the only context that mmatters is what happens when US forces withdraw. should that happy day arrive absent a defeated "insurgency" and a stable, democratically-elected government in place, then, yes, w/drawal will hand victory to the terrorists. feingold may not want the terrorists to win, and in that respect he may not "support the terrorists" but his stated goal will bring about the result that al queda desires.
sez you. This "terrorists will win" crap is just a rehashing of the domino theory and communism. When we pulled out of Vietnam did all of Southeast Asia become communist? Did we face the worldwide spread of communism that many conservatives threatened? No. Tell me, if we remove troops from Iraq and merely support civil engineering efforts, what will happen that will be so great as to justify the continual loss of lives that we know will happen as long as the present strategy goes on.
Again I don't agree with Feingold but I give him more credit than that. Did you even bother to read Feingold's interview at the start of this thread? The problem I have with Feingold is that he's not laying out benchmarks or a strategy to get to where Iraq can stand on its own other than that its pretty sound. He's not saying lets up and leave. He's saying that we figure out phased withdraw plan with the understanding that we have to leave Iraq eventually and we should set a date for that. He clearly says not to just pack up and get the hell out of dodge like in Vietnam or Somalia.
i'm not talking about the domino theory, i'm discussing iraq. what happened to south vietnam when we left?
here's more from zawahiri, from the letter linked to above, re vietnam, and the media's role in the current conflict:
Oh boy. It seems almost impossible to express any type of dissent without being accused of supporting terrorism or Saddam. I don't see how this is so hard to follow. In his paranoia, Basso spoke of the spread of "islamofascism." I said those elements were not present prior to the invasion (ie: Iraq was relatively progressive and the government was secular). I said the intervention was a mistake, using his argument against him, that the war only created the negative aspects he spoke of. You can infer from that whatever you want but I think it's pretty clear to see by anyone reading this what I meant. I really wish you guys wouldn't stoop to trying to intimidate anyone who opposes the war by hinting at support of Saddam/Al-Qaeda. Not nearly as absurd as overthrowing one opressive regime and then continually abetting an equally opressive regime. Hayes - your smarter than this. You don't honestly believe this had anything to do with liberating the Iraqi people from an opressive regime, do you? Seriously, jokes aside. Where was this outcry for the well-being of the Iraqi people when our sanctions directly led to the malnourishment and deaths of hundreds of thousands in that country? "Bring em on!" doesn't exactly sound like the catch-phrase of a liberator.
no. because it is not. americans are not killing each other over race as they are in the middle east. get real.
I really wish people would stop saying 'we shouldn't have intervened but that doesn't mean I think Saddam should still be in power.' There is an either OR choice. I'm sure its convenient for you to have your cake and eat it too, but that's hardly a convincing defense. If you are for choice 'a' - no intervention, then you are necessarily not for choice 'b' - intervention. 'a' = Saddam in power, 'b' = Saddam NOT in power. As I've pointed out there are many many developments since the intervention including bracing other oppressive regimes to reform. That is not inconsistent or hypocritical. Seriously, I'll answer that and hope that you can understand where I'm coming from. Keep in mind that my personal justification for the intervention clearly included the benefits to the Iraqi people as well as more realist based concerns. As for the administration, I believe that the 'neocon' element in the administration absolutely wanted to help the Iraqi people, and that this intervention would affect a change in the region as a whole moving it towards democratization. Why do I believe this? Because that IS what a 'neocon' IS - by definition. To claim that the 'neocons' intervened for oil etc only shows an ignorance of what constitutes a neoconservative. The neocon element does not necessarily dominate the administration - Cheney and Rumsfeld are not neocons they are realists. THEY probably sought the advantages valued in their ideology: mainly taking care of Saddam, removing a pain in the ass, and making a big statement to the other regimes in the ME. I don't even really understand all this 'securing oil' business - there isn't a regime that refuses to SELL us oil. Iraq isn't GIVING us oil and isn't GOING to GIVE us oil. In fairness I don't believe the sanctions - UN sanctions btw - were designed to crush the Iraqi civilians. Yet I do not assert that concern for the Iraqi civilians trumped the world's concern about Saddams weapons development - obviously it didn't. However, UN action to implement sanctions happened long before the 'neocons' were in power, long before Dubya's administration. Strange though that the quickest way to remove sanctions was to remove Saddam, which is what has happened. Certainly that appealed to the 'neocon.' Admittedly the realists don't give a damn one way or the other but I do believe the intervention was enacted because enough of the neocon and realist agenda crossed over. Therefore I do not think it is accurate to claim there was no assessment of the welfare of the Iraqi people, or other people's oppressed in the region. I'm not sure its possible for an idiot to be ideologically bound, which may explain his transformation for an isolationist to interventionist.
It was in their votes which were against Saddam allies REagan and Bush Sr. Where was yours? Where was yours in Venezuela prior to Chavez election? Were you decrying the exploitive oligarchy that brought about Chavez' rise?
Do you remember when Al Qaeda said they wanted Bush to win the 2004 election? Who did you vote for in 2004?
My opinion is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Like I've reiterated numerous times, I was simply using Basso's argument against him. If he didn't want "islamofascism" to spread, as he called it, he would be better off with Saddam in power. My opinion does not pertain to this discussion in any way, but since you bring it up, yes, we would be better off with Saddam in power. He was in no way a threat to us and never has been. Reports are that he only attacked Kuwait because he thought he had our approval prior to the Gulf War, and in '79 he was our ally when he attacked Iran. It was clearly not in our best interests to enter Iraq. But aside from that, your argument is completely illogical. Because I think Saddam should still be in power, I support him? I sure as hell don't support George W. Bush but he's a far better alternative to anarchy in America. Prove it. China, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the list is endless. The United States had special interests in Iraq. If you're going to tell me this was about liberation I can do nothing but laugh and agree to disagree. I believe you that your personally justification for intervention included the benefits to the Iraqi people and I can respect that. But you're not on trial here. This administration is. I completely disagree with your premise though. You assert that the administration made a move towards democratization because they "wanted to help the Iraqi people" and I would agree that yes, democratization was one big factor in this decision. I would say however that the intended motive of democratization was not of any philanthropic nature to the Iraqi people but rather simply to create what they deemed a "model democracy for the Middle East." An affable state in the heart of a hostile region - in other words, a stronghold in the region, possibly with hopes of a "domino effect." I don't see how you and other conservatives draw this absolute connection between democratization and liberation. It's obvious we weren't "greeted as liberators" and it is now coming to pass that the new Iraqi Constitution will include Islamic elements within its jurisprudence. Oops. This western egocentric assumption that if given the choice, the people would abandon their religion and embrace a western style democracy has stabbed us in the foot. Finally, I just don't understand this sudden concern from the war crowd regarding the well being of the Iraqi citizens. Seems like the only convenient answer you all have nowadays. Starting a war to keep the peace is like f*cking to keep your virginity. This has nothing at all to do with the "realist" though. It has to do with the sudden sympathy for the plight of the Iraqi civilians shown by the "neocon" crowd. I didn't hear any concern over this at all from the conservative camp during the sanctions. We can atleast agree on this.
This is an area where I agree with you and see the danger of this which is why I don't advocate setting a date now and I think is one of the problems with Feingold's position. To Feingold's credit though he seems to be aware of that and is saying we need to set some standards that need to be met by a date. How solid of a date that is and if Feingold stick to that date if those benchmarks weren't met I don't know.
