Costs of Iraq withdrawl

ok... not too focused on the campaign, but the McCain camp seems to be paiting Obama in a negative light because of his willingness to withdraw troops from Iraq, "no matter what the cost"

So... What do the astute members of this forum see as the costs of withdrawing troops from Iraq... suppose for the sake of argument, that it be a phased yet aggressive withdrawal of 20% of our total every two months until none remain... What is the cost to us, the cost to Iraq, or the costs to our interests there?

Here is McCain saying withdraw is not important ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1P3bnP6IlI

Wthdrawl could lead to the collaspe of Iraq. Could divide the country into 3, which would be bad since the North and South have oil and the other part doesn't so could lead to continued fighting. Could give Iran which is unstable in it's thinking more control in the Iraq. i.e. the southern port and it's oil. You could get a more militant government in charge i.e. the equivelant to the taliban in Afghanistan. All of this could upset the balance of the middle east even more creating a power struggle which could draw the U.S. back into another middle east conflict.

Just a few things off the top of my head, the pull out could cause....doesn't mean it will, just could.

My take is it would suck either way at this point. I was against it from the start - yadda yadda yadda - but here we are with no good options.

I could care less we need out of there and let them fight it out

only reason we are there is cause of the oil

drill our own or....use different sources of power

Mort wrote:I could care less we need out of there and let them fight it out

only reason we are there is cause of the oil

drill our own or....use different sources of power

I agree, I said from the beginning that going was a HUGE mistake, we need to leave, no matter the cost and figure out a way to power the US with US resources, easier said than done, but we gotta start somewhere.

Scooby01_98 wrote:Wthdrawl could lead to the collaspe of Iraq. Could divide the country into 3, which would be bad since the North and South have oil and the other part doesn't so could lead to continued fighting. Could give Iran which is unstable in it's thinking more control in the Iraq. i.e. the southern port and it's oil. You could get a more militant government in charge i.e. the equivelant to the taliban in Afghanistan. All of this could upset the balance of the middle east even more creating a power struggle which could draw the U.S. back into another middle east conflict.

Just a few things off the top of my head, the pull out could cause....doesn't mean it will, just could.

Whether we stay there or go now there will be other middle east conflicts. Our boys and girls (said that for Mark and LTRT and Card) should not be over there fighting in a war that has NO achievable goals now, never had a clear defined mission and now we are playing referree in a civil war that we allowed to start.

Bring our troops home now, let God sort it out over there.

Mort wrote:I could care less we need out of there and let them fight it out

only reason we are there is cause of the oil

drill our own or....use different sources of power

What does that mean "only reason we are there is cause of the oil"?

"The oil" hasn't meant anything so far except we are paying more than ever. So who is profiting off this oil?

So we should just forget about everything that we have done and "let them fight it out"? Man, I don't know how you can say that.

I still think it's foolish to believe we should just pull out and leave a vacuum over there.. using my favorite example (just for pez).. that's what we did in essence in Afghanistan.. look how well that worked out for us. We fought back the Russians then left so the Taliban could take over and produce AllQueers who them took out two buildings and almost the Pentagon.

So.. if we run away from Iraq when they are surrounded by people who want to see America fall, and Israel destroyed what are the odds that Iraq survives and doesn't turn into an extension of Iran or Syria? Saudi Arabia isn't going to do anything that is good for us, they are one of the biggest problems over there.. but no one wants to talk about them.

Keep the troops there... develop schools, protect the government, lay down a timeline that is feasible for the Iraqi's to take over and if they don't, annex them and make it an extension of Texas so we can get cheap oil.

cardinal5150 wrote:I still think it's foolish to believe we should just pull out and leave a vacuum over there.. using my favorite example (just for pez).. that's what we did in essence in Afghanistan.. look how well that worked out for us. We fought back the Russians then left so the Taliban could take over and produce AllQueers who them took out two buildings and almost the Pentagon.

So.. if we run away from Iraq when they are surrounded by people who want to see America fall, and Israel destroyed what are the odds that Iraq survives and doesn't turn into an extension of Iran or Syria? Saudi Arabia isn't going to do anything that is good for us, they are one of the biggest problems over there.. but no one wants to talk about them.

Keep the troops there... develop schools, protect the government, lay down a timeline that is feasible for the Iraqi's to take over and if they don't, annex them and make it an extension of Texas so we can get cheap oil.

You know... I am of two minds with this thing... part of me says we can pull out and let them be damned... we made a mistake, here's some aid money, fix it yourselves. Another part of me agree's with Card's tongue in cheek comment, that we should run the country, since there does not seem to be an overriding political will for them to run it themselves.

