What if a Democrat President Pulls Out of Iraq? - Political Forum

bhkad · #1 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 09:07 AM

What if a Democrat President Pulls Out of Iraq?

Quote:

After the Fall: A "Plan B" for containing the impact of an Iraqi collapse

"...Should the U.S. withdraw from Iraq leaving behind a government not competent to defend itself, Pollack and Byman predict, policy-makers will have to choose between “terrible options and worse ones.” Most of the country would quickly be overrun by Sunni groups tied to al-Qaeda and Shia groups tied to Iran. It must be expected that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be killed in battles and acts of terrorism. Millions more would flee.

The authors suggest creating..."

In the Media

Continued at link.

I hope that someone in the Mainstream media will confront Obama with this reality:

When the White House gave briefings to the top Democratic contenders last year on the progress in Iraq and spelled out the consequences to global freedom and American freedoms and security if Iraq is lost to the Islamists but Sen. Obama, you still maintain the pledge to your supporters that you will withdraw from Iraq. What would you do if you see the Iranians or Syrians coming in and taking advantage of the Iraqi's vulnerabilities caused by the withdrawal? And what would it say about your judgment if that were to happen in light of all you've been briefed on?

And I hope he would mention his unofficial roving envoy, former Carter administration Natl. Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski's trip to the Middle East to talk with the leaders there.

Quote:

It just seemed odd that Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's calamitous National Security chief, is suddenly flying to Damascus along with money man Hassan Nemazee from the Clinton campaign. That follows Nancy Pelosi's trip to Bashir Assad in Damascus in April of 2007, and Steny Hoyer's meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt at the same time.

The Muslim Bro's are the wellspring of Sunni terrorism; the Iranians are the folks behind Shiite suicide bombers.

[...]

Zbigniew Brzezinski himself has been hotly denying the Carter Administration's plain responsibility for bringing the Mullahs to power in 1979 -- people who have been drilled from early childhood to hate us as corrupt infidels, and who were very, very clear about it to their followers before they ever came to power. Apparently nobody in the Carter foreign policy apparatus did the most basic research on Ayatollah Khomeini, like reading his writings or listening to his sermons, which were circulating in Iranian bazaars on audio cassettes. Evidently they just never bothered to check on this guy.

The Shah of Iran was a vigorous modernizer and pro-American; the Mullahs are throwbacks to the tribal cruelty and savagery of the 7th century. Carter and his team couldn't tell the difference. As Andrew Young, then Jimmy Carter's UN Ambassador said at the time, they just thought the Ayatollah was some kind of gentle saint, the Mahatma Gandhi of the Mysterious East. Well, Khomeini went on to order the execution of thousands of his fellow revolutionaries belonging to the Mujahedeen Khalq, he established a torture regime, and he started his own Hitler Youth, the Basiji, who still specialize today in beating anti-regime demonstrators to a bloody pulp and in humiliating women for wearing un-Islamic dress. And hanging people by the neck off tow trucks.

Oh, yes, and the Ayatollah got into a major war with Saddam Hussein, which killed a million people. That's what the Jimmy Carterites achieved by enabling the Ayatollah to overthrow the Shah. Some saint. And yet, Calamity Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski still deny responsibility today, three decades later; and they still counsel patience, patience -- the regime is bound to become a liberal dream as soon as it gets nukes. Any day now.

American Thinker: The Saranoid Style in Democrat Foreign Policy

I hope Obama mentions Brzezsinki so there can be a public airing of Brzezinski's understanding of Islamists.

He and Jimmah thought the Ayatollah was like the Pope and so they made sure the Shah was booted out so the great Holy man could bring about God's laws in Iran.

Obama, Obama, Obama.

Svante · #2 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 02:21 PM

.
i f Democrat president American army ou t from Irak, the war will end.
.

bhkad · #3 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Svante

.
i f Democrat president American army ou t from Irak, the war will end.
.

If the Iraq government was not strong enough to defend itself, hundreds of thousands would die after we left.

