Should we get out of IRAQ poll

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Jul 10 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]476267[/snapback]</div>

There is no doubt how this board will vote.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priussoris @ Jul 10 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]476267[/snapback]</div>

A more interesting poll for this BB would be:

If we were to leave Iraq, do you believe our enemies there will follow us home?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 02:19 PM) [snapback]476284[/snapback]</div>

Yes, repeat the mantra over and over again. "ther goin to git us"

 

Your selections reveal a certain bias. Putting that aside, recognizing that it is a fluid dynamic situation and in light of the fact that the Iraqi Gov. has met none of its goals or timetables, we should get out when the time is right. Choosing any other selection is just, hmmmmmm. . . [fill in the blank]?

Wildkow

 

But kow... define "the right time". Is it when we feel the Iraqi government has things under control? Is it when we feel we've stamped out all terrorism in the country? Is it when they've run out of Oil and anything else interesting to us?

As you stated, the Iraqi government isn't doing a good job meeting its goals or timetables. How long do we give them before realizing that they'll never be able to stand up without using our military as a crutch? How long do we waste away in the country before we realize that we'll never be able to leave without having it drop into chaos?

 

They won't follow us home, that's nonsense.
But we will lose control of the last remaining significant oil reserves.
Regardless of what the US does, Iraq's oil is going to be front and center in worldwide politics over the next 10 years as the rest of the world realizes that global production of oil is crashing. I don't think we CAN pull out now. We should never have gone there in the first place. We could have invested all that war money in new energy infrastructure instead and we'd be far better off. But here we are years later, having done very little to prepare for the inevevitable energy crunch the world faces. And now we have to stay there to ensure that oil is available to us so we CAN start to rebuild our energy infrastructure.

How about politicians start by telling the truth to the public:
That Iraq was never about WMD's, Saddam, freedom, etc. and was always about securing access to oil in a post peak world. Even the IEA is now saying we are facing oil shortages within 5 years (after saying last year that worldwide production would grow from 95 mbd to 145 mbd by 2030). But, no. Keep telling people to buy SUV's and duct tape and NEVER mention the word conservation. Way to go CONSERVATIVES! Great leadership, we're now even farther up sh*t creek, with less fuel to work with, and more and more allies angry at us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 10 2007, 02:41 PM) [snapback]476301[/snapback]</div>

very nice... i completely agree

However, i don't think the IEA is necissarily going back on their word... Even if oil production does increase that much, how much will demand increase if we don't do anything to curb consumption? If production goes up by 50% in 24 years, but demand increases by 75%, it's pretty easy to see that there will be shortages...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Jul 10 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]476287[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps you recall 9/11 - they already got us
Perhaps you recall WTC I - they already got us

....

You honestly think they will not follow us home?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 10 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]476301[/snapback]</div>

I guess you support drilling in ANWR and off the US coastlines and deep in the Gulf of Mexico asap. And you support building nuclear power plants here asap - to the degree to which europeans get their electric needs.

BTW - how much oil does Iraq export and where does it go?

 

Attention please. . .

I am refraining from voting and since our esteemed Senator from Arizona, Harry Reid, is not an active member of PC I shall be the voice for the voiceless all the while staying consistent with his 12/17/06 statements OK’ing the troop build up (Surge) in Iraq and other flipfloppity utterances serendipitously place a proxy vote in the Senator’s name for “Never leave and show a stronger presence†that is all.

Thank you

Wildkow

 

This whole, they will or will not follow us home thing is silly in my view.

Let's assume for a moment that we end up succeeding in Iraq and Iraq has a stable/secure government and we start to leave, redeploy, withdraw, whatever. Does anyone really think that Al Queda would really stop looking for ways to attack this country or the west?

Let's assume we're going to lose, the Iraqi government can't meet its benchmarks and we end up leaving Iraq in a mess with no working/stable government -- essentially a failed state? We've just given Al Queda a vacation home away from Afganistan/Pakistan. Emboldened by this great success, they will continue to look for ways to attack this country and the west.

