What would happen if we leave Iraq like we did in Vietnam?

[TheHonestTruth]

What happened when we ran away from Vietnam. Oh ya, nothing. :shock:



So what do you all think would happen if we leave?


I think it would force the Iraqis to step up and defend their own country. Violence would increase since there would be fewer authority figures, and that would force the country to create some order within their own ranks. Then the leaders would all have to drop the parlimentary bickering to save the country and form a stable government capable of gaining control. Right now they are just putting most of the burdon on us. I dont care if they all kill each other. It will force them to figure ***** out and get over their differences and form a stable government.

 

[Iriemon]

Bush has botched up Iraq so badly in every way, that now that there is no good way to leave. Had we left when our mission was accomplished, we would have left on our own terms. Because Bush has announced a ridiculous and unattainable set of goals as victory conditions, when we do finally leave it will look like "cut-n-run."

Hard to predict what will happen. The Administration's predictions about what would happen when we invade were completely wrong.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Bush has botched up Iraq so badly in every way, that now that there is no good way to leave. Had we left when our mission was accomplished, we would have left on our own terms. Because Bush has announced a ridiculous and unattainable set of goals as victory conditions, when we do finally leave it will look like "cut-n-run."

Hard to predict what will happen. The Administration's predictions about what would happen when we invade were completely wrong.

The "cut-n-run" phrase is a straw man used to prevent debate about a guerilla style war that we have little chance of winning at this point.

The reality is the public wont think its "cut-n-run" when we withdraw. People will think whatever politicians tell us to think and whatever the media reguritates. In this case, when the next president gets into office, they will explain our withdrawl as a necessary step towards promoting democracy by allowing them to take control of their own nation. The official word will be that we have "significantly reduced" the terror threat there and now they are ready, but in reality it will just be the same civil warring country but with less media coverage. But now we wont have to spend american lives and dollars to sort it out.

Politically, the next president will be able to withdraw. If Bush withdrew America would have major pie on its face, but if a new administration does it, then we can say it was just a mistake by that former, very crazy president we had.

 

[Iriemon]

The "cut-n-run" phrase is a straw man used to prevent debate about a guerilla style war that we have little chance of winning at this point.

The reality is the public wont think its "cut-n-run" when we withdraw. People will think whatever politicians tell us to think and whatever the media reguritates. In this case, when the next president gets into office, they will explain our withdrawl as a necessary step towards promoting democracy by allowing them to take control of their own nation. The official word will be that we have "significantly reduced" the terror threat there and now they are ready, but in reality it will just be the same civil warring country but with less media coverage. But now we wont have to spend american lives and dollars to sort it out.

Politically, the next president will be able to withdraw. If Bush withdrew America would have major pie on its face, but if a new administration does it, then we can say it was just a mistake by that former, very crazy president we had.

I don't disagree. But when we do withdraw our enemies will claim victory because it will look like we withdrew because of the guerilla war.

It was stupid enough to invade in the first place. But despite have kicked the Iraqi army's *** and capturing Hussein, Bush's stupid policies will make a victory be perceived as defeat.

 

[liberal1]

The government, despite being "democratic," has no where near the power to compete with the militant factions that are there. Seems like we believe that when a government is chosen by the people, the country's problems are over with, hardly so in this case. Open civil war is on the brink already, and when the only organized and effective military force in the country leaves (ours) we leave the innocent to be victims of etremist religious factions.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

What happened when we ran away from Vietnam. Oh ya, nothing. :shock:

The north over-took the south & it became communist within two after our exit --- the very thing we were trying to avoid. I guess trying to stop the spread of communism wasn't the big lie the peaceniks at the time tried to claim it was.

Leaving Iraq too early would only serve to embolden & empower terror organizations.

The question is --- when is too early? I believe we should be on the back side of this war in Iraq & troop reductions should be happening. The Iraq PM has stated that they can perform their own security within the next year. That should be the goal. A permanent military base is likely & probably smart --- much like in N. Korea & Germany.

 

[ProudAmerican]

some want us to leave early. some, due to political bias, want us to fail in Iraq so they can use it as a tool in future elections.

its sad really.

 

[Iriemon]

some want us to stay indefinitely. some, due to political bias, want us to stay in Iraq to cover up for failures made for future elections.

its sad really.[/QUOTE]

 

[ProudAmerican]

some may indeed.

Im not one of them. I would support the current actions even if a dem were running the show.

too bad you arent able to be so bi partisan on the issue huh?

unfortunately for you irie, you are just like all those congressmen that voted for the war when it was convenient....and then changed their tune later on.

 

[Iriemon]

some may indeed.

Im not one of them. I would support the current actions even if a dem were running the show.

too bad you arent able to be so bi partisan on the issue huh?

unfortunately for you irie, you are just like all those congressmen that voted for the war when it was convenient....and then changed their tune later on.

No, unlike those congressmen, I thought the war was unjustified from the get go, I thought Byrd was right; though I admit that based on believing what the admin was saying, I was conflicted about it. The more I learned later how they misrepresented and misimplied things the more I have realized my initial perception was right.

 

[tecoyah]

Several Years of Civil War, Likely leading to a very anti-western fanatical regime which might reconcile with Iran, on some level. Regardless of when we leave (and we eventually will), this is a likely outcome. In my opinion we cannot realistically hope to democratize in any lasting fashion, The culture is simply not in a position to accept it.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

1. The north over-took the south & it became communist within two after our exit --- the very thing we were trying to avoid. I guess trying to stop the spread of communism wasn't the big lie the peaceniks at the time tried to claim it was.

2. Leaving Iraq too early would only serve to embolden & empower terror organizations.


3. The question is --- when is too early? I believe we should be on the back side of this war in Iraq & troop reductions should be happening. The Iraq PM has stated that they can perform their own security within the next year. That should be the goal. A permanent military base is likely & probably smart --- much like in N. Korea & Germany.

1. Oh ya, and what was the net effect of that event. NOTHING.

Thus my point holds.



2. Embolden them? To do what? Fight a guerilla style war in the mid-east? It wouldn't give them any other advantages, and they are already doing this, but today we are paying for it. Ya it probably will increase the violence in Iraq by emboldening them, but that will force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country. Nothing else will. Holding their hands for the next decade will only allow them to continue bickering while ignoring their common interests.


3. The question is also when is too late? How much more anti-americanism will we stir up by occupying them for decades? Aren't we trying to prevent terrorism? How many of our tax dollars do we need to flush down the tube and how much more do we have to stretch the national budget defecit until until we come to the inevitable conclusion that this part of the world cannot be forced into a democratic and western style way of life.

The government, despite being "democratic," has no where near the power to compete with the militant factions that are there. Seems like we believe that when a government is chosen by the people, the country's problems are over with, hardly so in this case. Open civil war is on the brink already, and when the only organized and effective military force in the country leaves (ours) we leave the innocent to be victims of etremist religious factions.

Yes they do, as someone stated an Iraqi PM said it was one year. My point is that we cant stay here forever. Soon we are gonna have to cut them free and allow them to solve their own problems. Even if we dont deem them as capable as US forces to quell insurgents. The only way they can solve their problems is by working together. Increased violence would be forcing them to do this. Its not our war anymore, we got rid of saddam. We need to pack our bags, it is their civil war to be concerned with. We can have a permanent military base their for strategic purposes. But patrolling the nation in this guerilla war is just idiotic and a suicidal strategy for our troops and our nation.

 

[akyron]

1. Oh ya, and what was the net effect of that event. NOTHING.

"we can look at the Vietnam War as a success story -- albeit a costly one -- in nation building, even though the democracy we sought halfheartedly to build failed. Three decades ago, Asia really was threatened by the spread of communism. The Korean War was a fresh memory. In Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and even India, communist movements were gaining a foothold. They failed in large part because the United States drew a line at Vietnam that distracted and sucked resources away from its Cold War nemesis, the Soviet Union. Similarly, the effect of our stand in Iraq is already being felt around the Middle East. Opposition parties are demanding to be heard. Veiled women are insisting on a voice. Syrian troops have left Lebanon. Egypt has held an election. Iran is being pressured by the United States and Europe alike on its development of nuclear weapons. The voices for change are building in Saudi Arabia. The movement even has a name: Kifaya -- "Enough!" The parasites who have made themselves fat by promoting ignorance, fear, and repression in the region are squirming."
--Learning the Lessons of Vietnam

 

[TheHonestTruth]

"we can look at the Vietnam War as a success story -- albeit a costly one -- in nation building, even though the democracy we sought halfheartedly to build failed. Three decades ago, Asia really was threatened by the spread of communism. The Korean War was a fresh memory. In Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and even India, communist movements were gaining a foothold. They failed in large part because the United States drew a line at Vietnam that distracted and sucked resources away from its Cold War nemesis, the Soviet Union. Similarly, the effect of our stand in Iraq is already being felt around the Middle East. Opposition parties are demanding to be heard. Veiled women are insisting on a voice. Syrian troops have left Lebanon. Egypt has held an election. Iran is being pressured by the United States and Europe alike on its development of nuclear weapons. The voices for change are building in Saudi Arabia. The movement even has a name: Kifaya -- "Enough!" The parasites who have made themselves fat by promoting ignorance, fear, and repression in the region are squirming."
--Learning the Lessons of Vietnam

To say that the Soviet Union (and thus the spread of communism) eventually failed because of our actions in Vietnam is a stretch. It probably drained some of their resources, but not that many. It drained ours as well. That war was not worth 50,000 american lives lost and 500,000 injured soldiers. The poorly implemented system of USSR communism was bound to fail. Period. Vietnam was not worth it.

As for Iraq. The democracy has already been set up. They just need to find a way to work it out for themselves and establish order. We cant solve their infighting. We are only creating new generations of terrorists by staying there. It will be messy, but it shouldn't be our job until who knows when-- the end of time! Let them fight their own civil war. We got rid of Saddam and we've tried to stablize the country. We've done our best, now its their turn.

 

[BigDog]

It is a streach.

If we leave Iraq, it will see violence at first, most likely. It will likely be bloody. Someone will win. And like with us staying, what thay will be will be up to Iraqis.

 

[akyron]

To say that the Soviet Union (and thus the spread of communism) eventually failed because of our actions in Vietnam is a stretch. It probably drained some of their resources, but not that many. It drained ours as well. That war was not worth 50,000 american lives lost and 500,000 injured soldiers. The poorly implemented system of USSR communism was bound to fail. Period. Vietnam was not worth it..

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. Many disagree.

We've done our best, now its their turn.

I can agree with that we exit as the iraqi police force is built up.
Thats whats happening anyway.

Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it. Many disagree.

No, you must be joking. Some people, but not "many" would agree with that. Most people agree that Vietnam was not remotely worthwhile.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

1. Oh ya, and what was the net effect of that event. NOTHING.

Thus my point holds.



2. Embolden them? To do what? Fight a guerilla style war in the mid-east? It wouldn't give them any other advantages, and they are already doing this, but today we are paying for it. Ya it probably will increase the violence in Iraq by emboldening them, but that will force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country. Nothing else will. Holding their hands for the next decade will only allow them to continue bickering while ignoring their common interests.


3. The question is also when is too late? How much more anti-americanism will we stir up by occupying them for decades? Aren't we trying to prevent terrorism? How many of our tax dollars do we need to flush down the tube and how much more do we have to stretch the national budget defecit until until we come to the inevitable conclusion that this part of the world cannot be forced into a democratic and western style way of life.



Yes they do, as someone stated an Iraqi PM said it was one year. My point is that we cant stay here forever. Soon we are gonna have to cut them free and allow them to solve their own problems. Even if we dont deem them as capable as US forces to quell insurgents. The only way they can solve their problems is by working together. Increased violence would be forcing them to do this. Its not our war anymore, we got rid of saddam. We need to pack our bags, it is their civil war to be concerned with. We can have a permanent military base their for strategic purposes. But patrolling the nation in this guerilla war is just idiotic and a suicidal strategy for our troops and our nation.

I agree mostly with your last paragraph. While it may not be "our war" we still have an interest how their "civil war" turns out. Protecting that interest only makes sense.

1 - nothing was the net effect? really? So the money we spent for the following 20+ years was not an effect of us cutting & running/not fighting to win/allowing politics to obstruct our warriors...?...The "Cold War" could have ended with the Vietnam War.

2 - while I agree we need to start stepping back leaving all together isn't the answer. the Iraqis do need to be handed more of the responsibility for their own country. That just makes good sense. Not sure if you're suggesting a compete cut & run or what...?...

3 - you have this illusion that no one hated us & wanted to kill us before we entered Iraq. That's just funny right there - I don't care who you are...:rofl

 

[TheHonestTruth]

I agree mostly with your last paragraph. While it may not be "our war" we still have an interest how their "civil war" turns out. Protecting that interest only makes sense.

1 - The "Cold War" could have ended with the Vietnam War.

2 - while I agree we need to start stepping back leaving all together isn't the answer. the Iraqis do need to be handed more of the responsibility for their own country. That just makes good sense. Not sure if you're suggesting a compete cut & run or what...?...

3 - you have this illusion that no one hated us & wanted to kill us before we entered Iraq.

1. Thats hardly the case. A newly established permanent U.S. military base near the soviet bloc probably would have only increased tensions and caused more problems during the Cold War. Pllleeeeeeze. You Vietnam supporters are like engineers of the Titanic who want to build another one and book a cruise.

2. Im suggesting we stop these suicidal patrol missions in the middle of this doomed guerilla war situtation. We should maintain a base there for strategic purposes in the region, but we need to stop having our troops aimlessly roaming the streets.

3. I dont have the illusion that "no one hated us and wanted to kill us before the war"...but you seem to have an illusion that we aren't massively increasing this threat and creating new generations of terrorists that otherwise wouldn't have existed.

 

[Billo_Really]

If we left Iraq the neocon's would have a massive, simultaneous, nervous breakdown. Then liberals would be burdened with the job of spoon feeding them back to health until they had enough motor functions to wipe their own a.s.s.

or

maybe we could once again be a great nation and a beacon of democracy?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What happened when we ran away from Vietnam. Oh ya, nothing. :shock:
.

Where the **** do you get your history books?

Millions of south vietnamese were slaughtered not to mention the Communist expansion in Cambodia and the genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot which was a direct result of our withdrawal from south vietnam.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Where the **** do you get your history books?

Millions of south vietnamese were slaughtered not to mention the Communist expansion in Cambodia and the genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot which was a direct result of our withdrawal from south vietnam.

amazing isnt it. as long as AMerica is in a country like Iraq fighting.....the left is concerned with all the civilians dying. (how many times have we seen them post the numbers of dead civilians in this forum as a way to condemn Americans actions?)

but somehow, they dont concern themselves with the numbers that would die if we leave.

hypocrisy.

 

[TheHonestTruth]

Where the **** do you get your history books?

Millions of south vietnamese were slaughtered not to mention the Communist expansion in Cambodia and the genocide perpetrated by Pol Pot which was a direct result of our withdrawal from south vietnam.

Some South Vietnamese were slaughtered, mostly the ones who refused to drop arms and surrender against the now dominant force of the North. Pol Pot massacred, but if you READ A HISTORY BOOK, you would know that we couldn't have stopped him in time anyway. But as I said, all of the effects from the pullout are not a concern to us. It had ZERO net effect on the USA.

amazing isnt it. as long as AMerica is in a country like Iraq fighting.....the left is concerned with all the civilians dying. (how many times have we seen them post the numbers of dead civilians in this forum as a way to condemn Americans actions?)

but somehow, they dont concern themselves with the numbers that would die if we leave.

hypocrisy.

Firstly, Im not on the left. Im a libertarian, and accordingly my political philosophy is non-interventionist.

As I ALREADY stated in my original post, if you even read it..I dont give a crap about their civilians because it doesn't affect the USA. I care about our civilians. I care about our soldiers.

But a major reason people are especially concerned about civilian casualties, is because it makes us look bad. Anytime our forces kill a civilian we are potentially creating terrorists, because we are seen as an evil force by the locals.

Yes, they will die. Its a damn civil war, that is what happens. Its better that they sort out their own mess. That civil war could go on for 10, 20, maybe 50 years! We cant afford to stay there patrolling the streets like we are today. We cant afford it economically, fiscally, militarily, or strategically.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Some South Vietnamese were slaughtered, mostly the ones who refused to drop arms and surrender against the now dominant force of the North. Pol Pot massacred, but if you READ A HISTORY BOOK, you would know that we couldn't have stopped him in time anyway. But as I said, all of the effects from the pullout are not a concern to us. It had ZERO net effect on the USA..

You're a lier it was genocide plain and simple and all people who were suspected of aiding the u.s. were rounded up and killed and the rise of Pol Pot was directly attributable to our withdrawal; furthermore, you did not say that there was no effect on the u.s. you said there was no effect at all you're shifting goal posts by regardless the enemy in Iraq is an enemy that will follow us home or do you forget 9-11 already?

 

[jfuh]

The question posted by the OP itself is a slippery slope. There's no similarity between leaving Iraq now and leaving Vietnam then, why? Because we already won the war.
Why did we go into Iraq? To topple Saddam's regime - Remember that banner on the aircraft carrier guys? That mission was accomplised. We completed the goals we set out to do, Saddam's Regime is gone.
I don't ever recall any statement made by this administration of nation building during the debate for war. Only WMD's, AQ, and Saddam. The first two have proven to be BS and the last one we took care of. So why are we still there now?
Oh right, because of a civil war and a presence of AQ now after we arrived and we need to make sure that the government in Iraq stays our puppet.