Wraith · #4 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 07:44 PM

After we pull out, there most likely outcome is the puppet govt will fall and a civil war will break out. Whoever comes out on top. (my personal wager would be on the shia) will have to pick up the mess Bushco created.

bhkad · #5 (**permalink**) 02-20-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wraith

After we pull out, there most likely outcome is the puppet govt will fall and a civil war will break out. Whoever comes out on top. (my personal wager would be on the shia) will have to pick up the mess Bushco created.

HAVE TO???

It has been their dream for years to do so!

Obama just might be the man to help make their dreams come true.

If he survives the current unpleasantries.

rsather139 · #6 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:21 AM

If we left and packed up right away? There would be tons of bloodshed, and probably a proper civil war, not this "civil war" crap that some people keep talking about. Iraq really isn't a war in the normal use of the term.

AzTeK · #7 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 04:28 AM

Well, you picked one side of the medal here - the media "experts" that consider pulling out of Iraq the worst thing to do, while completely ignoring the other "experts" who firmly believe that pulling out of Iraq will surely have dire consequences, but it's the best choice you can make considering the alternatives.

For lack of a better article atm I'll post this from asiatimes

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Just to point that out to prevent this from heading in a one-sided direction.

bhkad · #8 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzTeK

Well, you picked one side of the medal here - the media "experts" that consider pulling out of Iraq the worst thing to do, while completely ignoring the other "experts" who firmly believe that pulling out of Iraq will surely have dire consequences, but it's the best choice you can make considering the alternatives.

For lack of a better article atm I'll post this from asiatimes

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Just to point that out to prevent this from heading in a one-sided direction.

Biggest pile of spew I've skimmed in a long time.

The writer seems to know his audience, though.

Neither he nor they seem at all knowledgeable about or concerned with the actual mission or the strategic importance of Iraq to US and the free world or to Iran and the Islamist world.

But he sure seems practiced at denigrating the US and the President and the Administration and the war and John McCain.

Anyone who likes that sort of stuff, you are in for a treat. By the way you can tell the writer seems to revel in US misdeeds and the Iraqi government's misfortune and he assumes that all of his readers do too. And if you don't go to the Juan Cole site, as he apparently does, to get your rocks off on all the "mayhem and disaster," well, he thinks you should...every day!

Here's a brief sample:

Quote:

True, you can go to Juan Cole's Informed Comment website, perhaps the best daily round-up of Iraqi mayhem and disaster on the Web, and you'll feel as if, like Alice, you had fallen down a rabbit hole into another universe. ("Two bombings shook Iraq Sunday morning. In the Misbah commercial center in the upscale Shiite Karrada district, a female suicide bomber detonated a belt bomb, killing 3 persons and wounding 10 ... About 100 members of the Awakening Council of Hilla Province have gone on strike to protest the killing of three of them by the US military at Jurf al-Sakhr last Sunday, in what the Pentagon says was an accident ... Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that officials in Baqubah are warning that as families are returning to the city, they could be forced right back out again, owing to sectarian tensions ...") But how many Americans read Juan Cole every day ... or any day?

Like I said, if this is your cup of bile, then bon apetit. Otherwise, don't waste your time.

bhkad · #9 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsather139

If we left and packed up right away? There would be tons of bloodshed, and probably a proper civil war, not this "civil war" crap that some people keep talking about. Iraq really isn't a war in the normal use of the term.

Fine observation.

AzTeK · #10 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsather139

If we left and packed up right away? There would be tons of bloodshed, and probably a proper civil war, not this "civil war" crap that some people keep talking about. Iraq really isn't a war in the normal use of the term.

A civil war is inevitable in Iraq, the only reason it doesn't seem to be as bad now is because the US is paying armed groups that would normally be considered terrorists to not smash eachothers heads.

And don't tell me more time will do anything. Over 4 years of training should be enough even for the most stupid military commanders to get a grasp of what they'r supposed to do. By staying longer, the US is just delaying the inevitable and exacerbating a problem that cannot be solved by any outsider.