--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John wrote: > > Why can't the current politicians pull a Richard Nixon > > and declare an honorable victory in Iraq and get the > > hell outa there?! > > > Because to do so would result in the deaths of millions of > people? Just like what happened when the Dems voted to cut > off funds to the Vietnam government. How are you going to > withdraw all the thousands and thousands of Iraqis who > voted to form a new democratic government?
Clearly, the US is in a big bind by getting involved in Iraq. We cannot afford to lose any more American lives over there, or hard earned tax dollars to solve a problem beyond the American interests. IMHO, I don't think there will be a genocide over there if the US left. Notwithstanding the apparent religious division of the people, the politics in Iraq is about power and control over the oil fields. The strongest group, but not necessarily the most humane or just, will eventually take over the country. There will be a civil war no doubt when the US leave. But this is inevitable given the cicumstances of the country. > > It is now time for the Iraqi's to determine their own > > destiny. > > > How can they do that without the support of free nations > like the U.S. and Britain? They can if you let them. The US and Britain are just meddling in the affairs of other people for the sake of oil and political interests. > > > They can either unite or break up their country into > > sectarian groups. > > > So, you'd support ethnic cleansing. I am not for ethnic cleansing. What I'm saying is if they cannot work together, then they should separate and divide the country according to the distribution of the major religious groups over there. Besides, I don't there will be any massacre if these groups are able to separate peacefully. > > The US made a mistake going in there in the first place. > > > You can blame that on the Dems - they could have prevented > the mistake in the first place. But 98% of the Dems voted > to authorize the president to use force to oust Saddam. It's > too late to change your mind at this point and admit defeat. > They should have thought about that a lot sooner. In my > opinion, anyone who made a mistake and voted to go to > war and now says it was a mistake would not get my vote. > If they were wrong then, what makes you think they are right > now to pull out? It's very true that Congress voted for this war. Why? because they trusted the decision made by president Bush which were based on erroneous intelligence from the CIA. Or, it could be that Bush ignored the true analysis from the CIA and went ahead to attack Iraq because of the perceived need to eliminate Saddam Hussein. > > The decision to enter into war was based on spurious facts > > and an overzealous president Bush. > > > That would be President Bush to you, Sir. But I don't think that > Secretary Powell or Senator Clinton presented any "spurious > facts" when they made their case to go to war. Neither did > John Kerry or John Edwards - they mave have been mistaken, but > I think they made an honest mistake. Certainly they were > overzealous, but so were 98% of all the other congressional > leaders. Secretary Powell certainly looked foolish in making that presentation to the UN about the WMD in Iraq. Presumably, he used intelligence data from the CIA. Then, we found out later that there was no WMD. In my line of work, if you made that kind of mistake you'd be fired. After all of these revelations, guess what Bush did? He presented Tenet, the CIA director, a medal of honor for his work relating to the invasion of Iraq. If he was working any big corporations in the US, the boss would have said, "you're fired!". > > > If he had thought out the consequences of his decision, he > > would have selected another alternative. > > > Maybe so. > > > This entire political scenario in Iraq may not be due to > > the people themselves. It can be blamed on the British > > who artificially created the country of Iraq for its own > > political gain and control over the oil fields in the Middle > > East. > > > You might want to check your history books on this one - Iraq > has been a country since the time of Babylon. >From what I've read, Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire way back then. After its collapse, Britain decided to carve out Iraq's boundaries to what it is now. > > > The current events in Iraq clearly shows that the people in > > the country are irreconciably disparate. > > > You may want to check your demographics on this one too - most > of the people living in Iraq are Arabs. Apparently there are > some Kurds and Turkment as well, and one or two Semitics. Primarily, I was referring to the sectarian division in Iraq. Although most are Muslims, the major groups have deep disagreements between them. > > They have nothing in common to form a unified government. > > > They have already formed a unified government. > Very true, but they don't agree with each other. > > It appears that the only way to keep a sense of unity is > > to have a strong authoritarian leader like Saddam Hussein. > > > No, that's the problem - for years the Dems supported the > dictators like Saddam, instead of standing up to them. Bill > Clinton tried to get rid of Saddam - he bombed a soap factory > and killed a camel, but he couldn't even shoot straight, > exept we can assume he shot straight at Monica. But even > if he had deposed Saddam, what was he thinking when he bombed > Iraq - there were no al Qaeda in Iraq! Your analogy is humorous! We can give Clinton the benefit of the doubt in his private affairs. :) > > > In short, President Bush has opened a pandora's box. Now, > > he is stuck in trying to find a solution and will regretably > > not complete the job as he exits out of office. > > > Well, I predict that the U.S. will be in the Middle East for > the next fifty years, just like the U.S. has been in Germany, > Japan, and Korea for the past fifty years. My gripe is that > the U.S. should have reinstated the draft and sent in over > a million troops to the Middle East. That's the way to win a > war, overwhelming force. But unfortunately, the Dems were > not very smart - they thought they could win the war with a > few thousand troops - they made a real big mistake. > > Have the Dems ever won a war? It's not a question of winning a war. It's doing what is right.