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:I still think it's foolish to believe we should just pull out and leave a vacuum over there.. using my favorite example (just for pez).. that's what we did in essence in Afghanistan.. look how well that worked out for us. We fought back the Russians then left so the Taliban could take over and produce AllQueers who them took out two buildings and almost the Pentagon.

So.. if we run away from Iraq when they are surrounded by people who want to see America fall, and Israel destroyed what are the odds that Iraq survives and doesn't turn into an extension of Iran or Syria? Saudi Arabia isn't going to do anything that is good for us, they are one of the biggest problems over there.. but no one wants to talk about them.

Keep the troops there... develop schools, protect the government, lay down a timeline that is feasible for the Iraqi's to take over and if they don't, annex them and make it an extension of Texas so we can get cheap oil.

You know... I am of two minds with this thing... part of me says we can pull out and let them be damned... we made a mistake, here's some aid money, fix it yourselves. Another part of me agree's with Card's tongue in cheek comment, that we should run the country, since there does not seem to be an overriding political will for them to run it themselves.

It seems to me their overriding political will and style of government has been, and will continue to be (if) after we pull out... "leave the safety off"

To them, I doubt we're viewed as providing anything other than a type of multi-headed despotism.

... which reminds me, Does anyone remember that Masters of the Universe character that you could change his faces by turning a dial on the top of his head? I think his name was man-e-faces or something. "Human, Robot, Monster"

meta4 wrote:... which reminds me, Does anyone remember that Masters of the Universe character that you could change his faces by turning a dial on the top of his head? I think his name was man-e-faces or something. "Human, Robot, Monster"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-E-Faces

Now that you mention the name, I sort of remember him. But it's mainly the name and not the actual character.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

meta4 wrote:... which reminds me, Does anyone remember that Masters of the Universe character that you could change his faces by turning a dial on the top of his head? I think his name was man-e-faces or something. "Human, Robot, Monster"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-E-Faces

Now that you mention the name, I sort of remember him. But it's mainly the name and not the actual character.

All I know is that he'd be scary as President!

Imagine if McCain and Obama, were always seen with Iraqi advisors and body guards.

Why do we think this kind of "setup" would work successfully for a pullout from Iraq? IMHO, the only answer is "Ok, screw you guys, we're done fighting and we're going home. This has been one hell of a party... Who do we make the check out to?"

meta4 wrote:

To them, I doubt we're viewed as providing anything other than a type of multi-headed despotism.

I think they are much like us... it'll depend who you ask. If you go to some places around here you'll get talk about how the man is holding them down, blah blah blah, or how great the world is, blah blah blah, or how it's the evil Bush admin, blah blah blah.

If you talk to the soldiers over there just about every one will tell you of people who thank them for being there.. you just won't see it on the news because it's not showing doom and gloom.

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

To them, I doubt we're viewed as providing anything other than a type of multi-headed despotism.

I think they are much like us... it'll depend who you ask. If you go to some places around here you'll get talk about how the man is holding them down, blah blah blah, or how great the world is, blah blah blah, or how it's the evil Bush admin, blah blah blah.

If you talk to the soldiers over there just about every one will tell you of people who thank them for being there.. you just won't see it on the news because it's not showing doom and gloom.

I couldn't disagree more. If they were like "us" ideologically they'd be in even more of a fractured state, only in a more wealthy country so it would be harder to notice the effect. I see them like a shot glass of water, and the US like a 3 gallon bucket. A drop over there is huge, where as here it would hardly be noticed.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

To them, I doubt we're viewed as providing anything other than a type of multi-headed despotism.

I think they are much like us... it'll depend who you ask. If you go to some places around here you'll get talk about how the man is holding them down, blah blah blah, or how great the world is, blah blah blah, or how it's the evil Bush admin, blah blah blah.

If you talk to the soldiers over there just about every one will tell you of people who thank them for being there.. you just won't see it on the news because it's not showing doom and gloom.

I couldn't disagree more. If they were like "us" ideologically they'd be in even more of a fractured state, only in a more wealthy country so it would be harder to notice the effect. I see them like a shot glass of water, and the US like a 3 gallon bucket. A drop over there is huge, where as here it would hardly be noticed.

What I meant was that even here it depends on who you talk to for what type of outlook you get. We have the hilljacks who believe the man is out to get them and that the government is only there to take their money.. so do the Iraqi's. We have those who are above anything the gov't does because they are uber rich and can afford anything.. so do the Iraqi's.

