Reply With Quote
What would you rather do Dan? Tell us, oh wise one, what your plan is!
Newsweek is reporting Bush will CUT AND RUN from Iraq if civil war breaks out.
Exclusive: Iraq—Plans in Case of a Civil War
MSNBCAug. 14, 2006 issue - The Bush administration insists Iraq is a long way from civil war, but the contingency planning has already begun inside the White House and the Pentagon. President Bush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named while talking about internal strategy. "If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said. "But ins utionally, the government of Iraq isn't breaking down. It's still a unity government." Bush's position on a pullout of U.S. troops emerged in response to news-week's questions about Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Warner warned last week that the president might require a new vote from Congress to allow troops to stay in Iraq in what he called "all-out civil war." But the senior Bush aide said the White House would need no prompting from Congress to get troops out "if the Iraqi government broke down completely along sectarian lines."
At this point, whatever gets the job done. So, according to MSNbC if things get really tough in Iraq, the plan is to cut'n'run. The sacking of the green zone and new multi-million dollar US embassy ought make for interesting video.
What would you rather do Dan? Tell us, oh wise one, what your plan is!
It should never have gotten to this point. I don't think there is any way to salvage this situation were there is a completely positive outcome for the U.S. or U.S. regional interests. Anything we do now is just window dressing. What we really need is new leadership in the Defense Dept, get rid of Rummy and bring in Gen. Wesley Clark would be a good start.
Good liberal answer!
dubya is prepping the terrain for his cut-and-run.
The civil war is already full-blown, with the US military helpless to mitigate it, let alone stop it.
Exactly. The Repugs fabricated this phony war. It's 100% the responsibility of the Repugs to fix it. Obviously, they don't have a clue, and never cared one way or the other about Iraq.
Rummy and his generals openly disagreed in the hearing last week. Insane.
so if the liberals say CUT and RUN its a cowardly thing to do but if the Repukes say it, its ok cause there is no other alternative and of course they will also claim they coined the phrase.
It will be a redeployment to victory.
Can we get a vbookie on when Kurdistan will join the UN?
Liberals were saying do it it...
A. Before there was a Civil War.
and
B. Before the interim government and cons ution had even been drawn.
It wasn't cutting and running if we left when the elected government asked us to leave.
It won't be cutting and running if they elect to fight a civil war.
What are we supposed to do? Fight it for them?
If they want to fight, let them fight....
Let the muslims kill each other for a change...it'll give all the terrorists something else to do, it'll give them something to attack besides Israel...
Look it's unfortunate if they go to civil war, for them...but the bottom line is that we removed Saddam, and we did everything in our power to give their Democracy a chance.
But I am curious as to just how far away our troops are going to be moved...
Since the Kurds are already autonomous, pro USA, accepting of Israel, and their region borders all the countries that need dictators removed and the kicked out of them, I am pretty sure that Northern Iraq is as far as our military will go...
We gain a non ed up country in the middle east....that just so happens to border Iran and Syria..
I will be surprised if the US doesn't end up backing a separate Kurdish state and having their military stationed there...
That was always somethign they were considering and IMO the reason they pushed for a Federalist Cons ution IMO.
If all this goes down it will be interesting to see who the US backs in a Sunni Shia conflict...Because neither of them will be ing with the Kurds...especially if our military is there.
The Sunnis won't want any part of it because that will put them in the middle...the Shias aren't really in a position to do it...besides, they have no emnitiy with the Kurds.
The US will back the Kurds but they will also have to pick Sunni or Shia...and that will be the interesting choice.
A Shia state makes Iran, not Israel, the biggest threat to the other countries, although not as big as everyone might think. At the same time...the Sunnis are the main problem, not only for us, but for the Kurds as well.
The Shias and Kurds don't even want a unified Iraq anyway...so basically this isolates the Sunnis.
Anyway...if we can gain an ally, establish a non ed up country and further fragment the muslims and get them as pissed off at each other as they are at Israel(like they have been for most of their history), plus get rid of Saddam and increase our military position against Iraq, not to mention turning one big ty country into 3 small ones(one of which won't be ty)...it's a victory for the US...
Yeah the PKK and Turkey are a problem but not a big one.
The PKK need to ing go anyway...
Let the Sunnis and Shias fight if they want....more power to em....kill each other off, it's what they do best.
Last edited by whottt; 08-07-2006 at 02:59 PM.
Dan, what happened to war for Oil...
You think we'd be considering doing this if this were all about Oil?
If they have a civil war they have a civil war and it's their choice...they chose that path and it's not our problem.
Getting rid of Saddam was our problem, giving them a chance for Democracy was our problem. Iran is our problem...
The country has ty borders anyway(you can thank Europe for this, again).
We tried, they elected for civil war...
Two small countries are less of a threat than Saddam(And IMO, more easily swayed towards moderation) and the Kurds are already Westernized.
It could be that "civil war" will be the spin to "withdraw with honor" from Iraq. Hook Dem and Whott already buy it.
We contributed as one of the reasons for a possible Civil War, we might as well stay there.
"You think we'd be considering doing this if this were all about Oil? "
We don't intervene in Africa's ed up countries where there is no oil.
One Repug ideal objective for their phony Repug Iraq is to drive up the price of oil, at least for a few months if not years, to enrich the oil co's, while maintaing the flow of oil to the US oil co's.
A civil war could still work to the oil co advantage, taking Iraq oil off the market for a while, and if push comes to shove with Iran, Iran oil, too.
The invasion of Iraq has not increased the US security in any sense, not that that was every a real real for the Repug war.
