It's going to be 2 YEARS before Ron Paul will begin to withdraw troops

[JPFromTally]

When somebody argues that withdrawing troops from Iraq will cause a bloodbath, bla, bla, bla they might be arguing that it will happen if we do that now.

However, it is very apparent that GW will not even consider doing such a thing while he is still allowed to sit in the Oval Office. So what is the argument?

That Iraq will show absolutely no improvement in the next 24 months!?!? At the current rate if things continue on the same path there will be 6,000 soldiers dead when Dr. Paul is moving his stuff into the White House.

In essence, Dr. Paul becomes a stop loss (like when you cut a stock that just keeps losing value). So I would cut a deal with the American Public. GW has until 1/09 to show us some improvement - that's plenty of time.

[EvoPro]

I agree, it's a good opinion to express to the pro-war types. That combined with the fact that Ron Paul is the only one that can beat Hillary or Obama.


I don't think it would not be a blood bath if we pulled out now though. At least not enough to justify staying the course. The leaders may change but I think it wouldn't be any worse than it is now and would eventually be much better than a stay the course could ever accomplish.

[surf]

glass-half-full here, i think that Iraqi's don't really want to kill each other. i think they have a desire to rebuild their country, and that they will realize that this can only be done successfully by trading goods and services among various "sects".

'you broke it, you bought (not fix) it' will work if the people breaking it aren't outsiders/occupiers - if that makes sense. less breakage. the people of Iraq want electricity and my guess is that they will prosecute to the fullest extent possible those that f#ck it up.

they will cooperate because they will be better off by doing so. those selfish Iraqis....

Bastiat wrote that if goods don't cross borders, armies will. trade heels much.

[LibertyEagle]

When somebody argues that withdrawing troops from Iraq will cause a bloodbath, bla, bla, bla they might be arguing that it will happen if we do that now.

However, it is very apparent that GW will not even consider doing such a thing while he is still allowed to sit in the Oval Office. So what is the argument?

That Iraq will show absolutely no improvement in the next 24 months!?!? At the current rate if things continue on the same path there will be 6,000 soldiers dead when Dr. Paul is moving his stuff into the White House.

In essence, Dr. Paul becomes a stop loss (like when you cut a stock that just keeps losing value). So I would cut a deal with the American Public. GW has until 1/09 to show us some improvement - that's plenty of time.

You know, that's a good point. I never really thought about it that way.

[bobmurph]

Great point...many the most hard-party-line neoconservatives pundits admit that we will have to pull out of there if things don't improve over the next year or two.

To the "bloodbath" proponents, its a great way to position Dr. Paul. Ask them, how long we have to stay there until we pull out...some will say until the iraqis can defend themselves, others will give some irrelevant timespan.

To them we can respond that the bottom line is we are NOT going to pull out while GWB is in office for the next 17 months...electing a prowar republican will only increase the odds that we will be in Iraq for an even more prolong period. While, Ron Paul on the other hand, is that guarantee to pull out.

...of course, the argument against this will be that "we can't set a timeline because the terrorist will just wait until we leave...blah blah blah"

[murrayrothbard]

That may work for those who are really just concerned about Iraq, but unfortunately won't have any effect on those who have really guzzled the kool-aid, and really believe that it is imperative that the US conquers Iran, Syria, China, etc

[bcmiller]

the only way to get the hawks on the band wagon is to convince them that this was a mistake and that we should not police the world.

Plus the super polarized folks would rather be wrong than agree with the Democrats. The ammo you can have for that is that the Dems do not want to leave Iraq and they do want to nation build.

You must get them to picture Paul v Clinton, an election with a hawkish Clinton having to defend Bush's position while Ron Paul is the peace candidate who can not lose.

[Mesogen]

glass-half-full here, i think that Iraqi's don't really want to kill each other. i think they have a desire to rebuild their country, and that they will realize that this can only be done successfully by trading goods and services among various "sects".
eh, not really. Most of them want peace, plain and simple. But it only takes a few who want the other sect to die.

For some reason, I believe that the current Iraqi government would almost immediately be violently overthrown once we leave. The Shiite militias would take over in the Shiite regions and the Sunni tribes would take over in the Sunni regions. The Kurds, of course, would retain their region.

If they had left the army and police forces intact after Saddam's ouster, then maybe non of this would happen, but the plan was to divide the country eventually. If we can't control it, then no one will and there will be no more Iraq. So the best way to ensure that was the disbanding of the military/police and the whole "debaathification" process. The whole thing was like Michael Vick pissing off two dogs and then letting them go at each other.

