Frank Sesno's own "words": U.S. could "cut and run" from Iraq
On the July 12 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, discussing a possible American pullout from Iraq, CNN special correspondent Frank Sesno recounted a conversation with "a senior Arab diplomat who is very worried that the United States could precipitously cut and run -- not his words -- but leave." If "not his words" -- that is, those of the "senior Arab diplomat" -- then "cut and run" was presumably Sesno's word choice to describe plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
As Media Matters for America has documented, "cut and run" was a staple attack label used by Republicans during the 2006 midterm election season to smear Democrats urging that the U.S. redeploy troops from Iraq. The phrase has been widely repeated in the media, including on CNN (here, here, and here).
From the July 12 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SESNO: So, what if the U.S. pulled back or out? This [explosion sound clip] will not go away. It's likely to get worse, and it could spread. Iran will not suddenly make nice. Al Qaeda will not call the whole thing off. No good options.
[Former Secretary of Defense] Donald Rumsfeld suddenly comes to mind, not for his role in the war -- we'll save that for another day -- but because he often said democracies often have a hard time fighting long wars. He got that right.
The question in Washington really isn't "What if?" but "When?"
The question "when," though, is -- is a big one. And even [Senate Majority Whip] Dick Durbin [IL], the leading Democrat, says if the U.S. were to leave cold turkey, the region could descend into chaos. But I want to draw your attention to this map of the United States. See those states? You know what they have in common?
WOLF BLITZER [anchor]: No.
SESNO: What they have in common is at least one Republican senator who has distanced themselves -- in some cases, broken with the president of the United States. Eleven of them at least, by our count, there you see -- and that's the pressure that's on the president right now. So the "what if America leaves Iraq" only intensifies and becomes a very real question for the White House.
BLITZER: What's the view, though, from the region, Frank?
SESNO: There is enormous concern in the region. We don't talk about that very much. But I was having a conversation last night, a fascinating one, with a senior Arab diplomat who is very worried that the United States could precipitously cut and run -- not his words -- but leave. And that, he says, would leave a vacuum. And nature abhors a vacuum.
Talking points successfully implanted.
Mission accomplished!
What a ridiculous and blatant use of propaganda. If you just interject, "not his words," you can make anyone appear to have said anything.
Wow someone must not like this guy. He hasn't gotten the latest talking points. Didn't the president say awhile back "We've never been about cut and run?"
what a fine outstanding piece of journalism. Can't these comedians tell the truth ? that is what po's me about these people who took an oath to integrity when they received their diploma, and in their prime professional standing, insert/ translate things that are said and change the meaning. What a crock of sit .
A contining fear of discussing how we might disingage? There are discussions going on somewhere. None of the options are real attractive. None of them worth MSM's time it seems. Its a gutsie (wow topical word) thing to face hard choices. Planet Wingnut must be deficient in vitamin G. Vitamin O (Ostrich) is so common its used commonly as mortar. So much horse sh*t, there must be a pony.
Okay, can one of you Rush Limbaugh apologists refresh me on how he "doesn't matter"?
Our foreign policy model is, apparently, a John Wayne movie, and the Propaganda Parrots like Rush have planted this nonsense in the collective consciousness of the lapdog press.
Just admit that President Numbnuts made the most monumental foreign policy blunder within the past century, and get our people the hell out of there. Did we learn nothing from the Soviet Union's disaster in Afghanistan? We're headed down the same road, girls and boys. Our people are dying so that we won't "look bad".
Stesno is another "fascinated" dupe in the right-wing attempt to dishonestly characterize anyone who has the audacity to oppose Bush's "plan" (of staying and dying in Iraq indefinitely until some obscure and far-off, ill-defined event happens) as being "cut-and-run".
Cut and Run applies to those who dont' shut down their brain raise their right arm at an angle click their heels and shout out "Yavo Fart Bush."
I think I've asked more than one poster here who used "cut & run" to tell me what it means.I don't remember ever getting a response.
I remember reading that the indians did a " cut and run " on Geprge Custer that turned out to be an " end run ". And slightly off topic, since when do generals dictate foreing policy decisions ? Isn't the commander- in-chief supposed to be smarter than them, or at least more informed ??
and also the " buck stops here " kind of guy ?
I guess we're screwed on both counts.
"Cut" is short for "cut your loses", which means the war supporters want to increase our loses in term of money and human lifes.