Either way we've got ourselves a fight and we better be ready to fight it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 02:53 PM) [snapback]476313[/snapback]</div>

They already got us, they already got us... sounds to me like they can't really "follow us home" - they're already here! They already know the way, there's no following involved!

Tell me, how is the war in Iraq stopping them from sending agents over here right now? How is it stopping them from blowing up another building in NY or Chicago or LA? Please, elaborate on exactly how the war in Iraq is stopping them.

 

Is your concern about terrorism only based upon whether they do it on America soil, therefore, making all other terrorism ok?

Wildkow

 

Our relationship with Russia is crumbling...seems we destabilized them politically, then left them to deal with the mess we'd created, on their own...

This doesn't sound *at all* like Iraq, does it? The will to destroy, but not to rebuild...

We made the mess, we clean it up.

This is *not* the same as, we made the mess, so let's make a bigger one by sending more soldiers over there.

This is also *not* the same as, we made the mess, now let's give out a bunch of no-bid contracts to companies run by colleagues of the President's...build a few shoddy structures...then depart.

-----

Pretty much, though, we're screwed. Our reach exceeded our grasp.

 

As always, this debate has been greatly over-simplified by the politicians. One of the best takes of this I've heard recently was by Ira Glass of This American Life. While the show has a definite liberal bent to it, Ira gives one of the best-thought-out and least partisan discussions of this. The whole show is definitely worth listening to (see the last twelve minutes of http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1190), but the little one minute MP3 I attached is the crux of the argument.

One of the more subtle points that tends to get lost in all the yelling across the aisle is that you can be 100% against the war and still think that pulling out is a bad idea.

I could keep talking, but Ira says it much better

 

"I guess you support drilling in ANWR and off the US coastlines and deep in the Gulf of Mexico asap. And you support building nuclear power plants here asap - to the degree to which europeans get their electric needs."
What's your point Dr. B? We've had this discussion before, but you don't seem to care.

I do support nuclear eergy, deep shore drilling, and I WILL support drilling Anwar, but not yet. We need to kick off a major conservation push and renewable energy push first. We'll drill anwar later as an emergency supply. If you just bring ANWAR online now, it'll just get burned up frivolously in the SUV's of our patriot jackasses.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Washington1788 @ Jul 10 2007, 03:55 PM) [snapback]476319[/snapback]</div>

If we succeed there, it will be much more difficult for AQ to hit us here - without a base to plot and plan from.

And you are correct, if we fail in Iraq we have strengthened those who have already attacked us.

And you are correct again, we are in this and we need to keep at it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Jul 10 2007, 04:20 PM) [snapback]476342[/snapback]</div>

if you are concerned about current oil production - why not maximize it now instead of waiting years?

i think we are being smart by letting everyone else use up their oil supplies first - leaving us in the drivers seat in a few decades.

 

I voted now because there was no "as soon as possible".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 10 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]476357[/snapback]</div>

I already explained why we SHOULDn't maximize US oil production. Our reserves are minimal at BEST. If we pump like crazy now, we'll lower the gas prices, and encourage people to keep wasting away gas/oil with Hummers, NASCAR, jetski's, etc. Then what? Then we'll have NO oil, NO plan, and no energy to carry out a plan if we had one.

"i think we are being smart by letting everyone else use up their oil supplies first - leaving us in the drivers seat in a few decades."
Who's oil supplies? What in Sam hell are you talking about? Are you implying that when mideast oil reserves are gone, we'll still have plenty here? You are aware that the US does not have much in the way of oil reserves, aren't you? We've got all the big cars and trucks and a nationwide infrastructure built on automotive transportation. Sorry, on the downslope of oil production, Europe (with their more compact infrastructure and ALREADY built mass transit systems) will be in the driver's seat.