It's odd that she never seemed to bother checking out the history of what happened after we cut Viet Nam loose. Missed the boat people, missed the refugees, missed the re-education camps and the hundreds of thousands slaughtered...

But they all lived happily ever after. Like the lion laying down with the lamb, right? Only problem is, you gotta replace the lamb often...

She also missed the Cambodian genocide where 1/3 of the population was killed to build Mao's vision of utopia!

The question of what happens when we leave? And, what do we do to deal with the fallout? are two questions that haven't been pressed hard enough against the Pull-Out crowd.

Sorry BryanD, but I deleted your comment. I don't remember the last time I deleted a comment, but the language you used to describe the mother of one of our brave soldiers made me sick. I would not use that name to describe Cindy Sheehan.

The idea that there will be an apocalypse in Iraq if we pull out is one of the most brazen and false fictions ever promoted by those on the right who favor a perpetual occupation of Iraq regardless of the situation there.

Well, guess what happened while you doom-and-gloomsters on the right were predicting disaster if we pull out? The Iraqis got their act together.

Item #1) Casualties among Iraqi police and military were just 76 this month. That's the lowest in the more than 2 years that the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count has been tracking them.

Item #2) The Iraqis (supported by us) easily crushed the group in Najaf that was planning to attack the city with only minimal losses. Over 250 insurgents were killed by some estimtes.

Why is that those on the right REFUSE to recognize that the situation in Iraq has turned WITHOUT an additional 20,000 troops? I'll tell you why. Because you guys want a perpetual occupation of Iraq REGARDLESS of the situation on the ground.

That's the reality. So please stop pretending the reason you don't want to leave is that their will be a catastrophe for which you have no evidence at all. You don't intend to leave EVER, for ANY REASON. You will always have an excuse to keep our troops there.

Good for you Lorie!

Larkin are you really that Dumb?

I see that SUSZIE SARANWRAP,HANOI JANE,and BAGHDAD SEAN were there who else were showing what traitors they are?

You don't intend to leave EVER, for ANY REASON. You will always have an excuse to keep our troops there.

Um, you mean if Iraq has, in 2008, Switzerland-levels of strife, we wouldn't leave? Why on Earth wouldn't we?

Yes, Larkin IS that dumb. I too might be a liberal if I were uninformed and stupid. But calling yourself a liberal/leftie/democrat nowadays is like putting a sign on yourself announcing "Hello, I'm an idiot."

Nope. No thank you.

Lorie! My masterpiece! I feel as if my mom raided my naked lady drawings drawer!

And you have to admit, minus the "D" word, it was pretty classic. I could reconstruct a bowdlerized version, but what's the point.

I didn't mean to be picking on you bryanD. I know that I probably miss a lot of comments that are just as bad or worse, but that I don't see. I did see that one though, and just couldn't let it stand. Keep it (somewhat) clean, guys.

Would any of the Hollywood libnuts or other far left pacifists volunteer to live in baghdad for, say, 24 months after the last soldier left for home?

Seems to me Sean Penn is a better sailor than a public speaker.

WOW!!! when did that happen? I have been told repeatedly by the left that our situation in Iraq is unwinnable. Suddenly Larkin informs us that we have already won. Did I miss the "mission accomplished" banner?

Gee, I am sooooooo impressed by all the name-calling. You guys must be really, really smart to come up with labels like "idiot" and "dumb".

Still, none of you can have addressed my argument and provided any evidence as to why your apocalyptic scenarios MUST absolutely occur. Instead of coming back with facts you just throw out insults. No big deal, I expect that here.

So, I'll respond with even more facts. The Samarra bombing of last year clearly was the trigger point of a wave of sectarian violence as pointed out by our fearless leader. In spite of that, Iraq has not devolved into an all-out civil war. My contention is that if Iraqis wanted an all-out civil war they would already be fighting one. 10,000 US troops in a city of 6 million people in Baghdad wouldn't be able to stop it.

I'm not claiming that Iraq is "winnable" because it's not. We can't win someone else's civil war. Either the Sunnis or the Shiites will win, or they will settle the conflict themselves (by far the most likely outcome). I'm also not claiming that the situation is "good" by any means.

What I am saying is that there is clear improvement as demonstrated by the fact that casualties among Iraqi police and military were the lowest in two years this month. I maintain that there is absolute no crisis that mandates increasing troops. In fact, just the opposite. While Bush says that adding troops is the only course of action right now, the Britsh, our strongest allies, are reducing their force level. Anyone care to explain the contradiction there?

Okay that should be good enough for another round of name-calling. Bring it on.

Flower children, hippie dippies...of the 60's.
leave it to those jackasses, to be leading the way today.

The 1960's generation the start of the decline of society. Now they are older NOT wiser and just as chicken shit as they were back then. They just should go smoke some more dope and go away.

