Is Phased Withdrawal of Troops a Defeat?

1. haribo
   November 14th, 2006 at 4:35 am

   Couldn't agree more. I mean US troops should stay there as long as they like, we own the place now anyway. Darn wishy wasy liberals!

2. fd4554wxeesese
   November 14th, 2006 at 4:55 am

   Is Phased Withdrawal of Troops a Defeat?

   It depends on the phases because that will determine what happens after withdrawl. If because of the phased withdrawl, the country falls into the hands of leaders who oppress their people, fund wmd research, threaten other countries and support terrorism then it would be a defeat.

3. Michiel
   November 14th, 2006 at 4:56 am

   I think that Iraq is pretty much this generation's Vietnam. I am not from the US, but it is obvious you guys are never going to 'win' there; people are going to keep sniping and bombing and US soldiers will keep dying and eventually you will pretty much have to leave.

   You can call it a victory if that helps?

4. brayden
   November 14th, 2006 at 7:25 am

   We removed Sadam from power and ensured that there were no WMDs. Since that was Bush's stated reason for going to war, I'd say we've long won. Now let's get the fuck out of there.

5. Moon
   November 14th, 2006 at 9:44 am

   It means the Republicans have no plan and they haven't EVER had a plan on how this was going to work, other than wishful thinking. "They'll welcome us with open arms and flower petals!" "It'll take a week, 6 weeks at the most!" Stay the course, I guess, even it means another 3000 US troops dead, another $300 Billion and no end in sight.

6. NeonCat
   November 14th, 2006 at 10:28 am

   I don't know about your property, but I always thought that when you "owned" a place no one was setting bombs for you, taking part in factional violence and otherwise raising a ruckus, to put it mildly.

   You may think we own Iraq, but reality is pwning us.

   Unless an occupier is willing to stay in a place forever and make it his home, eventually the natives will take over. One merely has to look at history to see the truth of this. Consider Algeria. Algeria was considered part of France… at least the French considered it as such. There was a violent civil war, revolts by French Army units, the works, but finally Algeria became independent.

   The only way the US could have really controlled Iraq would have been unacceptable to Americans. Forget democracy, it would take tyranny. Forget torture, it would have taken genocide. Follow the Syrian model: pick a town and level it. Make pyramids out of the skulls. Inform the locals that when US soldiers die, their neighborhood dies too. Instead we have random violence, random atrocities that just make the Iraqis mad instead of terrified.

   We lost in Iraq. We lost before we even invaded.

7. Finisher
   November 14th, 2006 at 11:26 am

   The question put to the Dems before the election was this: What changes are needed in Iraq? Their answer was 'phased withdrawl'. That is a nice way of saying 'cut and run'. The war in Iraq is not about Iraq, even though the Dems want it to be. It is not about oil, even though the wacko left wants it to be. Iraq is the central battle front on terrorism. That is why we are in Iraq, that is why cutting and running will mean terrorism at home.

   Your denials and attempted explanations are fun to read.

8. ::mwah::
   November 14th, 2006 at 11:46 am

   Rumsfeld cut and ran. Too bad the soldiers getting their arms, legs and heads blow off in Iraq don't have that option.

9. Moon
   November 14th, 2006 at 12:55 pm

   But Finisher, there weren't any terrorists in Iraq before the war started, so that couldn't have been the reason for the war. Are you saying the Bush screwed this up so badly that a country without terrorists has now become a terrorist haven. Maybe if WE get out, the terrorists will leave, too.

   And why are the Republicans always so scared? They are scared of terrorists, so we have to start wars. They are scared of gays (GAYS!), so gay marriage is a big no-no. They are scared of (let's face it) black men, so they need guns. They are scared of driving, so they need a big tank SUV, irregardless of the oil cost. They are afraid of actually going to war, so they get deferments or join the Champagne National Guard.

   Your chances of being attacked by a terrorist are less than your chances of being hit by an asteroid. Why be so scared all the time?

10. DFLamont
    November 14th, 2006 at 2:53 pm

    Worst Neatorama post. Ever.

    I come here for neat stuff.

    I don't think this is very neat.

11. Nick
    November 14th, 2006 at 3:17 pm

    Moon... maybe if we get out the terrorists will leave too... but where will they go? You need to understand that even if they weren't there to begin with as you say, they are there now and if they leave they will not be content with that. Their whole mentality and entire fundamental belief system is based on the death and destruction of all 'infidels'. Better to risk fighting them there than to risk them coming here for another 9-11.

