should we stay or should we go?

[harm]

Democrat plan:

“Our only chance is a comprehensive political settlement which keeps Iraq together by giving Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds breathing room to run their own affairs, shares oil revenues, and gets Iraq’s neighbors in on the deal. That’s the plan I laid out 6 months ago with Les Gelb and I believe it’s the only way to leave Iraq responsibly, with our interests intact and without trading a dictator for chaos.” Joe Biden
--
"Strategic Redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007... Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq -- Jack Reed of Rhode Island -- and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California. Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb's plan endorsed by Howard Dean

Republican plan:

Stay for who knows when....no real plan, if so...please tell me.


bahahahahhaah Democrats rule.

[Ulyaoth]

hmm, yes...

[Da Skinna]

Will the new senate and house have any bearing on these decisions in the near future?

Let's just take the money and run, the most self-fulfilling way to go.

[Miraj]

America broke it, America fixes it.

[Erik]

America broke it, America fixes it.

I fully agree.

And it's not like they weren't warned in advance.
America wanted this war so desperately, now they have to finish it no matter how many casualties they get.
What they should really do is re-establish the draft.

[Ulyaoth]

I fully agree.

And it's not like they weren't warned in advance.
America wanted this war so desperately, now they have to finish it no matter how many casualties they get.
What they should really do is re-establish the draft.

Now that the democrats are in I'm sure it'll either be instituted soon, or we'll just hand the country over to some new dictator.

[Garbarsardar]

America broke it, America fixes it.

Not really. This statement competes for short-sightedness with the American policy in Iraq. Iraq was "broken" since it was conceived in the minds of the British Imperium and it was always a country hanging by a thread or preserved by means of many people hanging by a variety of things...

I am also critical of the way the US handled the situation but I am not ready to make the same mistake the administration did: And that was replacing historical realities and reality on the ground with wishful thinking and expired political or argumentative manierisms...

[Da Skinna]

Iraq was "broken" since it was conceived in the minds of the British Imperium and it was always a country hanging by a thread or preserved by means of many people hanging by a variety of things...

Iraq was taped back together however with Saddam, and not until his death would that Scotch tape come apart. Now if his son, Qusay was a bit smarter, he may have even been the Duct tape for Iraq!

[MasterAdnin]

America broke it, America fixes it.

My thoughts exactly.

Salaam,
Adnan

[Atheist Peace]

The fact is, at this point, no one really knows what the "best" plan is. It seems that there is a possibility of most of these plans working, but also a great possibility of each of them failing. Even "staying the course" might work out in the end, if persistence persists long enough; so could just leaving, though. It's really nothing but a mess in Iraq, and no one truly knows what to do about it. Illustrative of this, I think, is the post-Saddam verdict situation. Many thought that violence would increase, and others thought otherwise. It seems that the latter was what happeened, but it seems that it could have easily gone the other way. I certainly hope that something will come of this Baker-Hamilton report.

[Da Skinna]

The draft would put the Republicans out of business for a while, I would think...

But it is true, America started it, dubiously, and now they have to finish it, in whatever manner, but they just have to solve it.

Personally though, I think separating Iraq into Sunni/Shia/Kurd areas would be best, with a centralized government that is sure to have all voices from all factions heard. Because if America did just that much more effort in setting it up and then left, the Iraqis would only have themselves to blame, and so not only is America out of the liability crosshair, but Iraq's factions almost have to do something to make the situation better, and that means resolving feuds and blood vendettas.

[Tecumseh]

should we stay or should we go?

I've always hated The Clash.

[RusskiSoldat]

No idea at all.
I get the feeling that no matter what happens, it'll be a disaster.

[humvee2800]

Hmmm, a tough call , It was screwed up beofre they got their but by coming their they did open up other problems replacing the one they got rid off. I think it should be replanned to be most effective (and replanned by the military not by idiot politicians) to first of all do the job as effectively and safely as possible and second as cost effectively as possible. For the time being and the next few years i think they should stay and do there best to fix things. Perhaps it will be a while but i dont think now is the time tobail out.... of course ultimately it should be up to the soldiers as it is their lives on the line.

[Holger Danske]

No idea at all.
I get the feeling that no matter what happens, it'll be a disaster.

Well, if the west leave Iraq now, then we'll all be happy to have our soldiers safely back home, so we all can watch the Iraqis mass murdering each other over CNN...

I'm tired of the Iraqi's and really don't care for them any more (just read my sig) - The sad thing is that I know that as soon as hell breakes out over there they'll be crying for our help while calling us Crusaders...