But when you see a news clip here.. who's on.. it's always the fattest dumbest person in the crowd. My guess is when they get people on TV in Iraq it's about the same person.

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

To them, I doubt we're viewed as providing anything other than a type of multi-headed despotism.

I think they are much like us... it'll depend who you ask. If you go to some places around here you'll get talk about how the man is holding them down, blah blah blah, or how great the world is, blah blah blah, or how it's the evil Bush admin, blah blah blah.

If you talk to the soldiers over there just about every one will tell you of people who thank them for being there.. you just won't see it on the news because it's not showing doom and gloom.

I couldn't disagree more. If they were like "us" ideologically they'd be in even more of a fractured state, only in a more wealthy country so it would be harder to notice the effect. I see them like a shot glass of water, and the US like a 3 gallon bucket. A drop over there is huge, where as here it would hardly be noticed.

What I meant was that even here it depends on who you talk to for what type of outlook you get. We have the hilljacks who believe the man is out to get them and that the government is only there to take their money.. so do the Iraqi's. We have those who are above anything the gov't does because they are uber rich and can afford anything.. so do the Iraqi's.

But when you see a news clip here.. who's on.. it's always the fattest dumbest person in the crowd. My guess is when they get people on TV in Iraq it's about the same person.

Well, all I can say Card is I don't have a pair of the standard issue GOP goggles. Apparently these enable the wearer to view every issue in broad generalizations, reduce "glare", and quickly cover up images that the wearer would rather not look at.

... In the right light, they might even make the poor seem equal to the wealthy if viewed from certain angles...

meta4 wrote:
Well, all I can say Card is I don't have a pair of the standard issue GOP goggles. Apparently these enable the wearer to view every issue in broad generalizations, reduce "glare", and quickly cover up images that the wearer would rather not look at.

... In the right light, they might even make the poor seem equal to the wealthy if viewed from certain angles...

Your right.. silly me.. I forgot that every single person in America has the same viewpoint and that no one else on earth could ever have differing viewpoints from others in their country.. what was I thinking...

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:
Well, all I can say Card is I don't have a pair of the standard issue GOP goggles. Apparently these enable the wearer to view every issue in broad generalizations, reduce "glare", and quickly cover up images that the wearer would rather not look at.

... In the right light, they might even make the poor seem equal to the wealthy if viewed from certain angles...

Your right.. silly me.. I forgot that every single person in America has the same viewpoint and that no one else on earth could ever have differing viewpoints from others in their country.. what was I thinking...

Did the DVD have a scratch in it? I think we have been talking about what you think Iraq is like. I said we have no concept of what it's like. What I really was trying to say is that (personally) I'd doubt anything you'd say as anywhere near the reality of what it's like over there. Heavens no, I didn't mean to sound like I completely invalidate your opinion. Maybe you're developing that Glen Beck-itis from listening to AM radio too much.

I heard that everyone over there has internet access, a car, $.20/gal. gas to put in that car, air conditioning, and good water, and a job, and their very own bed, and the all live within 1 mile of a supermarket, 5 miles from a movie theater, and... and...

Plain and simple fact is that we should not have been there to begin with, things are MORE screwed up over there now than they were when W landed that plane on the aircraft carrier and the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner was proudly displayed for Bush's reelection campaign therefore the best option is bring our troops home now. I believe our troops did the best they could have seeing how they had no defined mission, no exit strategy and no plan to win the peace. Way over 4,000 American lives have been lost over there and for what? WMDs? Oh, fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here ... right???? Like 100% of the terrorists are hunkered down in Iraq. Wait, maybe we are over there to build democracy in the middle east in a muslim country that believes in theocracy. Mr. Bush, exactly what is the reason we are there today and Mr. McCain tell me why we have to stay there 100 years and not be concerned with bringing them home?

Oh I believe the cost to staying there is immence ...

i dont think obamas intent has ever been to yank them all out quickly. start pulling out soon, yes...i would hope based on letting those with most redeployment war times served go first.

its my impression watch things as we pull out. iraq will need to assume much more responsibility in every area..as they should since their nations profits from oil have stayed within the top government there rather than shared with the people as they were required to do; leave a contingency there as trainers, guidance, ambassadorial, and tech etc.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19671.htm

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ.

thanks for posting the link canuck--excellent and realistic read! of course the neocons here will think this guy is a bleeding heart liberal/commie and his opinion isnt nearly as accurate as all those bushco puppets saying the opposite is true!!