Oppose the war in Iraq?

[Atokal]

Just a question to all the folks who protest the war in Iraq.

What is done is done. The US forces are on the ground, the decision was made and now I am wondering what you are protesting.

To my way of thinking the USA is in for a penny already. They cannot just up and leave so what is the solution. All the complaining about the war is really stupid if there is no alternative plan. I believe the worst thing the US could do is pack up and go home.

Anyone able to come up with a plan for withdrawal?

[noel]

Just a question to all the folks who protest the war in Iraq.

What is done is done. The US forces are on the ground, the decision was made and now I am wondering what you are protesting.

To my way of thinking the USA is in for a penny already. They cannot just up and leave so what is the solution. All the complaining about the war is really stupid if there is no alternative plan. I believe the worst thing the US could do is pack up and go home.

Anyone able to come up with a plan for withdrawal?

This is a very reasonable question. I am not actively protesting anything, but if asked, I am critical of an administration that would make the decision to go into Iraq on questionable intelligence, and without having a positive impact on the 'War on Terror'.

For certain, there will need to be an exit strategy, and I don't think there's a way to make it appealing to anyone. I believe it will be like America's Vietnam, or the USSR's Afganistan, we will leave in a way that is the least damaging politically for whatever administration is in power, and without accomplishing any clear goals.

I'll think about it today, and see if I can come up with a plan for withdrawl. I think the one thing the US has going for it is that it's in the best interest of the world community to have a stable Iraq. Perhaps if we were to collaborate a bit more, and compromise a bit more, we could get some additional, meaningful (read: someone other than the UK, Australia and Poland) support in cleaning up the mess we've made.

[Winnow]

When the oil is secure, we go home. The Middle East will be an issue for the remainder of our lifetime or at least 25 years or so pending advancements in alternative energy and converting to them.

Iraq may be the base of operations in the Middle East now for the U.S. and we may never leave. Continuous oil crisis in the Middle East can be avoided if we're already there to stop it.

Liberals will whine but it's a cut and dry issue of our cars needing gas. Liberals should save their whining or at least redirect it and focus solely on getting our government to go full out on researching and developing alternative fuels.

[Atokal]

The problem with getting other countries involved is the need to involve the UN. Also it would mean eating a lot of crow by the Bush administration.

The terrorist element must be dealt with before the US can hand the whole thing over to a UN body. Further, the US is going to want to control the flow of oil from Iraq for the foreseeable future. How they can cut a deal with the UN under those conditions escapes me.

Historically, has there ever been an instance where an occupying force has been able to stabilize a region and introduce their politics "democracy" when the ideologies are so different.

Again I cannot think of one.

Winnow you are correct the ultimate fix for the whole region is for the countries that are consuming fossil fuels at such tremendous rates to have a change in their thinking. Alternative fuel sources are better for the environment and some are inexhaustable.

Still wonder what would happen to the Middle East if the industrialized countries made the switch to alternative fuels. They would become the welfare countries of the world no better than most of Africa.

[Animalor]

What's done is done. I think the coalition of the few should finish cleaning up the mess they've made and bear the brunt of the casualties since it's their war.

Once most of the fighting has subsided, a UN security force needs to be established to help keep the pease until such time as Iraqis can defend their land themselves.

It's gonna be a long healing process for that country.

[Lynks]

I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I still protest it is because I'm afraid your administration is not going to learn from the past, therefore, I need to beat it in their heads, and some of the people here, that what they[the US] did was wrong.

Pulling out now would be wrong, it would hurt the US and, even more, hurt Iraq.

[noel]

The problem with getting other countries involved is the need to involve the UN. Also it would mean eating a lot of crow by the Bush administration.

You asked for a solution, not a way for the adminsitration to save face.

The terrorist element must be dealt with before the US can hand the whole thing over to a UN body. Further, the US is going to want to control the flow of oil from Iraq for the foreseeable future. How they can cut a deal with the UN under those conditions escapes me.

The 'insurgents' in Iraq (we can call them terrorists if you like, but they're really not) are coming in from other countries besides Iraq, and attempting to generate popular support for overthrowing the US occupation. Until the US can start to show they've secured Iraq, and made it a safe place for Iraqi citizens, it's going to be relatively easy for these insurgent forces to recruit Iraqis. The real problem is securing Iraq in a way that allows their people to feel safe, and have a favorable opinion of the US. In order to do this, you're going to need far more people on the ground than we currently have, hence the need for the UN and the rest of the world to do the job that's in their best interest.

Winnow you are correct the ultimate fix for the whole region is for the countries that are consuming fossil fuels at such tremendous rates to have a change in their thinking. Alternative fuel sources are better for the environment and some are inexhaustable.

The sad thing is, there was extensive attention given to this issue after the first Gulf War, and little has been done.

[Atokal]

The problem with getting other countries involved is the need to involve the UN. Also it would mean eating a lot of crow by the Bush administration.

You asked for a solution, not a way for the adminsitration to save face.

You are correct sir, however we both know that they must save face. Bush has demonstrated his disdain for the UN on numerous occasions, some justified.

He would have to go to the UN and basically say "We have underestimated our ability to deal with this situation, HELR!!!!!!"

That is not going to happen because if Bush has one glaring fault it is arrogance coupled with pride.

Exit strategy would be to hand the whole mess over to the French. Kind of a reverse Vietnam where the French handed their mess over to the USA.

[noel]

You are correct sir, however we both know that they must save face. Bush has demonstrated his disdain for the UN on numerous occasions, some justified.

He would have to go to the UN and basically say "We have underestimated our ability to deal with this situation, HELR!!!!!!"

That is not going to happen because if Bush has one glaring fault it is arrogance coupled with pride.

Exit strategy would be to hand the whole mess over to the French. Kind of a reverse Vietnam where the French handed their mess over to the USA.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative.

I agree that this will not happen under the Bush administration, but I do think that it's in the best interest of whomever runs the next administration to take that action.

To be blunt, I don't have any faith in the current administration doing the right thing, so I'm neither expecting it or hoping for it. It's not because I have some personal agenda against Bush or because I'm a dove or a democrat, it's because I don't believe his administration (which includes him) acted in the best interest of the US after our foray into Afganistan.

[Lohrno]

That is not going to happen because if Bush has one glaring fault it is arrogance coupled with pride.

And that's part of the reason he shouldn't be president. The best thing for him to do would be suck it up and ask for international aid. Otherwise there are two options:

Continue the mess we're in now.
Instate the Draft, putting some new troops in, but causing a mass exodus from this country.

The only other thing that could save is if Bush grows a brain and actually negotiates some decent middle-east diplomacy. I would say that's as or less likely than him asking for some more help.

-=Lohrno

[Hoarmurath]

The energy needs of the United States over the next decade or two is going to pale in comparison to other industrializing nations (read: China). It is imperative to globalization that the world has a stable source of energy. (I keep using the term "energy" because that's the cool thing to say, although I think everyone means "oil" when they say it.)

Also, I don't foresee the United States leaving Iraq. Ever. Period. There may be a reduction of combat forces, but a permanent American presence in Iraq is essentally a no-brainer. The world needs stable sources of energy production, and right now, the Middle East is teh win in that category. While I don't see anything on the scale of Ramstein in Germany, there will almost certainly be at least one base for ground-based aricraft to fly from, as well as a huge pre-position depot of supplies and equipment. Many will see this as yet more proof of an impending invasion of Iran or expansion of an "American Empire". I see it as guarding resources. The United States is, for better or worse, the world's "police force" and the fact remains that the world must have a stable source of energy, and the U.S. is going to have to provide that stability, most likely through "shows of force" and some kind of permanent presence in the region.