[Caelius]

And I'm telling you that, much like vietnam, the american public isn't gonna tolerate endless occupations that come with mounting casualties.

Be sure to get back to me when the US KIA toll in Iraq gets to 58,000.

You bring bosnia again and again yet fail to adress the point that bosnia doesn't produce any casualties and btw. is an operation run by many different nations whereas iraq is pretty much an all american deal.

Are you telling me you misinterpreted what I said again? For the last time, I was never addressing the US perspective for comparing either Iraq or Bosnia. But the clear parallel that can be made between the ethnic cleansing that occured after the collapse of Tito's regime, and what happened in Iraq after Saddam's fell. You keep on using the same response to an argument that I never brought up and which is not in dispute here.

So you notice how your argument is flawed if you try to cite Bosnia as an example, yet disregard the fact that it's not a war zone anymore.

And why isn't it a warzone anymore? Perhaps because the troops that are stationed there (an effort led by the US btw) along with the peace agreements signed have led to a stabilization of the area? You really just aren't getting it.

To make it clear to him that if he wants to be taken seriously for "having been out there" he HAS to justify himself.

Took few tries to get the point (I hope) to another experienced vet of these boards so I am playing it safe.

Taken seriously by whom, you? If anything he'll probably just ignore having to do so as Oldgamer has done.

[Rapax]

Be sure to get back to me when the US KIA toll in Iraq gets to 58,000.

Still playing the numbers game? Times are changing, you should start to accept that fact. Casualty numbers are dropping and so is the acceptance of the public for casualties. That it's only 3,000 so far (and counting) doesn't make it any less of a burden. Vietnam's higher casualty numbers accelerated the withdrawal and with Iraq it will probably take that much longer for the same effect to take place. In the seventies someone like you was probably argueing with another guy and telling him to get back when Vietnam reaches the death toll of WW2. Doesn't work that way.

Are you telling me you misinterpreted what I said again? For the last time, I was never addressing the US perspective for comparing either Iraq or Bosnia. But the clear parallel that can be made between the ethnic cleansing that occured after the collapse of Tito's regime, and what happened in Iraq after Saddam's fell. You keep on using the same response to an argument that I never brought up and which is not in dispute here.

There's nothing to misinterpret. Peacekeeping forces went into Bosnia because of ethnic cleansing happening, in Iraq, the invasion only started it in the first place and you really want to compare that? Saddam didn't fall by himself, he was forcibly removed by the US who wasn't able to keep the ethnic conflict from breaking out. It has steadily gotten worse since the end of the invasion, basically the reverse situation from Bosnia, yet you see some kind of odd paralell.

And why isn't it a warzone anymore? Perhaps because the troops that are stationed there (an effort led by the US btw) along with the peace agreements signed have led to a stabilization of the area? You really just aren't getting it.

Right, I'm not getting it. Iraq has turned into a warzone because ofand despite the troops stationed there and you actually try to tell me it's gonna be the same as in Bosnia. Do you actually think about what you write or does it just flow out of you?

@carach:

last i knew there was quite a few Brits in iraq too, and poles, and dutch, and portugese, spanish...

the majority is the US army sure but you shouldnt be playing down other nations involved.

Wow, I didn't think anyone would actually feel the need to comment on that. After the US, the british are the only major troop contributor, poland is gonna withdraw by the end of the year, portugal already is gone, so are the spanish btw. and apart from that you have a wonderful mix of tiny countries to add the flair of internationality to something that by and large is an american affair. The troops from all other nations combined don't even make up 1/8th of the total force there. It's not about downplaying anyone, in case you're trying to play the "support the troops"-card, it's about simple realities.

[Nerwen Carnesîr]

Funny how the people that want the U.S. to send more troops to Iraq are either old politicians and generals, Europeans, or people that don't understand a thing about war beyond what they've seen in video games, huh?

I support a full withdrawal from Iraq. If the Iraqi's truly wanted people, they wouldn't blow up dozens of our troops every day. Screw them...honestly, screw them.

I fully agree.

And it's not like they weren't warned in advance.
America wanted this war so desperately, now they have to finish it no matter how many casualties they get.
What they should really do is re-establish the draft.

Smart idea...except it's not. Why should I, or anyone else be sent to fight a war we don't believe in?

[Last Roman]

damned if we do, damned if we don't. either way, we're ****ed.

What they should really do is re-establish the draft.

**** that. I didn't want this war. Why should I go fight it?

[Rapax]

**** that. I didn't want this war. Why should I go fight it?

Well, it's called "Democracy" and not "each his own".