest bit of intelligence believe a word that comes out of your mouth? Name me something you have been right on in the past 6 or so years, give me any single reason to believe a word you say, because frankly, your right to "predict the future" and to tell others what they are thinking has been revoked by those with a brain who can actually follow logic.

You think the war was a bad idea, fine, but why not even try to come up with an idea to make the country stable and insure that we leave it better than it was when we got there. That is the Dems problem and that is why success in Iraq is so damaging to their political aspirations.

They have, just because you are too narrow minded to look for a plan, or to ignorant to read something they propose does not mean it is not done, it just means that you won't read it.

[DixieFlatline]

Well, staying the course obviously didn't work (guess Bush was unpatriotic because he obviously didn't want to win). Staying only breeds more anti-US sentiment and violence. So my guess would be "something else", maybe like actually wanting international help and believing that the US might not be the answer. The problem is that Bush wants a US presence in the Middle East, and as such the US has to be the solution. What's more is that many think that we are the only one's smart enough to fix Iraq.

Let me ask this, which would you rather see:

1) a US pull-out (read by some as a US military loss) that led to an international plan for Iraq

2) US military victory and a US plan for Iraq

Take note that neither of the choices give any indication as to the results. The point is that it seems that some are more interested in #2 even if #1 might actually be better for the Iraqi people.

I would vote for #1 if I knew there would be an international plan assuming it involves troops on the ground to keep the peace. I wouldn't pull out in the hopes it would lead to a plan.

[chomerics]

But before all that happened, a few million Vietnamese and Cambodians died

So what? You want to nuke the ME, are you telling me that you actually care about the Muslims over there Sarge? What a hypocritical joke.

Yea, we can't leave because Muslims will die, but hey, we should just kill em all anyway and make a parking lot out of the Middle East :doh:

Do you actually think your position through before you sprout off your asinine responses, or are you that blinded by partisan ideology that you miss the blatant hypocrisy in your train of thought?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I would vote for #1 if I knew there would be an international plan assuming it involves troops on the ground to keep the peace. I wouldn't pull out in the hopes it would lead to a plan.

Yeah, I phrased that wrong, what I meant was more on the lines of pulling out and being replaced by an international plan. I didn't mean pull out "in the hope of..."

[Baculus]

I suppose my question is, how important is Iraq in the grand scheme of things? Do we stay no matter what, even if it costs us trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of men and women? There are some administration supporters that profess a belief that we stay in that country, no matter what.

WHAT, then, is the acceptable cost when some folks will finally admit, "Ok...maybe it is time for us to split." Or is this something, such as the Cold War, that we believe will take decades, and we are just suppose to hang in there until the end "eventually" will come to its natural conclusion?

I've posed this question previously, and I really never receive a response: Is Iraq more important then our nation? Do we not have areas of need that could have used the over $500 billion that has been spent on the war effort? Has there not been examples, such as Katrina, when the national guard was needed HERE, and not there? Are the desires of the American citizens, most of which want us to leave Iraq, inconsequential?

According to some Republicans and Bush supporters: Yes.

And God knows why wanting to leave Iraq is somehow a *bad* thing. The venom I see from some folks when the notion to leave that country is presented is really curious. WHY would we want to stay so bad, so we can continue to pour in men, material, and money?

My nephew may die while in Iraq. And while I understand he wants to do his duty, I do value his life over the efforts in Iraq. Maybe I am selfish, but that is simply how I see it. And part of the reason is simply this: I do not believe Iraq was an immediate threat, and unless the barbarians were at the gates, I see no reason why my family blood should be spilled in that nation.

There just seems to be an attitude from the right that, frankly, Iraq is more important then America. After all, it has even been suggested to display America-first attitudes is somehow traitorous. But I sorry, but I do put my country before the needs of Iraq. And this has little to do with misunderstanding the "grand schemes of things." I do understand, and that is why I want to see us leave that nation when at all possible.

[hkHog]

Take your head out of your arse, they have but you have neglected to read them.

Says who? you? The person who is STILL supporting Bush? Why on earth would ANYONE with the slightest bit of intelligence believe a word that comes out of your mouth? Name me something you have been right on in the past 6 or so years, give me any single reason to believe a word you say, because frankly, your right to "predict the future" and to tell others what they are thinking has been revoked by those with a brain who can actually follow logic.

They have, just because you are too narrow minded to look for a plan, or to ignorant to read something they propose does not mean it is not done, it just means that you won't read it.