Nbadan - Iraq: The Ultimate Quagmire
ChumpDumper - We're there for the long run, good or bad.
I was going to get to boutons, el pimpo and spurster but it...what really is the point?
If we stay it's a quagmire, a war for oil, an occupation behind a puppet government, if we don't it's cutting and running and the war was a mistake...
blah blah blah blah. .
Every time this comes up it's same stupid ing arguments...the same people ing that we are going to be there for eternity now ing that we might not be...
Zero cred.
Want a time table for pullout, then when it starts to happen it's a bad thing...if we stay it's bad, if we leave it's bad.
Here's the deal...if you leave when they ask you to stay, it's bad.
If you leave when they want you to leave, it's not.
The admin doesn't want to leave IMO...
And you guys have no consistent stance.
Meanwhile...whottt, from a year ago:
and:If they par ion they par ion...if push comes to shove the Kurds will break off from the rest of the country(not an entirely bad idea if you ask me) and they'll be happy to have us as their guests.
It's just too complex of a situation to predict what will happen there and anyone that thinks they can is a fool...
This process will either establish a national iden y or else it might indeed lead to civil war...which gurantees at least 1 new US ally.
My take:
We wanted Saddam gone...it's done.
We wanted an ally with a Democratic Government...Not done, yet. But if a civil war breaks out that increases the odds.
We want to stick our military up Iran's ass...if a civil wark breaks out and the Kurds par ion themselves off, we get our western ally, we also get a place to crawl up Iran's ass.
IMO, an independent Kurd nation has always beein the back of the minds of the foreign experts...and it's always been in the back of mine.
It's not our fault the dumbasses hate each other almost as much as they hate Israel...we don't want them to fight, we want them to take their new government and use it...they want to fight. Let em.
And no...we are not obligated to stay and interfere in their affairs....we've been trying to get them to do this on their own...they just want fight. Mo Pow to em.
We got bigger fish to fry then their stupid ing civil war.
And actually, it helps us in the long run...as long as they are fighting each other it'll give all the nutcases a cause to blow themselves up over.
Whott, your side's ed, the US military is ed and wasted, and the Repugs don't have a clue how to get out of the mess they alone have created.
It doesn't really matter what any non-Repugs or dissenters say. That's academic.
Only the Repugs had the power to start and the responsiblity for starting their phony war.
You say "inconsistent" ? The ing Repugs have moved their bull justifications for the war all over the ballpark. Nobody believes their bull now, and the spin the Repugs will put on THEIR defeat in Iraq won't convince anybody. Their credibility is shot, nobody trusts them anymore.
USA's Muslim enemies will be emboldened, now cowered, by the Repug abortion in Iraq, as they will be by the resistance the Hezbollah is showing in S. Lebanon.
Lebanon is getting the living kicked out of it.
You know what made Hezbollah strong(er)?
20 years of doing nothing.......................
It's our fault that Iraq is in that mess. With Saddam in power everybody kept quiet. Now I'm not saying that Saddam in power is nice, but we bascially did a coup d'etat for the Iraqi's and tried to plant the seeds of Democracy as the main objective for this war. We haven't and since we haven't and Iraq is in political/social turmoil because an action we commited we just can't bail on them when their democracy crashes into pieices. Think of the saying: If you don't wanna do the time, then don't do the crime.
So what should we do?
Go and massacre all who don't share our vision like Saddam?
Civil War is not that big of a deal...we had one once.
I don't agree with your out of sight out of mind philosophy...just because all dissent was violently supressed doesn't mean it was a better situation...it was a bad situation that was getting worse.
Saddam had episodes of slaughtering 100,000 people for not sharing his vision...
That's essentially what you want us to do...
I mean that's the better situation they had under Saddam...except for the fact that they were sanctioned and has us carpetbombing them for Saddam's actions....in addition to dissenters being wholesale slaughtered.
We freed them...we have not supressed them.
Why do you people think this is going to be a quick process?
It was a century in the making.
Yeah I guess your forgot to read my part where I said Saddam in power isn't what I'm trying to say. Because all you mentioned was Saddam
US forces should stay in and offer assistance to whatever side is willing to cooperate with the US. Basically the good side. As far as I see it the reason Iraq faces civil war is because of the USA. Am I not right? Here's another anaolgy: You break it, you pay for it.
I have no doubt we will support the friendly side...
This won't be a 2 sided civil war...it will be a 3 sided, Kurds and Shias both wanting independent states and the Sunnis wanting one country...and we already support the Kurds.
The Shias and Kurds may be united against the Sunnis..but we might support the Kurds and the Sunnis as long as the Sunnis leave the Kurds alone..........
Like I said...there's no doubt we'll support the Kurds, the question is who do we support beyond that...Sunnis or Shias?
That's where it gets dicey...I am still thinking about that, and when I get it figured it out I will let you(and the White House) know.
Honestly I am leaning towards the Shias...they are more progressive and even though Sadr is a head, Sistani is the major voice and he is very moderate.
And the Shias like Iran's support against the Sunnis...but I don't think they are going to be willing to be Iran's ....
The major baddy in Iraq is the Sunnis under Saddams regime. So if we ally ourselves with the Kurds, I'd expect the Shia's to join us like an additional add-on -- Like Two for the price of one. I agree with you that the Iraq Shia's are not gonna be close with Iran from the resentment of the Iraq and Iran war says I.
This all got ed up after WWI when we let Britain and France carve up that part of the world.
We should fix it and cut Iraq into three pieces. The only reason the US wouldn't do it is because it would (essentially) give Iran all the Iraqi oil fields in the south.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