It's a freaking mess. I say, let's leave now. But I also say that when we do, it will be a bloodbath, even more than it is now. The militias will finally have the leeway to go after each other and the cycle of vengeance will never end. That is, until a strongman arises from the ashes to hold it all together with an iron fist.

[Mesogen]

the only way to get the hawks on the band wagon is to convince them that this was a mistake and that we should not police the world.

Plus the super polarized folks would rather be wrong than agree with the Democrats. The ammo you can have for that is that the Dems do not want to leave Iraq and they do want to nation build.

You must get them to picture Paul v Clinton, an election with a hawkish Clinton having to defend Bush's position while Ron Paul is the peace candidate who can not lose.

My problem is talking to the Democrats. The people who voted for Kerry because they were FOR Kerry.

There's one guy I'm thinking of that thinks we shouldn't be in Iraq, but Guantanamo is good (or a necessary evil) and that OF COURSE it's the US's job to police the world. Who else is gonna do it? Who else will come to the rescue?

I even asked this person "So you're saying that we should bomb people for the right reasons instead of the wrong ones?"

"Why yes, that's what I just said."

These people cannot be reasoned with.

[kjdaugirdas]

As unsavory as it sounds, keeping the troops in Iraq right now is helping Ron Paul's candidacy. If George W seriously had a change of heart and decided to dramatically draw down US forces in the near future, Ron's anti-war position would have far less pull.

I'm not saying that I'm hoping for this war to continue (a moral person could never hope for something like that). But every month, more and more people become opposed to the Iraq war -- and this helps Ron Paul.

[bcmiller]

As unsavory as it sounds, keeping the troops in Iraq right now is helping Ron Paul's candidacy. If George W seriously had a change of heart and decided to dramatically draw down US forces in the near future, Ron's anti-war position would have far less pull.

I'm not saying that I'm hoping for this war to continue (a moral person could never hope for something like that). But every month, more and more people become opposed to the Iraq war -- and this helps Ron Paul.

I see what you are saying and I know I am completely biased but I think it works into Dr. Paul's favor regardless of the troops in Iraq.

If we did a complete pullout to the last man then Ron Paul would be proven right since he said this was the only option long long ago and ever since. Plus, the added bonus that we get what we want. Then the focus becomes how to not repeat this mistake and who is best to avoid future interventions.

If we do a partial drawdown it will anger the antiwar Dems because the Democrat politicans will support the drawdown and NOT call for a complete end to the war. Sort of what is happening if you consider +20,000 and then -$20,000 a net loss, I don't. Those disheartened Dem voters will have one real option... Ron Paul.

If we maintain our troop levels (as we are doing) then the scenario you have explained is correct. But, happily, we do not have to be in the sad position of hoping for an extension to this undeclared war and the deaths of more of our brave Americans.

[michaelwise]

I think in terms of our country being in a massive recession next year, and the government going bankrupt. We have no other choice but a complete and total withdraw from the region, because the taxpayer can no longer afford it.

[JPFromTally]

Well it's like Paul said on the radio interview yesterday. We will withdraw regardless - because there is no way this war can succeed in 2 years or 20 years.

Another argument is this:

Would you support this war if it means your taxes go up by 10%?

Well then how do you finance a 1/2 trillion dollar war while still cutting taxes? Print more money that's how!

Everything is more expensive because of this war - the hidden tax. Oil is at $80 because of the weakeness of the petrodollar.

Doesn't it make you angry that you've been swindled?

[risiusj]

It's not 2 years until Bush is done.
We've got 495 days left. Hopefully less.

[bobmurph]

As unsavory as it sounds, keeping the troops in Iraq right now is helping Ron Paul's candidacy. If George W seriously had a change of heart and decided to dramatically draw down US forces in the near future, Ron's anti-war position would have far less pull.

I'm not saying that I'm hoping for this war to continue (a moral person could never hope for something like that). But every month, more and more people become opposed to the Iraq war -- and this helps Ron Paul.

I disagree. Take Iraq out of the picture and RP would get the GOP nod in a heartbeat. He is the only Rebulican candidate who represents the true conservative values of small Constitutional government & low taxes.

The non-interventionist stance is certainly helping bring over some liberals to his camp...but it is a serious change in thought for many people who consider themselves conservative.