What does any of this have to do with supporting Bush?

My point is that we are in this situation now and we can't go back and change things. So let's look for the best solution. Pulling out would have disasterous reprocussions so that is not an option (unless you think that making Bush look bad is MORE important than securing a country that we have invaded and insuring that they don't turn out in worse shape than they were before we got there). We need a plan for victory in Iraq because the consequences of defeat are even worse than anything we are seeing right now. Hate Bush all you want but don't make Iraq and the world suffer because of your personal hatred.

We are in this situation now and we need a constructive long term solution. Maybe if the Dems had been coming up with new ideas rather than just pulling out I would believe that they are not only in this for their own political gain and hoping for failure. But unfortunately, they have painted themselves into a corner where failure in Iraq is their only way to save face and they hold their own personal political goals above the wellbeing of Iraq, the Middle East, and the USA.

[JMS]

Well, it is difficult for me to imagine the circumstances under which #1 is better for the Iraq people.

It's difficult to image how things could get much worse if we did pull out. At least for the Iraqi people... ( from the late july Oxfam report)

• four million Iraqis, many of them children, are in dire need of food aid;
  
• that 70 percent of the country lacks access to adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003;
  
• that 90 percent of the country’s hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies.
  
• 43 percent of Iraqis live in “absolute poverty,” earning less than $1 a day.
  
• 10% of Iraqi's have fled the country
  
• 10% of Iraqi's are displaced refugees inside the country
  

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31oxfam.html?ex=1343534400&en=bfaed0cdd5a61312&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

about Oxfam

Oxfam International is a confederation of 13 organizations working together with over 3000 partners in more than 100 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice.

The 13 Oxfam organizations are based in: Australia, Belgium, Canada (along with a distinct Oxfam organization for the province of Quebec), France, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, and the United States. A small Oxfam International Secretariat is based in Oxford, UK, and the Secretariat runs advocacy offices in Washington, DC, New York, Brussels, and Geneva.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam

[Predicto]

Politcally its simple

If Iraq drags on and continues to be a mess it helps the Dems

If this thing somehow gets turned around it helps the R's

I don't see how hard this is to see. And don't think I am saying the Dems are "rooting for failure" because I am not. I am simply talking about political realities

This is the correct answer to the original question.

Anyone who listens to AFC and HkHog and truly believes that the Democrats WANT failure for the US is deluding themselves out of hatred for the opposition. Both the Democrats and the Republicans truly want the best for this country - they just see different ways of achieving it.

[chomerics]

There just seems to be an attitude from the right that, frankly, Iraq is more important then America. After all, it has even been suggested to display America-first attitudes is somehow traitorous. But I sorry, but I do put my country before the needs of Iraq. And this has little to do with misunderstanding the "grand schemes of things." I do understand, and that is why I want to see us leave that nation when at all possible.

Bac, you know the answer to this, as do we all. The "America first" and wrapping yourself in the flag is nothing more than a propaganda tactic taken from the Germans in WWII to promote a radical ideology.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

As long as they have the voice, anyone that disagrees with them is a traitor, unpatriotic or even worse, a democrat. . . It's a shame that this tactic has been used before, and the results that arose from this were some of the worse atrocities human kind has ever seen. . .

. . .but let them wear the "we are American's, you are defeatists" hat proud as they goose step over the edge like all good lemmings do. You know the truth, as does over half of this board. The only people defending this behavior now are people who have severe mental and psychological disorders, and lack the ability to rationally debate an issue or a topic. We have a few of these posters in this very thread, and without naming names, everyone knows who they are. Let them wrap themselves in the flag, let them think anyone who doesn't think like them is a traitor. Let them sprout their lies and propaganda, because it does serve a purpose.

It shows the rest of the people on this board what the mental makeup is of people who still support Bush, and why they are so wrong. It ends up alienating more people from the GOP, and the more the talk, they more ludicrous they sound. In other words, the people who STILL support Bush are not totally useless. . . they can always serve as a bad example for the rest of us

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is the correct answer to the original question.

Anyone who listens to AFC and HkHog and truly believes that the Democrats WANT failure for the US is deluding themselves out of hatred for the opposition. Both the Democrats and the Republicans truly want the best for this country - they just see different ways of achieving it.

You unpatriotic SOB! Don't you know that patriotism means that we follow through on the mistakes that we start to prove that we were right to begin with.