Larkin---

Don't you think the President would USE the information you point out to his advatage!?
WHY is the MSM painting just the opposit every night on the news?
All the crying that it's so bad there and we need to leave, by all the protesters and politicians.

I am a conservative Republican, WHY the hell would we/Republicans want to stay there for ONE second longer than we have to?
Polital advantage!??????? I don't think so !!
So whats the secret Larkin , WHY do we want to stay forever in YOUR mind????

JLawson, I hope you do realize you dated yourself by writing "Viet Nam." Only us old coots spell it that way. I mean, just because that's the way it's spelled on the Zippo I had engraved at Cam Ranh and my souvenier 500P note doesn't mean you can get away with it in this oh so modern day and age. Methinks a "Welcome home" may be in order. If so, welcome home.

Knight,

We want to stay there "forever" because Iraq has one of the largest known oil reserves. Because now that they are trying to rebuild, the proposal on the table is that they will trade away 70% of their oil revenue for the next 30 years. And while he have installed a "democratic" leadership able to sign a binding international agreement, they are really in a poor position to negotiate.

Drinks anyone?

OIL? So forget about WMD's and the BAD intel, forget about RADICAL ISLAM, the stability of the region, (WE ARE/WANT to stay in IRAQ for OIL?)

geee excuse me, but wouldn't we have been better off just slapping maybe Hugo Chavez? if THAT were the case. I don't by it, and wonder if Larkin has the same theory.

Soldiers are pawns. Anyone who allows themselves to be used as such have less dignity and integrity for the acts they commited...as pawns. I torched some village. Killed innocents because I had no time to find out the truth if they were innocent or not. I followed orders. I did my job. The job of killing for politicians with hidden agendas. No one in Iraq right now can tell you why we are still there. We got Saddam. We have friends in the Middle East that will give us oil. Who is looking for Osama Bin Laden?

No one in Iraq right now can tell you why we are still there.

Uh, the government can. They've requested we stay until the Iraqi army can handle the insurgents--imports from other countries--on their own.

We've invested billions to help Iraq. Repayment from oil revenues is just redressing the debt, not making profits.

Pulling out tarnishes our image more than any envy of our power ever could. Contempt is far more dangerous; envy coupled with fear implies respect. National security isn't a popularity contest, and Switzerland can be voted Miss Congeniality.

And Andrew Hall shows us how the left 'supports' the troops.

Bill Faith-

Thank you, sir. I'm a Viet Nam era AF vet - well, by courtesy, I enlisted in '74 so that's what my group was called. Never went further west than California, further east than Incirlik CDI, further north than England, further south than Panama...

Wouldn't mind going to Iraq some day when it's settled out - but if we leave it'll be a replay of Viet Nam, like I said. And like that lady said. Someone's going to be happy to see us go - but it won't be the Iraqi people!

Andrew Hall:

"Soldiers are pawns. Anyone who allows themselves to be used as such have less dignity and integrity for the acts they commited...as pawns. I torched some village. Killed innocents because I had no time to find out the truth if they were innocent or not. I followed orders. I did my job. The job of killing for politicians with hidden agendas."

Actually, soliders have a legal obligation to refuse such orders, although I guess you are pointing to a supposed "illegal war".

Sounds like you know very little of the difficulty and great care taken by our troops, at the risk- no the cost- of their very own lives and blood, to differentiate between "innocents" and combatants.

Larkin,

I think the reason you only got name calling so far, except for Knightbrigade, is that those of us who like to engage in a bit of reasoning were dumbfounded by a liberal arguing that violence is diminishing in Iraq, at least among Iraqis.

However, your second comment seems to be self-contradictory. First you say this:

In spite of that, Iraq has not devolved into an all-out civil war. My contention is that if Iraqis wanted an all-out civil war they would already be fighting one.

That point has some merit, but then you say in the next paragraph that. . .

I'm not claiming that Iraq is "winnable" because it's not. We can't win someone else's civil war.

First you're making an argument that the U.S. can leave because violence is diminishing in Iraq and there is no real civil war. Then it's like you remembered one of the canned democratic talking points and claimed the U.S. can win because of the civil war in Iraq. In short your argument is that the U.S. can leave because there's no civil war, but the U.S. can't stay because there is a civil war. Work on this a bit and see if you can iron out the apparent contradiction.

While Bush says that adding troops is the only course of action right now, the Britsh, our strongest allies, are reducing their force level. Anyone care to explain the contradiction there?.

