Well, that certainly was an
exeunt with a flourish. Anyways, I wanted to comment on something that was thrown out before the meltdown that underscores the lack of logic in the argument to pull out of Iraq right away. I know there will be no response, but others can hear it out if they would like.
Holk said:
Afghanistan can't be allowed to be run by the Taliban again,or it could again be used as a training and operating facilty for Al Qaeda once again.
So, we need to stay in Afghanistan to prevent a radical regime from taking over and providing a breeding ground for Al Qa'ida? Has it never occured to you that leaving Iraq would lead to the same? The pullout of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan was only the beginning of the problems there and I have no doubt that a vacuum in Iraq would be the same. Look at the Insurgency and how it metasticized in April of 2004 - if there wasn't 150,000 US and Coalition soldiers (mostly US and Brits, the others clammed up when things went south) on the ground at that time, things would have went sour quick. Look at the anatomy of Fallujah and imagine that happening in other Iraqi cities; Fallujah replete with foreign fighters, bomb factories, beheadings and torture of other Iraqis who supported the new developing state. The call for a radical uprising was flowing its way to Baghdad when the US intervened in Al Anbar province in mid-2004. Without US support, I remain confident that a conflagration similar to the uprising in 2004 would lead to chaos, civil war, and the conditions which would grant Al Qa'ida and other Salafist organizations a new safe haven.
Instability could be the worst thing to happen in Iraq, as it will reduce our influence and increase that of groups like Al Qa'ida (who are closer in Iraq to their spiritual homes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia). Instability is something we need a strong Western presence to prevent (although a strategy to do so remains unclear) as forces of history in the region are working to promote an undesirable series of events (as I mentioned
here). Some other professionals are discussing this
here right now; it shows how fragile the Iraqi State is right now and what would most likely go down if the US left.
To imply that this conflict is simply based upon rage at the US is wrong, IMHO. If it is, then how do explain things like this?
-
Top UN envoy killed in Baghdad blast
-
Bombs hit pilgrim route in Iraq
-
Iraq attacks kill seven policemen
-
'Al-Qaeda' claims Jordan attacks
This is just a taste of what was dug up on BBC, but you can see that your obvious anti-American slant is leading you to ignore evidence that points to much of the intercine violence in the region is more then just "freedom fighting Iraqis against the American occupier". American presence plays a large part in generating unrest in the region but that presence will, I believe, also play a decisive part in eliminating the threats to us that emmanate from the area. To imply that the US should pull out of Iraq and leave the above problems to a brand new pluralist government is simply foolish.
Too bad you decided to eat your shoe instead of figuring out how to play nice on these forums as I would have been interested in seeing you wish away these other problems with your single-minded (and misplaced) anti-Americanism.
Nice misdirection Bruce. Get me answering you in another thread while you sneak back here and steal my thunder. Well, I'll get you and your little dog too. EEEEEHHHEEEEEEHHEEEE