[JMS]

This is the correct answer to the original question.

Anyone who listens to AFC and HkHog and truly believes that the Democrats WANT failure for the US is deluding themselves out of hatred for the opposition. Both the Democrats and the Republicans truly want the best for this country - they just see different ways of achieving it.

I disagree. The country is over Iraq. They've been lied to enough. The Republicans have long ago lost any credibility. Polls today show the American people think the Democrats are more trusted in Foreign policy, defense, and in administering Iraq.

Good news doesn't change those facts. Good news in Iraq doesn't change all the lies and misinformation this administration has spewed and the incompetence they've allowed to go un corrected.

I don't think anything the Republicans do can stop the reordering episode coming in 2008. It's the Democrats to loose at this point. Short of the Democrats just self destructing. Which is always a possibility... Look for them to gain more seats in the senate and house and retake the Presidency.

Personally I think it would be better for the country if the Republicans ultimately had a leg somewhere. House, Senate or Executive. I think it's unlikely though.

[DjTj]

I disagree, I have thought from the beginning that the US would have to stay for a long time like we have in Germany, Japan, and Korea. I honestly believe that victory requires us to stay in Iraq for many years to come. I think victory will result in the withdrawl of active troops but we will have some military presence for many years to come.

Well there is a big difference between the military presence we have now and the permanent bases that are left in Germany, Japan, and Korea. There's no doubt that we will leave permanent bases in Iraq, but that doesn't mean we'll be involved in their day-to-day security. That kind of occupation in Germany and Japan lasted about as long as the current Iraq War has been going, but for some reason nobody really calls our current presence in Iraq an "occupation." Somehow we're still in the "war" phase.

I actually kind of think people would be more willing to keep up what we were doing if we looked at this as an occupation helping to secure Iraq's future rather than an amorphous "war on terror." The "war" part of Iraq is really over, but we still think of it in terms of a war, so our only options seem to be "stay the course" or "bring the troops home" and neither are very applicable to what we are really doing over there, which is trying to secure the country for an Iraqi government.

I think that under that kind of framework, it wouldn't be unreasonable to set maybe not a timetable but at least some benchmarks for when we want to start withdrawing troops. That's generally what I see coming from the more reasonable Democrats - Reid and Pelosi backed down from setting a timetable when the funding bill came up. Biden has a pretty detailed plan. Even Hillary, Obama, and Edwards aren't really calling to bring the troops home now.

[JMS]

Well there is a big difference between the military presence we have now and the permanent bases that are left in Germany, Japan, and Korea. There's no doubt that we will leave permanent bases in Iraq, but that doesn't mean we'll be involved in their day-to-day security. That kind of occupation in Germany and Japan lasted about as long as the current Iraq War has been going, but for some reason nobody really calls our current presence in Iraq an "occupation." Somehow we're still in the "war" phase.

Again I disagree. This administration hopes we will leave permanent bases in Iraq, because that gives them some shred of accomplishment in this War. But the news coming out of Iraq doesn't support them in this hope.

If we can't defeat or even diminish the insurgency ( casualites, attacks) with 160,000 men, it's very unlikely 20,000 will have a better shot. What's the point of leaving 20,000 guys in the middle of a civil war to take casualties?

We are headed for a full scale pull out which will expose Bush and his cronies for the full reprocussions of committing the greatest strategic mistake in American history.

[Baculus]

What does any of this have to do with supporting Bush?

My point is that we are in this situation now and we can't go back and change things. So let's look for the best solution. Pulling out would have disasterous reprocussions so that is not an option (unless you think that making Bush look bad is MORE important than securing a country that we have invaded and insuring that they don't turn out in worse shape than they were before we got there). We need a plan for victory in Iraq because the consequences of defeat are even worse than anything we are seeing right now. Hate Bush all you want but don't make Iraq and the world suffer because of your personal hatred.

Read my previous posts: This is just a fomula for a possibe never ending occupation in Iraq, which is absurd. We were supposedly invading Iraq to remove an immediate thread and seize WMDs. So NOW, we are possible in a never-ending war, with an end that hasn't been planned, and involved in a nation building exercise, which Bush in the 2000 campaign said was undesirable.

How twisted is this whole situation? And for what good reason should we support it?

Sorry, but going INTO Iraq had disastrious repercussions - but now since we are in the mess, we are stuck? Just damn brilliant. Incidentally, I've previously stated that I believe it would be extremely difficult to immediately leave Iraq, but it is one fine mess...it really is.

And then we have vague language, such as " the consequences of defeat are even worse than anything we are seeing right now." The consequences are always possibly worse, but there is a point when you have to accept the fact that such consequences may happen, and then continue with a pullout. The consequences are already relatively bad.

It really is absurd to invade a country, wreck its infrastructure and government, then say "Aha! Now we have to stay!" Well, gee - maybe we shouldn't have created the situation in the first place where we DO have to stay.

And I don't see how staying in "Iraq" and the "World" are related: In fact, it is probably quite the opposite.

We are in this situation now and we need a constructive long term solution.

The current administration has had years to come up with this plan. And they are pretty much flying by the seats of their pants.

Maybe if the Dems had been coming up with new ideas rather than just pulling out I would believe that they are not only in this for their own political gain and hoping for failure. But unfortunately, they have painted themselves into a corner where failure in Iraq is their only way to save face and they hold their own personal political goals above the wellbeing of Iraq, the Middle East, and the USA.

Well, what else can be suggested: Either we stay in, or we pull out. There isn't a whole bunch of give and take in this discussion. They are offering the alternative plan to continuing the occupation, which is to leave. That is a plan, whether or not you agree with it.

I don't see how being in support of staying in a foreign land and spending our money is better or more patriotic. And I fail to see how the Democrats wanting to leave is somehow unpatriotic. We are really dealing with some oxymorons with this whole debate.

Staying in Iraq is not "pro-American" when my tax dollars are going to some conflict in another country, when I want to see that money spent HERE and not there. Iraq isn't NATO, where we have specific vested interests, and Iraq isn't one of our states; It is a country we invaded, so I see little vested interest for us, the American people, most of which comprise this military.

[PeterMP]

Pete, they've written a bill and that bill is being debated in Parlement. As I'm sure you know, "No Progress" isn't a reasonable claim.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/03/AR2007070300641.html

A final vote is all that is required. As I said, The Shia have the votes to pass this themselves, but that would be seen as imposing a solution on the Kurds and Sunni. They would much rather have a negotiated settlement with Sunni representation. The kurds are on board with the outlined compromise.

Well I did say "essentially no progress". Sending a bill that the two largest minority groups don't agree w/ isn't what I'd call progress. Do you have a link for the Kurds getting on board? Everything I've read from them is that they aren't on board. I guess some people in the Maliki goverment said they were in early July, but they pretty quickly afterwards said they weren't. That was in one of the links I posted originally. The last link I posted said:

"Sunnis, who make up the bulk of the insurgency, have virtually no known oil reserves in their territories yet still oppose the current draft legislation. Kurds, who control large reserves in northern Iraq, oppose the measure because it could loosen their control over a key asset."

This makes it sound like the Kurds and the Sunni are not happy w/ it and that's from July 22nd.

Changing tunes is par for the course in Iraqi politics. The kurds have a lot to gain from a compromise. They have security guarantees from the US if they go along, They also have Turkey breathing down their necks. Plus they get quite a bit of autonomy in the deal.

The Kurds know we can't let Turkey invade Kurdistan or all of Iraq will fall apart. Plus, they've had essentially complete autonomy since the first Iraq war, and they really want a Kurdish state. Why would they trade that now for a bit of autonomy and an largely empty threat based on them being invaded by the Turks?

Clearly it's not a done deal and things could still blow up, but the kurds are not presently the road block. It's getting the Shia to give enough representation to the Sunni's in order to frame the deal as something other than the Shia dictating it to the Sunni's.

Even in the upcoming elections we have problems. The number of Parlementary seats are not being allocated along population lines like they are in America, Canada, Britain etc.... The Shia are basing the parlementary seats availible by provine on the number of folks who registered in the 2005 elections. this esensially freazes out the Sunni's who as I've pointed out largely bocotted the last elections.

Rectifying Sunni representation is also a goal of the United States as outlined in Bush's Jan goals.

And this really seems like it will require redoing the Constitution, which has been pretty much a nonstarter w/ both the Shia and the Kurds. It seems unlikely that will change.

Actually that's not what your article says. It says that the bill is unlikely to be debated before the august recess, which is true. It wasn't.... The bill is in parlement now!!

Read the quote above about the Kurds and the Sunni being against it. Heck the tittle of the article is:

"Chance of oil law reaching Iraqi Parliament soon called dim"

It is very likely that we will ultimately pass this bill with the Shia and Kurdish support we currently have, which has always been an option. The reason for this is that this is one of the bullit items to be featured prominently on Bush's September report card. Patraeus will need every positive bullit item he can get. This bill sans Sunni support is low hanging fruit.

I'll bet there isn't a bill we are happy w/ before Sept. 15th. I'd be shocked if there is any bill, but as you've stated, the Shia themselves largely could force this through, and they might, but that would just invite a wave of violence and protest, which would not look good just before the Petreus report. The violence and protest might even cross ethnic lines as even the unions appear to be against this bill.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/06/1359232

If the Shia do that, then you'll know that Iran is REALLY calling all of the shots and this was just away to stick it to Bush and had nothing to do w/ the long term security/benifit of Iraq as a nation.

Claiming they've made progess on this issue is like claiming Bush made progress on immigration because of the bills that failed in the Senate. The Shia can even pass it, but it really doesn't fix the issue and will only likely worsen the situation.

[chomerics]

What does any of this have to do with supporting Bush?

A LOT!!! You just don't see the connection because you are too blinded by your own partisanship.

My point is that we are in this situation now and we can't go back and change things. So let's look for the best solution.

Name me a single resolution you have read from a democrat. Tell me what Biden had in his plan for Iraq, tell me how he wanted to solve the problem, and what was unique about his ideas. Tell me about what John Kerry wants to do with Iraq, and how he feels the solution should be solved. They have all placed resolutions up there and they all have shown a path to victory. People like yourself have neglected to read them because you only get your information from one side. Open up your ears and eyes, and actually *gasp* read what the other side is proposing. . .because all you are doing now is showing your ignorance by sprouting party propaganda. It is just as bad as someone coming here and saying Bush lied soldiers died. It accomplishes nothing except for alienating both sides.

Pulling out would have disasterous reprocussions so that is not an option

Says who? The same people who told us there were WMDs? The same people who said the insurgency was in its "last throes"? The same people who said they would greet us with flowers? The same people who said Iraq would be the shining light of democracy in the ME? The same people who said "we are going to smoke hiim out of his cave and get Bin Laden"? Why should I believe them now? What have they been right about in the past 6 years? They have been wrong EVERY SINGLE step of the way, so what makes this any different?

(unless you think that making Bush look bad is MORE important than securing a country that we have invaded and insuring that they don't turn out in worse shape than they were before we got there).

Nope, you don't get to frame my position, you lost that right about the same time you were busy defending the torture memos and the Abu Ghriab scandal. Instead of TELLING me what I think, why don't you ASK me what I think? Are you afraid that I may actually be right? Well, I've been right about almost EVERYTHING in this war so far, so is it that you don't want to hear my opinion again, because you are afraid that I will be right yet again and it will further weaken your argument? Why don't you ask what should be done instead of telling me what I think?

We need a plan for victory in Iraq because the consequences of defeat are even worse than anything we are seeing right now. Hate Bush all you want but don't make Iraq and the world suffer because of your personal hatred.

Since when did the GOP get all socialist on me? Since when does the GOP care about the suffering in another country? Since when did anyone in the republican party become caring? Are you serious? You are worried that if we pull out Iraqi's are going to suffer? What about the AMERICAN'S that are suffering? What about the soldiers that have been on their FIFTH tour over there away from their families? What about the guy who freaks out because he hears a car door slam? What about the AMERICANS???? Do you even care about our soldiers? Do you even care about their families, their children? Why do you put the well being of Iraqi's above the well being of Americans??? What the hell is wrong with you? Are you a traitor or something? Are you Al Qaeda?

We are in this situation now and we need a constructive long term solution. Maybe if the Dems had been coming up with new ideas rather than just pulling out I would believe that they are not only in this for their own political gain and hoping for failure.

Well, as I mentioned before, just because you are ignorant on the subject and have neglected to read what various democrats have proposed does not mean that nothing has been proposed. It just means that you have isolated yourself from reality and you now live in a world of spin and lies. It means you have forgone actually looking up facts for yourself, and instead let some jackass think for you. That is ok though, the GOP needs lemmings like yourself. They need people who don't think, because how are they otherwise going to keep getting re-elected? They need a LOT of people like you, and they managed to get a bunch for the past few years. . .but like everything else in life, you can only hold the ruse for so long before it comes tumbling down all around you. You are doing the part, very well I might add, and we need people like you. We, the ones who think, actually need to make examples out of the lemmings every once in a while to show people how NOT to be. Thank you for being a great example of how NOT to be

[Baculus]

Bac, you know the answer to this, as do we all. The "America first" and wrapping yourself in the flag is nothing more than a propaganda tactic taken from the Germans in WWII to promote a radical ideology.

