If we lose Iraq?

RMNIXON · 12-09-2006, 05:56 PM

First I am not too sure what we mean by a win?

An elected government may do many things not to our liking. That is the way of the world. But it is Iraq sovereignty that I think is the issue. The right to their own self-government that represents all the Iraq people. What we can lose is a form of government that is just a puppet of Iran/Syria and whatever corruption can bully their way to power in the post Saddam void.

I know the intention by some of the left (not all) is that the United States, Neo-Cons, whatever you want to call them have another major military defeat like Vietnam and that this will draw us back from military interventionism and pre-emption, and put us in the European UN "scantions" and speeches about how countries "should not behave in the world" type mode. This suits their ends and outlook.

However, this is not just another Vietnam. We just don't pull out and say "sorry, we lost the good side of a civil war and the commies win this domino." If we lose this the fanatic terror organizations that run accross much of the globe will stop talking about Somalia and start talking about Iraq and what is possible elsewhere on the globe. I would suspect that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and some of the Muslim majority old Soviet States will be very attractive to them.....

JaJae · 12-09-2006, 06:01 PM

If we lose Iraq the Democrats will say I told you so. The Republicans will blame the media and Democrats in a similar fashion of Vietnam saying we lost the war on our soil.

In the end if we lose Iraq we lost a lot more than rhetorical political nonsense. As you stated we open up the country and the region to a very harsh environment. To me a failure in Iraq is leaving them worse off than they were before we went in. That of course is a matter of subjective opinion, but I think it's crucial they form a government that is better than it was before.

Donkey® · 12-09-2006, 06:08 PM

We have lost Iraq and the Democrats are saying "I told you so" the Republicans HAVE blamed the media (while taking the Democrats with them) and people STILL don't recognize the plain reality that we HAVE lost it.

In addition, radical elements will NOT be invading Saudi Arabia or Jordan and the middle east is NOT lost. The middle east will self check and they'll be fighting amongst themselves instead of drawing others into it with them. None of the bullshit that goes on in the middle east would affect us in the slightest if we would just learn to be more self sufficient and learn to work better with our neighbors instead of acting like the arrogant dumbass of the block that owns the IROC.

RMNIXON · 12-09-2006, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If we lose Iraq the Democrats will say I told you so. The Republicans will blame the media and Democrats in a similar fashion of Vietnam saying we lost the war on our soil.

In the end if we lose Iraq we lost a lot more than rhetorical political nonsense. As you stated we open up the country and the region to a very harsh environment. To me a failure in Iraq is leaving them worse off than they were before we went in. That of course is a matter of subjective opinion, but I think it's crucial they form a government that is better than it was before.

I agree. We need to look beyond what party is going to come out of this looking good or bad and how this effects America. We are talking about the future of the Iraq people and the politics of the Middle East. If it will move toward Demcoracy or religious based tyranny? I think we have some short sighted politics happening now that have consequences well beyond what Bush will look like in the history books.

RMNIXON · 12-09-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

In addition, radical elements will NOT be invading Saudi Arabia or Jordan and the middle east is NOT lost. The middle east will self check and they'll be fighting amongst themselves instead of drawing others into it with them. None of the bullshit that goes on in the middle east would affect us in the slightest if we would just learn to be more self sufficient and learn to work better with our neighbors instead of acting like the arrogant dumbass of the block that owns the IROC.

They are in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And if they can count on America to sit back and do nothing they will be very pleased.

Donkey® · 12-09-2006, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

They are in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And if they can count on America to sit back and do nothing they will be very pleased.

They've ALWAYS been there. Shit, most of the radical elements have been from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for at least a decade. What happens in Pakistan at this point is a shame...since we'd rather worry about Iran and their nuclear program instead of a country that is far from stable and has nukes.

JaJae · 12-09-2006, 07:03 PM

Countries who have minded their own business have also been attacked.

Diamond Cross · 12-09-2006, 07:37 PM

Like Spain.

Scrum · 12-09-2006, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Like Spain.

Spain didn't have troops in the middle east?

Donkey® · 12-09-2006, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Countries who have minded their own business have also been attacked.

Like who and attacked by whom?

Diamond Cross · 12-10-2006, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Spain didn't have troops in the middle east?

The 2004 Madrid bombings as an example. It was against the commuter train system. 191 people were killed and 1700 people wounded.

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain doesn't have a presence in the Middle East, so why would they be bombed when the primary reason for bombing America, so the claim goes, that it's because of our interventions in the Middle East and our partnership with Israel?

Logically, since Spain does not intervene, then the Islamic terrorists should not have acted, so what else could the reason be?

Donkey® · 12-10-2006, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

The 2004 Madrid bombings as an example. It was against the commuter train system. 191 people were killed and 1700 people wounded.

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain doesn't have a presence in the Middle East, so why would they be bombed when the primary reason for bombing America, so the claim goes, that it's because of our interventions in the Middle East and our partnership with Israel?

Logically, since Spain does not intervene, then the Islamic terrorists should not have acted, so what else could the reason be?

Wrong.

"The former conservative government had sent Spanish troops to Iraq in 2003, in support of the Bush administration, despite overwhelming Spanish opposition as measured by opinion polls and massive street demonstrations. And Spain then was mentioned in threats in statements from al Qaeda leaders."

CNN.com - Spain remembers Madrid bomb dead - Mar 11, 2006

Diamond Cross · 12-10-2006, 01:07 AM

Then I stand corrected on Spain.

Diamond Cross · 12-10-2006, 01:40 AM

Here's a list of countries supplying troops in Iraq:

Iraq Coalition - Non-US Forces in Iraq

RMNIXON · 12-10-2006, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

They've ALWAYS been there. Shit, most of the radical elements have been from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for at least a decade. What happens in Pakistan at this point is a shame...since we'd rather worry about Iran and their nuclear program instead of a country that is far from stable and has nukes.

The good news is that Pakistan made a recent offer to India. We will stop claiming Kashmir is ours if you do the same. That could cool the nuclear standoff in that area?

But the Bush people and Democrats are being less than honest about one issue. The simple fact is that we cannot go blundering into the Pakistan/Afghanistan border with large amounts of military in order to hunt down Osama. The reason is the risk that this will set off radical attempts to topple the current "West friendly" Pakistan government. It is not worth the gamble. As you say, they have "nukes!" But knowbody want to look weak on this so both parties put on the pretense about going after Osama.

motivez · 12-11-2006, 09:24 PM

There's a huge gap between isolationism and responsible use of our power, especially when it comes to our military might.

Hindsight is always 20/20 and although without some miracle happening, it appears the hindsight of history will show Iraq is a mistake, it seems like a lot of the theories now about what'll happen if we leave were similar to those used in Vietnam.

The whole "domino" theory never actually happened, is there any real indication that it'll happen here?

Maybe so.. We did put Iran in a great position to essentially engulf Iraq if we do leave, they already have more influence in Iraq than we do.