Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
To simply say it's 'our mess' ignores to the complexity of the situation. For one, there was going to be civil war after the removal of the Baath leadership no matter what. If the UN had stepped in and removed the Hussain leadership, there still would probably be a civil war, though it probably wouldn't be as big. If the Iraqis had removed Saddam themselves, there would have been a civil war to remove Saddam, then another to find out who was in charge next. If no one did anything, when Saddam eventually died his kids and nephews would have started a civil war for control.
The Bush administration was the catalyst to something that was, for the most part, eventual. The difference is that we handled it much worse than anyone ever could have guessed possible. The mismanagement, lack of planning, and overt theft and power grab are the reasons this situation has become so dire. It stand to reason that continuing the current path is not just mind numbingly obtuse, but it's going to be detrimental to the safety of people from Iraq to the UK and even back to the US. The longer we stay there, the more we invite guerilla attacks from radical elements of people sympathetic to Arabs and/or Muslims who are being occupied, suppressed, abused, tortured, and murdered. That's right, I'm not using the "t" word.
|
I don't disagree with any of this, but find none of it to be supportive of the solution of walking away.
And I don't think I ignore the complexity of the situation. In fact, the complexity of the situation forms the very basis of my opinion. Rather I find the idea of "walking away" to be completely void of comprehensive thought.
And this is OUR MESS, it may not be
only our mess, but still it is OUR MESS.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
MM and roach:
I dont think any of the recent redeployment proposals supported by the majority of Democrats in Congress (and liberals in the country) would have the US just walking away.
The Levin/Reed Amendment, the one the Republicans in the Senate blocked from a vote today is representative of most recent proposals: * phased redeployment as part of a new and different comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.
* continued training, equipping, and providing logistic support to the Iraqi Security Forces
and
* engaging in targeted counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda, al Qaeda affiliated groups
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/0...amendment.html
I dont see that as walking away, but rather as the best alternative to a failed policy and no-win situation for the Iraqis |
Thank you, DC. Actually, I am aware that walking away is not the Democratic stance on Iraq. It's just very disheartening to realize the grave disparity there is on the issue among people I would normally find myself in close alignment with politically. And I'm not quite sure what to make of it.