Yep - I agree with this point and the rest of your post.

Like anyone, I want to see our nation win. But there is a point when we have to say, "Hey, we did our part, and it is time to go." And let others do the heavy lifting: Get the Arab states and the U.N. involved. This whole concept of "winning" is just too amorphous, especially since it seems to have changed from the onset of the conflict. But, like you mentioned, some administration supporters just appear to miss these details.

[PeterMP]

It's difficult to image how things could get much worse if we did pull out. At least for the Iraqi people... ( from the late july Oxfam report)

• four million Iraqis, many of them children, are in dire need of food aid;
  
• that 70 percent of the country lacks access to adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003;
  
• that 90 percent of the country’s hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies.
  
• 43 percent of Iraqis live in “absolute poverty,” earning less than $1 a day.
  
• 10% of Iraqi's have fled the country
  
• 10% of Iraqi's are displaced refugees inside the country
  

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31oxfam.html?ex=1343534400&en=bfaed0cdd5a61312&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

about Oxfam

Do you believe us pulling out and then HOPING the international community gets involved helps the Iraqi people?

[Baculus]

Chomerics - your post right above my previous one is kickbutt and right on the money.

[chomerics]

Yep - I agree with this point and the rest of your post.

Like anyone, I want to see our nation win. But there is a point when we have to say, "Hey, we did our part, and it is time to go." And let others do the heavy lifting: Get the Arab states and the U.N. involved. This whole concept of "winning" is just too amorphous, especially since it seems to have changed from the onset of the conflict. But, like you mentioned, some administration supporters just appear to miss these details.

Totally agree Bac. We have already won the war, we should just declare victory and set up a transition from a US based occupation to a UN based one. We all know how much the UN wants to get involved with Iraq, and thus by proxy, get control of their oil, so let them have it. Set up a transition from us to them, and then from the UN to the Iraqis.

There is nary a democrat who wants to pack up everything and leave a civil war in the country. . .but we also can't continue down the same path, because it is getting nowhere. There can be some real progress made if we have the resources (read 500K+ troops) something the US does not have, but the entire world does. We need to go to the UN and say "my bad" we need your help. We can't do that under Bush, but when a democrat takes power, we can. That is one possible solution.

Another is to split it into three states, but that is very messy as well. I used to think it was the only solution, but lately I have come around to thinking the UN solution may be the best one. Who knows which path they will chose, but either way, one of those two paths will be chosen, and we will again be cleaning up Bush's mess. . .and yes, the Saudi quip I posted earlier was tounge in cheek, but also was half serious. The Saudi's are partially the reason for this mess, so they need to shell out some BIG bucks to help fix it. Hold their feet to the fire and force them to share some of the burden. . .I mean after all, they are the ones that have cleaned up Dubya's mistakes before, this should be no different.

[PeterMP]

Tell me what Biden had in his plan for Iraq, tell me how he wanted to solve the problem, and what was unique about his ideas.

I'm surprised Biden has gotten more play if nothing else for his plan. Has he dropped in an attempt to appeal to the more liberal groups?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Only problem with the UN solution

Please someone give me an example where the UN has been EFFECTIVE in essentially governing a state and keeping warring factions from destroying each other

In each case it still ends up Americans being the bulk of the force. I don't think the UN force would be effective at all

[chomerics]

I'm surprised Biden has gotten more play if nothing else for his plan. Has he dropped in an attempt to appeal to the more liberal groups?

Well, his ship sunk on the credit card bill he voted for. I mean it IS politics, and he does represent Delaware, but the bill was an atrocity and everyone knew it. The problem with Biden is that people will equate that vote to being in bed with big business (every politician is, but that was a bad vote for him) and it is what the democrats are trying to separate themselves from. They want to be viewed as a party for the American worker, for the person who has two jobs and trying to make ends meet. Biden's vote removed that position, and it is going to stop him from getting any type of nomination. I liked the guy except for that vote, but I understand why he did it. The rest of the public will not though, and it is his downfall.