    And to say Republicans are always so scared? Well, I can easily counter that in fact Democrats are the ones scared of everything the Republicans stand for. They are scared that if they don't support the gay marriage issue, they will lose those votes. I don't know how you equate black men with support of guns (other than some unconscious racist generalization), when really it is an issue of supporting the 2nd amendment right to arms. Democrats are scared of what an informed populace armed with guns might do if their policies open up our country to attack or invasion. They are scared of opening up our own natural resources (ANWR) and becoming less dependent on a volatile Middle East, regardless of the benefits the additional oil may bring (also, I know many Democrats who drive big SUVs too, it is silly to say that is a party difference). They are afraid of going to war and would rather appease our enemies than make a stand for what is true and what is right.

    Why be so scared all the time? I wouldn't say scared, but like the saying goes: Better safe than sorry.

12. Doug in Seattle
    November 14th, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    As a former Special Ops, I can tell you that once public opinion is against you, the occupied country's citizens want you OUT, a civil war has broken out, and your country's leadership hasn't the brains to give you the tools you've needed since day one--you have already lost.

13. Moon
    November 14th, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    And if the infidels are out of Iraq?? Who will these horrible scary terrorists attack?

    Yes, Democrats are scared of everything Republicans stand for. EVERYONE should be scared, especially of these new, fiscally irresponsible, war-mongering, chickenhawk, slimy (DeLay, Foley, Abramoff, Ney, Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist) NeoCon Republicans.

    I don't how you think that your "greed is good" GOP is saving the world by destroying environment and then selling the oil to China. None of the oil in ANWR is slated to go to the US - it's all slated for sale to China.

    And yes, it was a racist generalization. Why do NEED these guns? Because you are afraid that some "big black man" is going to come into your neighborhood and eat your children or something. Who wants the guns? The same people who live in gated communities, perhaps?? Or the whitest of white suburbs and rural areas?

14. Ayn Rand
    November 14th, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    Sorry Moon, greed IS good. But then, you must still be wondering who John Galt is.

15. Finisher
    November 14th, 2006 at 4:42 pm

    "Because you are afraid that some 'big black man' is going to come inot your neighborhood and eat your children or something."

    What does your racism have to do with Iraq?

16. ted
    November 14th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    This is why I like Neatorama - oh wait, no, this is why I'm getting sick of Neatorama.

    Funny, it used to be a nice place to visit, too.

17. Moon
    November 14th, 2006 at 6:10 pm

    Ayn Rand, Libertarianism works about as well as Communism.

    Ted, you don't have to look at every link - there's no command from God that says you must look at EVERY Neatorama link, that I know of.

    Finisher, it doesn't have anything to do with Iraq - it has to do with scared-to-death Republicans. You are scared of terrorists, even though the chance of you being attacked by terrorists is the same as being hit by an asteroid. But you knew that. The only reason why we are in Iraq is because Bush scared you sheeple to death. You probably live in Iowa and you think that you are going to get attacked by terrorists.

18. Shrike
    November 14th, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    Part of the reason I check Neatorama regularly is because it is very non-partisan, and doesn't sink down to the mudslinging level in politics. When a political article is posted, it's about something that is issue-related that is of interest to the tech-savvy, well educated geeks like me. If I wanted to hear Rush Limbaugh dittoheads duke it out with Michael Moore clones, I'd check out Fark discussions.

    Can we please keep the partisan politics out of this blog? It's an excellent daily blog that I read on a regular basis. Do you have any clue how hard it is to find something like Neatorama? Don't spoil it for us, please!

19. Chad
    November 14th, 2006 at 9:43 pm

    wow I cant believe how many misled dipshits there are still in America! damn don't you people get it? how many documentaries have to be made for you to ignore?? Iraq was nothing more than a giant paycheck for bush and friends! thats the reason that most (if not all) of the civilian contracts sent there were no-bid contracts all handed to friends and relatives of bush himself. So if the question is whether we should get the hell out of Iraq or not then hell yes bush has made himself enough money by killing our soldiers.

    by the way if you pay attention to whats really going on in the world instead of bush's drunken speeches you would have realized this yourselves already!

