I don't think Bush is an idiot all, in this case.
I don't think anyone can really disagree that the absence of US troops will make Iraq peaceful.
The problem, just like Vietnam is not the presence of American troops.
But let's look at Vietnam and it's neighbours after US withdrawal in 1975:
- North Vietnam took control of the whole country after american withdrawal. Many were killed as punishment for collaborating with the US. Even today it is a one-party state. Political opposition is forbidden.
- Cambodia: The Khmer Rouge disposed the countty's monarchy and killed and as many 3 million people. Was invaded by Vietnam in 1978, and the subsequent fighting between the occupiers and the Khmer Rouge lasted until the 80s.
- Thailand: Many refugees fled to Thailand after US withdrawal, 200'000 Cambodian refugees after the invasion of Vietnam in 1978. The Thai monarchy was worried that these numbers could de-stabilise the country and forcibly repatriated many of them.
- Laos: Soviet backed Guerillas toppled the monarchy and installed a client government of communist Vietnam
- South Vietnam's democratic government was disposed.
Now let's have a look at present day Iraq:
- Iran: Will do whatever it can to guarantee a Shia government in Iraq. It is already pouring fighters and weapons into Iraq. This will get worse without US presence.
- Saudi Arabia & Gulf States: will respond to protect Sunni minority. This could lead to a permanent conflict with Iran, in Iraq.
- Jordan: would also be under pressure to help Sunnis
- Northern Iraq: Nothing would prevent Turkish troops venturing into Iraq to engage Kurdish separatists.
I think the result of US withdrawal will be a grave betrayal of the Iraqi people and the Kurds, and many many more will die.
I think Bush's comparisons are not that far off the mark.
(edit: source: the above points are from today's times)
Originally posted by BartsWe have had countless discussions here about the invasion being justified or not.
That's the ironic part of the Iraq war, the american invasion completely destabilized the country, but it will probably get even worse once they leave.
Sadly it is now totally irrelevant. The problem is stay, or go?
Originally posted by knightwestThis is true, we are in it now, so the question is that are we(America, Briton,etc) going to tuck and run. I feel it will be a bloodbath until some faction gains full control if we do. I think everyone needs to pitch in more to try to help these people biuld a stabalized country where it does not matter where you where born or what you believe in you can still walk the streets and feel somewhat safe.
We have had countless discussions here about the invasion being justified or not.
Sadly it is now totally irrelevant. The problem is stay, or go?
Originally posted by knightwestI'd say stay, a withdrawal of US troops would pave the way for a civil war and will only bring more suffering to the Iraqi's. Unfortunatly, from the point of view of the USA staying would only mean the loss of more soldiers, without any advantages so once they swallow their pride they'll retreat.
We have had countless discussions here about the invasion being justified or not.
Sadly it is now totally irrelevant. The problem is stay, or go?
On a side note, I don't know if the Turks would invade Kurdish territory. They still want to become a part of the EU and an agressive probably won't help them achieve that.
Originally posted by torch71In the end it will be down to american public opinion, just like Vietnam.
This is true, we are in it now, so the question is that are we(America, Briton,etc) going to tuck and run. I feel it will be a bloodbath until some faction gains full control if we do. I think everyone needs to pitch in more to try to help these people biuld a stabalized country where it does not matter where you where born or what you believe in you can still walk the streets and feel somewhat safe.
I have no doubt that America will withdraw too early, stabbing it's soldiers and generals in the back on the battlefield, betraying the Kurds and the Iraqi people to a terrible fate.
It will be a bloodbath, but probably someone's ticket to the White House.
Originally posted by BartsOn the other hand, the Turks will never allow an area of Kurdish autonomy to exist just outside it's borders, and neither will the Iranians.
I'd say stay, a withdrawal of US troops would pave the way for a civil war and will only bring more suffering to the Iraqi's. Unfortunatly, from the point of view of the USA staying would only mean the loss of more soldiers, without any advantages so once they swallow their pride they'll retreat.
On a side note, I don't know if the Turks would invade Kurdis ...[text shortened]... ill want to become a part of the EU and an agressive probably won't help them achieve that.
Originally posted by knightwestSAD BUT TRUE!!!😞
In the end it will be down to american public opinion, just like Vietnam.
I have no doubt that America will withdraw too early, stabbing it's soldiers and generals in the back on the battlefield, betraying the Kurds and the Iraqi people to a terrible fate.
It will be a bloodbath, but probably someone's ticket to the White House.
The American people want change and the Dems are preaching for a withdraw.
Originally posted by knightwestThat's why I'm uncertain about it, there are two very strong, but opposite incentives.
On the other hand, the Turks will never allow an area of Kurdish autonomy to exist just outside it's borders, and neither will the Iranians.
Torch, only American troops in Iraq won't solve the situation as they are seen as invaders. Other European countries are out for the same reason. If the situation in Iraq is to get better, then help from the neighbouring countries, including Iran is probably necessary.
Originally posted by BartsThats why I included the Uk and others in my previous post. It will take a combined intrest by several nations, I'm not sure I would include Iran, for I feel thay are not on the side for a democratic Iraq.
That's why I'm uncertain about it, there are two very strong, but opposite incentives.
Torch, only American troops in Iraq won't solve the situation as they are seen as invaders. Other European countries are out for the same reason. If the situation in Iraq is to get better, then help from the neighbouring countries, including Iran is probably necessary.
Originally posted by torch71Indeed, there are better allies out there then Iran, but they are the only strong Shia neigbour of Iraq. If only Sunni nations send troops to from a peace force, then the Shia's in Iraq would, understandably, feel threatened. You'd better avoid that if you want a lasting peace.
Thats why I included the Uk and others in my previous post. It will take a combined intrest by several nations, I'm not sure I would include Iran, for I feel thay are not on the side for a democratic Iraq.
Originally posted by RSMA1234I expect this sort of denial from liberals, leftist, communists, socialists, multi-culturalists, America-haters, etc. However, everything President Bush said in his speech yesterday to the veterans is accurate, timely and carries so much truthiness in it that it makes people with an axe to grind go apoplectic. If the United States leaves Iraq, will the people we've been fighting are all of a sudden going to make nice? If you believe that, then you're a bigger idiot than you purport President Bush of being. Of course, millions of civilian casualties do not matter to Democrats...as long as they triumph politically and can tar the president and Republicans with a war they caused to go sour. They're married to our surrender in Iraq that their entire political future hinges on our failure there. Unfortunately, with the Surge succeeding, the Democrats who've been the most outspoken on the war are the ones who are going to have to flee Washington, D.C., as fast as they can -- just like the boat people who fled Viet Nam.
So Bush states that a military retreat could trigger the kind of upheavel seen after US forces left Vietnam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6959710.stm
Is he over simplflying things ? After all he ws the one to go into Iraq ?
Or is he just an idiot ?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI agree, I am also tired of the "Bush said it, so it's stoopid mentality"
I expect this sort of denial from liberals, leftist, communists, socialists, multi-culturalists, America-haters, etc. However, everything President Bush said in his speech yesterday to the veterans is accurate, timely and carries so much truthiness in it that it makes people with an axe to grind go apoplectic. If the United States leaves Iraq, wi o flee Washington, D.C., as fast as they can -- just like the boat people who fled Viet Nam.
It is very very lazy.
Originally posted by RSMA1234What makes you think he is over-simplifying things?
So Bush states that a military retreat could trigger the kind of upheavel seen after US forces left Vietnam.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6959710.stm
Is he over simplflying things ? After all he ws the one to go into Iraq ?
Or is he just an idiot ?