The Bloodbath Question

[Broadlighter]

The neo-con prognosticators keep telling us that if we leave, there will be a bloodbath in Iraq.

My question to that is - isn't there already a bloodbath taking place there? Shouldn't that question be thrown back in the faces of the neo-cons?

What difference is that going to make if we leave? Bloodbaths have been going on there ever since the Shia-Sunni split. They continued through Saddam's regime and of course, they're going on now.

The only difference I see if we leave is that there will be fewer American deaths and maybe some of the motivation for killing people and suicide bombings will evaporate.

[nist7]

You see, the neocons are riding on their supposedly high moral obligations...as if they are morally obligated to stay and help turn Iraq into a wonderful and beautiful democracy! And they have the false sense that if they "break it" they have to "buy it." As if it's as simple as handing over some paper to a clerk behind a counter and call it a day.

If they are so bent so freeing nations from tyranny why are we not sending troops into China to topple a regime that has repeatedly violated international human rights and have nuclear capabilities?

[Mr. White]

Here's the deal guys.

When we went into Iraq the first time, we urged the Kurds to rise up. We left, and they were slaughtered. We're their now propping up people who don't really have the support of the people. When we leave, they will be slaughtered. The bloodbath claim is valid, but specious reasoning.

Basically we've created 'inflation of support' for these people, and once we leave... the market will 'correct' itself.

[10thAmendmentMan]

Well, to put it rather bluntly, they'd be much more stable and prosperous if they'd stop bombing things that we've rebuilt for them. If they really cared, they'd just completely stop resisting for six months or so, have us pull out in "victory," and then go back to their petty squabbles without us to referee. Even assuming Huckabee's invocation of the "Pottery Barn rule" is sound, once you pay for your damage in Pottery Barn they don't continue to keep breaking their own things and charging you for more and more. For that reason, even if there is a "bloodbath" I don't think we can be held responsible for much at all.

[apropos]

I think another question might be: is a bloodbath inevitable? One day we're going to leave Iraq, and whatever forces we've been holdng back with our military are going to come to the surface. Is there such a thing as an Iraqi anymore? Do the people living in that nation consider themselves Iraqi? Or are they Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite? I cannot answer this question.

I think there will be violence whenever we leave, whether its next year or in ten years. We would have to stay for a generation before any of these rifts start to heal. And that is only if the parents teach their kids the 'love thy neighbor' bit. We would essentially need to do what the British did to India. That is, forget any exit strategy and stay for decades. When we left Vietnam, a lot of people did die. South Vietnam loyalists were killed, and the boat people - refugees trying to escape the country - died by the thousands.

Realistically, there are two best case scenarios I can think of. One is that there are enough people who want the new Iraq to succeed, and they will stand up as we stand down. Our leaving will give them motivation to step up their political efforts. As Petraus said, the problem in the country now is political. The Shiite are going to have a hard time seeing why they should give the Sunnis - who oppressed them for so long - anything at all in the new government. The 82nd Airborne said as much about this a few weeks ago in a NYT editorial.

The other best case scenario is that Iraq splits into three separate nations with minimal bloodshed: Kurd, Sunni, and Shiite. With the question of who gets the oil, territory would be hotly contested.

The worst case scenario is that Iraq becomes a free for all and ends up destabilizing the entire Middle East.

Another entirely possible scenario is that Iraq is picked apart piecemeal by the surrounding countries. Considering the religious lines that run across the land, this is entirely possible.

There will be bloodshed in all these scenarios. The question is just how much.

We might just be trying to hold up a falling arch. I don't think it is possible to make the region of Iraq into a country when there is so little holding it together. Only one thing was holding it together in the first place: force. First the British and then Saddam. I think three states - one for Kurds, one for Sunni, and one for Shiite - would result in less killing. Better that than attempting to force square pegs into round holes.

[Duckman]

If they really cared, they'd just completely stop resisting for six months or so, have us pull out in "victory," and then go back to their petty squabbles without us to referee.