20. reid
    November 14th, 2006 at 11:18 pm

    The invasion of Iraq was to ensure that the US has a stake in oil in case Iran cuts us off or OPEC ever decides to switch to the Euro. Despite saying, we are just creating democracy and then getting out, we are in the process of building 14 PERMANENT US military installations, mostly along the borders with Iran and Syria. The Republicans initially said it was to eliminate the threat of WMD's (in which case, why didn't we invade North Korea, a much more threatening opponent? Oh, because they actually HAD them), and when that was proven to be lies - remember when Rumsfeld said they knew the exact locations? - they turned around and said "Oh no, this entire thing was about the liberation of Iraqis." It was started, and is continually justified, by implicitly tying it to al-Qaeda and terrorism. There were no terrorists in Iraq before this war. Al-Qaeda had NO idealogical ties to Saddam, who was more or less secular. The United States tortures and kills more Iraqis, just like Saddam - "between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqis" killed under the entirety of Saddam's regime, and SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND in the last 3 years under US occupation.

    It's not about "cutting and running", it's about getting out of an unwinnable and illegal war before more Americans are killed.

21. jimbo
    November 15th, 2006 at 12:28 am

    People can talk all they want to about democrats wanting a phased withdrawal, and how is that 'cutting and running' - but I have yet to hear anything about the repub's plans for Iraq. Sure, you can say that they want to stay there until we 'win', but the question is how are we going to win? I can't imagine anyone being opposed to winning the war, especially if there is a even a semblance of plan for doing so, but the repubs and this white house have NOTHING!

22. Chuck
    November 15th, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    I see that O'Reilly and the other conservative pundits (sanskrit for monkey) are saying that the Dems don't want America to win in Iraq. What does winning mean in Iraq, 'Mission Accomplished" notwithstanding? Does it mean we stay until Iraq is subdivided into three countries? Do we stay until there is no sect violence? Do we stay until we kill the 12,000 Al Queda troops built on the landscape of our mismanagement of the after-battle? What are the conditions for winning and who should have defined them when we went in - the Dems?

    How many more American citizens is it ok to lose to death and dismemberment until the conditions required to "win" are reached?

23. tom
    November 16th, 2006 at 2:21 am

    I think that if you asked the average serviceman or woman, or their families, they might disagree with that repugnican cartoonhole.

24. ted
    November 16th, 2006 at 9:17 am

    After posting, I did think about what Alex said in another post. And no, I usually don't follow every link.

    It's just disappointing that there's been this trend to US politics and the Iraq war that is so polarizing the readers of Neatorama. This is obviously the most discussed topic, as shown by all the comments. That is disappointing to me, because you can see that anywhere. You can open the page of any newspaper and see the same cartoons, the same verbal attacks, the same condescending hyperbole from both sides of the issue. Why should I have to read it here? You're absolutely right, I don't.

    I've been able to ignore other Neatorama things I don't find of interest, so I will try to stay out of this one.

    Alex is fair at presenting the issue of politics, but so many of the comments are angry, insulting, and hateful. Do you folks really hate each other that much?

25. Diamond
    November 16th, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    We caused a civil war by going there to begin with. This is our fault. We should offer humantarian aid, but as far as troops...now it is time to leave. Shame on us thinking we are right. The conservatives should really remind themselves of King Richard and the Quest for the Holy Grail. Today's version is a little twisted though... Court Jester Bush and his quest for the Holy Oil.

26. David
    November 18th, 2006 at 5:27 am

    Victory was always an assumed conclusion. Whoops, victory depends on Iraqis willingly embracing liberal democratic values, not on how many troops we have there. We can leave troops there for the next century, in whatever numbers, it isn't going to work.

27. Tuesday
    November 19th, 2006 at 3:55 pm

    We have created an impossible situation in Iraq. If we leave there will be chaos and if we stay we will have continuing murder and bombings and abuses. The news that a bomb has exploded in a public place or that some innocent people have been kidnapped is an everyday occurrence. We need to hand over reconstruction of Iraq to someone who is not hated by the Iraqi insurgence and does not hate the US. I don't know if there is such an entity. The UN acts too slowly to adapt. Turkey? France? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? If we just leave, it will be worse than when we left Viet Nam. The expense of trying to maintain some semblance of order is incredible. If we were to send in a massive number of troops, we might be able to restore some order. But can we raise the troops? We could also break up the country along ethnic lines to try and stop some of the violence, but the people who would then control the oil rich areas would have an imbalanced share of the nations wealth.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT