Democrats Announce 08' Surrender in Iraq

[Flappycat]

I'm thinking these people who are dieing are Syrians and Iranians who have come to Iraq to jihad.

Oh, of course. Iraqis are incapable of evil, naturally. They would never want to kill each other or American troops. They're all Bush-loving conservatives and keep an American flag hanging by their front door. I'm sure many of them are considering converting to Christianity and selling us lots of oil. Arabs are a single-digit minority in Iran, Reverend. The majority of Iran's population is white.

 

[lilithu]

Civilian count assumes they are Iraqi. Just because they are Arab and fighting in Iraq does not necessarily make them Iraqi's.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there are Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq. The newspapers report on them every week. And believe it or not the organization that I linked goes to great pains to make sure that their data is accurate, which is why there is a minimum and maximum estimate. Other organizations actually estimate the civilian casualty count in Iraq as much higher.

It's ridiculous to think that you can fight a war without civilian casualites.

 

[Quiddity]

Whether you want to believe it or not, there are Iraqi civilians dying in Iraq. The newspapers report on them every week. And believe it or not the organization that I linked goes to great pains to make sure that their data is accurate, which is why there is a minimum and maximum estimate. Other organizations actually estimate the civilian casualty count in Iraq as much higher.

It's ridiculous to think that you can fight a war without civilian casualites.

Tis true...I'm just curious if civilian casualties stayed at zero (which is close to impossible) if your direction of Iraq would change?

 

[lilithu]

Tis true...I'm just curious if civilian casualties stayed at zero (which is close to impossible) if your direction of Iraq would change?

No. By getting rid of Saddam we created a power vaccum in the region which is being filled from neighboring countries and seriously destabilizing the area (which wasn't the epitome of stability to begin with). That is what Papa Bush understood during the first Gulf War when we actually in a much better position, politically and diplomatically speaking, to topple Saddam. Our troops were within 80 miles of Baghdad, but Bush Sr. did not go in. And he got roundly criticized for it by the hawks but he was right. Going in and removing Saddam meant an occupation of Iraq. And it's one thing to win a war and quite another thing to "win" an occupation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

it's one thing to win a war and quite another thing to "win" an occupation.

This is the absolute truth.

 

[Quiddity]

No. By getting rid of Saddam we created a power vaccum in the region which is being filled from neighboring countries and seriously destabilizing the area (which wasn't the epitome of stability to begin with). That is what Papa Bush understood during the first Gulf War when we actually in a much better position, politically and diplomatically speaking, to topple Saddam. Our troops were within 80 miles of Baghdad, but Bush Sr. did not go in. And he got roundly criticized for it by the hawks but he was right. Going in and removing Saddam meant an occupation of Iraq. And it's one thing to win a war and quite another thing to "win" an occupation.

I see....So it's not the toppling of Saddam you have issue with, but with the invasion/occupation because of the results it has produced. That about right?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

No. By getting rid of Saddam we created a power vaccum in the region which is being filled from neighboring countries and seriously destabilizing the area (which wasn't the epitome of stability to begin with). That is what Papa Bush understood during the first Gulf War when we actually in a much better position, politically and diplomatically speaking, to topple Saddam. Our troops were within 80 miles of Baghdad, but Bush Sr. did not go in. And he got roundly criticized for it by the hawks but he was right. Going in and removing Saddam meant an occupation of Iraq. And it's one thing to win a war and quite another thing to "win" an occupation.

1. Creating a power vacuum. Is it wrong to replace Saddam, who everyone knows was one of the worst, most vicious leaders in the world, with the unknown?

2. What if we would have gone in, taken out Saddam's government and left; offering to train a new Iraqi army in Jordan or something like that?

 

[Quiddity]

1. Creating a power vacuum. Is it wrong to replace Saddam, who everyone knows was one of the worst, most vicious leaders in the world, with the unknown?

As vicious as he may have been, I think Lil is saying (she can correct me if I am wrong) that invading Iraq has worse results then leaving him in power. But ultimately the intention would be to topple him by others means. Snipper?

But wouldn't that create a power vacuum as well?

Lil, what did you have in mind as a solution?

2. What if we would have gone in, taken out Saddam's government and left; offering to train a new Iraqi army in Jordan or something like that?

Then the army would return to rubble and anarchy. The damage would be done.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

The damage would be done.

Without most of the US casualties though. Honestly, once Saddam is removed and his government is toppled and the people are free, it is up to them to establish a new government. Obviously we should help fund their pursuits and offer security where asked, but I can't imagine it would be worse than Occupation.

 

[Quiddity]

Without most of the US casualties though. Honestly, once Saddam is removed and his government is toppled and the people are free, it is up to them to establish a new government. Obviously we should help fund their pursuits and offer security where asked, but I can't imagine it would be worse than Occupation.

That's a good point. I would imagine that it would be a better alternative. The power struggle would still continue though.