This assumes the average Iraqi believes that would happen. Would you believe it if someone told you, "just don't resist for a few months and then they will leave"?

[V-rod]

Paul Wolfowitz and other Neo-conservatives close to Bush were bent on making Iraq their new military staging point to launch future operations in the middle east. I am sure that some of the terrorists and insurgent groups are aware of that and will not stop until we are completely out of that region.

[derdy]

Yeah, the intention here is to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. Just look at our embassy.

Of course, this was all laid out by the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) in their report, Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) released in September of 2000. In this report, the talk about establishing permanent forward operating bases throughout different parts of the globe amongst a laundry list of other things. I highly recommend reading it if you haven't already.

They also say, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Anyways, the neoconservative retards have been pushing to take out Saddam since the late 90's as is published here (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm)

Take a look around their website. There's some great stuff there.

[fj45lvr]

Haven't you heard about folks that "volunteer" out of the goodness of their hearts to help out elderly folks??? Especially when those elderly folks happen to be LOADED with money!!!!

If Iraq's fame was perched on being the world's largest GARBONZO bean producer all you could see is a cloud of dust as the tanks load up.

[r3volution]

,,,,,,,

[SeanEdwards]

My question is,

Who gives a fuck if iraqis kill each other? I don't think all the Iraqis on planet earth are worth another drop of American blood. Let 'em kill each other if they want. We've done enough damage over there, and we're not helping things now. The best way we can help those freaks is just to get the hell away from them.

[BillyDkid]

The neo-con prognosticators keep telling us that if we leave, there will be a bloodbath in Iraq.

My question to that is - isn't there already a bloodbath taking place there? Shouldn't that question be thrown back in the faces of the neo-cons?

What difference is that going to make if we leave? Bloodbaths have been going on there ever since the Shia-Sunni split. They continued through Saddam's regime and of course, they're going on now.

The only difference I see if we leave is that there will be fewer American deaths and maybe some of the motivation for killing people and suicide bombings will evaporate.
What bothers me is this - the notion that the neo-cons are suddenly these great humanitarians who are deeply concerned about the killing of innocents and such. It is so obvious that their only concern is their agenda and will make any argument they can to support that agenda. They have one concern and that is that their friends can profit off the war.

[Brasil Branco]

My question is,

Who gives a fuck if iraqis kill each other? I don't think all the Iraqis on planet earth are worth another drop of American blood. Let 'em kill each other if they want. We've done enough damage over there, and we're not helping things now. The best way we can help those freaks is just to get the hell away from them.

I do, as does most of the world. No one wants to have another Rwanda.

[SeanEdwards]

I do, as does most of the world. No one wants to have another Rwanda.

Cool. I guess that means we can get the hell out, and the rest of the world can go in and play worldcop. Have fun.

[Brasil Branco]

Cool. I guess that means we can get the hell out, and the rest of the world can go in and play worldcop. Have fun.

Won't be the first time, and it won't be the last.

[adpierce]

My question is,

Who gives a fuck if iraqis kill each other? I don't think all the Iraqis on planet earth are worth another drop of American blood. Let 'em kill each other if they want. We've done enough damage over there, and we're not helping things now. The best way we can help those freaks is just to get the hell away from them.

I agree, we're not holding the guns to their heads, it's their own hatred for one another and thirst for power that's doing that. It's not like we're going to make them start loving their enemies by forcing them to. The only successful battle against an insurgency is genocide. You might quiet an insurgency for a while, but they'll come back again and again and again until you let them rule themselves or kill them all off.

[mtmedlin]

I like to ask people after they state this opinion " and if there might be a bloodbath, how many American soldiers are you willing to sacrifice to keep it from happening and for how long" "at a rate projected at 1000 dead US soldiers a year, how many years are you willing to dedicate to stopping this?"


(ps. the 1000 per year is an estimate based on the continued efficiency that the insurgents are able to accomplish through more efficient roadside bombs and weapons from Saudi Arabia and Iran)