Complete withdrawal from Iraq

[billvon 3,114]

>this number could increase tenfold or more should all-out civil war emerge.

It's possible. It's also possible that the number could increase tenfold while we're there as sectarian violence continues to increase.

>the principle of "no more Rwandas"

?? Isn't that "No more Darfurs" now? Almost half a million dead there so far.

>President Bill Clinton apologized to the people of Rwanda for
> America's failure to help stem the killing that occurred on his watch.

Will Bush apologize for Darfur?

>Should Iraq descend into all-out civil war, there will be far
>more to apologize for in the decades to come.

Better to be apologizing for not doing enough than apologizing for killing so many.

[NCclimber 0]

Sometimes I think you just put it out there to see if anyone will validate some pretty out there points.

Quote

>this number could increase tenfold or more should all-out civil war emerge.

It's possible. It's also possible that the number could increase tenfold while we're there as sectarian violence continues to increase.

Do you really think sectarian violence could increase equally whether we are there or not?

Quote

?? Isn't that "No more Darfurs" now? Almost half a million dead there so far.

Will Bush apologize for Darfur?

By "no more Darfurs" are you saying we should (or should have) do something about the genocide in Sudan (regardless of the policy of the UN)?

Should we leave Iraq and at the same time insert ourselves into Sudan?

Quote

>Should Iraq descend into all-out civil war, there will be far
>more to apologize for in the decades to come.

Better to be apologizing for not doing enough than apologizing for killing so many.

Are you saying that staying in Iraq will result in just as much bloodshed as pulling out, creating a power vacuum and letting all the rival forces having at it?

[billvon 3,114]

>Do you really think sectarian violence could increase equally whether we
>are there or not?

I think sectarian violence will be lower intensity but longer lasting while we are there. If we leave the fighting will be intense but much shorter. Right now the Iraqis don't have much incentive to solve any of their own problems. Why should they accept the risk and expense? We've said we'll be there as long as it takes. Indeed, any suggestions that they should be ready by a certain date are met with disgust and "you want us to lose" rhetoric (and a veto.)

>By "no more Darfurs" are you saying we should (or should have) do
>something about the genocide in Sudan (regardless of the policy of the
>UN)?

I don't know; there's no easy answer there. I will say that if we don't have a solid plan to stop it (one that is real-world, will work etc) it would be a better idea to stay out of it.

>Should we leave Iraq and at the same time insert ourselves into Sudan?

I'd say they were two separate issues.

>Are you saying that staying in Iraq will result in just as much bloodshed as
>pulling out, creating a power vacuum and letting all the rival forces having
>at it?

Just as much? I doubt it. A similar amount? Could be. We don't know anything for sure at this point.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

no kidding!
who voted for those people???


It therefore makes it doubly challenging and frustrating everytime they deliver new intel to us regarding the middle east. It's getting very difficult to find accurate and neutral information.

Plenty of blogs out there with accurate info - do a search for Michael Yon.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706