Good question. Let me take a stab at it. Baghdad seems to be the focus of the violence and that's where U.S. troops are deployed. In the south where the British are deployed, there definitely seems to be a reduction in violence, so it makes sense to reduce the troop levels there. The plan for the extra troops is to sweep and hold areas of Baghdad. In the past the U.S. would sweep an area to restore order, but then leave it up to the Iraqis to maintain that order. That hasn't worked. Now the U.S. will have the manpower to help maintain order in areas that it has swept. There's no need to threaten the Iraqi government with the prospect of the U.S. withdrawing its forces because they know they only have until the end of Bush's term before that happens.

Andrew Hall,

How far can you spit? I just want to know in order to keep our of range.

Thank you all. Haven't gotten around much lately. Was growing weary of resolutions and defeatist flashbacks.
I consider myself independent. If I agree with a liberal I'm labeled a liberal. Same applies on the conservative side. Although possibly for different reasons, I agree with the BUsh surge plan and/or staying til we get it done. Thanks again for renewing my faith. My guess is the assertions about the majority of Americans ranking Iraq as the number one issue is flawed when assuming that means withdraw.

goddessoftheclassroom

"We've invested billions to help Iraq. Repayment from oil revenues is just redressing the debt, not making profits."

Says you, of goddess of the uninformed.

It's not so simple as that, goddess. If you are the "classroom" prize you imply w/ your user, you ought to look a little further as should those who rail against the refrain, No blood for oil."

Now "everyone" knows that old "pukeface" is right because, hey he got links!!!!

He's also got the "straight dope". Can't beat it , word!

BUSH IS AN IDIOT THE TIDE HAS ALREADY TURNED WE DON'T NEED 20,000 EXTRA TROOPS THE IRAQIS ARE HANDLING THE WAR JUST FINE!

So we're winning the war then?

NO! THE WAR IS UNWINNABLE AND BUSH HAS US IN AN UNWINNABLE QUAGMIRE WHICH IS UNWINNABLE BECAUSE BUSH DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TROOPS!

So Bush is right to send more troops?

BUSH IS AN IDIOT THE TIDE HAS ALREADY TURNED WE DON'T NEED 20,000 EXTRA TROOPS THE IRAQIS ARE HANDLING THE WAR JUST FINE!

...

Round and round and round he goes....

This war is not about Iraq. Iraq is a battle in a war, the beginning of WWIII. Calling it the "Iraq War" is like calling a previous battle "The War of Gettysburg"

This is bigger than those on the left are willing to admit.

I was at the march on Saturday and can say firsthand there were definitely a fair number of young people there (me and my girlfriend included, 25 and 23 yrs. old). I couldn't state exactly the percentage, but probably around 60% of those in attendance were 30 or younger (probably an even higher % if you go by the max enlistment age of 42).

And just to preempt and dispel accusations, I oppose jihad and acts of violence by radical Islamists. Take my attendance at the march as opposition to that as well. However, I could just as easily turn that question on it's head, where are the conservatives and Republicans organizing a demonstration against radical Islam? If there were a march for that, I'd attend it too.

Back to the point, I do belive a military response was in order after 9/11, but that venue was (and still is) Afghanistan. Iraq has only bogged us down in a now intractable conflict (as evidenced by Lorie's premise of what will happen if we pull out), tremendously weakening the readiness of our army for any other potential problem, while doing little to reduce (more likely enflame) the spread of radical Islam.

On another note, I find it funny that the title is "The Consequences and the Clueless". Couldn't the exact same title apply to the neo-cons prior to the war and the consequences of starting it?

, "I find it funny that the title is "The Consequences and the Clueless". Couldn't the exact same title apply to the neo-cons prior to the war and the consequences of starting it?"

Lets go a little further back where all of this could have been avoided if a Pecker Polished Coward cared more about his Country and doing his job.

That's the reality. So please stop pretending the reason you don't want to leave is that their will be a catastrophe for which you have no evidence at all.

You don't intend to leave EVER, for ANY REASON. You will always have an excuse to keep our troops there.
Posted by: Larkin at January 29, 2007 11:09 PM

Later in this thread you deride those that offered no proof a withdrawal would be disastrous.

Yet other than anecdotal evidence about Iraqi casualties trending downward among the police and army is the only thing you offer.

First, you can't "prove" the future.

secondly your anecdotal "evidence" isn't proof of anything either and has to be covered with a wide cloth of speculation to use it for any type of reasonable conclusion.

You will also note as casualties for Iraqis have gone down, casualties for US troops have gone up. That indicates two things. The US has changed tactics and become more aggressive, finally, and also that the terrorists have also shifted their target set.

And finally, after all your whining about proof and lack of same you make a leap of faith by deciding the right/conservatives "don't intend to leave EVER, for ANY REASON."

Got proof?!!!

Or are you a sycophant of the Amazing Kreskin?

If so my neighbor is having a birthday party for their 4 year old. Can you come? Your mentalist act would complement the clowns that will be there.