Just once I would like to see these pundits explain how they would define victory in Iraq. I mean what do they think Bush hopes to accomplish there? Democracy? You can't force that on people. A stable government, they had that before we upset the apple cart, and yes I know Saddam was a terrible dictator, but there a lots of them in the world (mainly thanks to us). So what event will be the victory that will allow us to get the hell out of there. Sorry for the rant
may I suggest thirty nine cents a gallon would be considered a victory ? Since military victory appears impossible, perhaps economic victory might be more feasable /
Actually, I think the "victory" they had in mind was a permanent Republican majority and 9 troglodytes on the Supreme Court. Isn't that what this war was all about in the beginning? Of course, they didn't count on it becoming a giant clusterf*ck.
$.39/gal would indeed be a victory as the average Local/State/Federal tax is about $.48/gal. Will OPEC ever pay us $.09/gal to use a diminishing resource? Probably about the time the last of the ice/snow melts in Antarctica.
Geraldine, They can't explain what victory is cause their "chips" haven't been updated in 4 years.
I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh the other day, just in time to hear a (conservative) caller ask for a definition of victory. Rush said that it was very easy to define, "but before I do let me ask you a question." The question was along the lines of, "Why are you so quick to concede defeat?" The caller said he wasn't, but he'd like a definition of defeat as well. And of course, after saying how easy that was, Rush cut quickly to a commercial without defining either victory or defeat.
See?
Rush was right. His answer WAS easy... he simply cut to a commercial. Easy as pie. Its the QUESTION that was hard.
"Donald Rumsfeld suddenly comes to mind, not for his role in the war -- we'll save that for another day -- but because he often said democracies often have a hard time fighting long wars. He got that right."
Whoa. Time out. Them's fightin' words you authoritarian chump. Do not dare even hint that our democracy should take a back seat to war.
Hmmm....Sounds like Rush engaged in a bit of "cut and run" himself....
Whoops! Meant that as a reply to Clams' comment just above. Apoligies.
"Apologies" -- time to get some sleep, obviously.
A stable Iraqi government and an American ally would suffice for me as a condition of declaring victory.
Another condition of victory would be that we leave and Iraq survives on its own...but it begs the question if it doesn't survive...what then?
That is not a rhetorical question...and I'm not interested in hearing the laments about how we got to this point...I'll just ignore them. But I am interested in the anti-war crowd's plan if Iraq falls into genocidal chaos.
"IF" Iraq falls to Genocidal chaos, then that simply the price we pay for starting this mess and we as a country must live with it. It would be heartbreaking anda true humanitarian crisis, but are continued involvement is not helping the situation at all. To be fair I do wish the dems would simply address this instead of avoiding the question. America (both sides) are damn if we do and damned if we don't. We should not be in the middle of a civil war policing a country we have no business being in the first place. Iraqis need to sort out there on country for better or worse. I feel bad that we caused such a mess, but it is a mistake to stay over there.
Thanks for the honest opinion...
No Prob it was a fair question.
What do you think it will do to this country if we keep following the hawks' strategy and are stuck in Iraq for the next decade?
Only to withdraw after much more loss of life (Iraqi and American), substantial loss of borrowed money, severe drops in recruitment levels, left vulnerable to any other militarily pressing matter, larger recruiting by AQ due to our presence.
Who do we as an outside nation truly when a battle that has been being waged for generations? Is that our responsibilty? We've only made things worse.
If, in a decade, where're still "stuck" in Iraq...in this same situation...it will have proven to be a tragic mistake.
However, I have not conceded that the war cannot be won militarily and politically. Under that premise...we will for years to come have a military presence in Iraq. To use Murtha's words...we will have a "force deployed over the horizon" from Iran, Syria, Israel to name a few.
Regardless of how we got to this point...it is what it is. Staying and continuing the fight to win has its outcomes...just as leaving does.
I am for staying and continuing the fight for a victory...
The anti-war crowd may very well be right...in that by leaving, the situation can resolve itself peaceably without our presence. But if Iraq becomes a mass killing field...what then?
You answered the question honestly...I would like to hear what others have to say...especially our congressmen.
If I'm reading you correctly, you seem a bit more concerned that they will be killing each other, and less concerned that they will attack us. This falls in line with what I believe will happen when/if we leave.
Although you don't want to debate how we got to this point, either Bush or a future President will have to concede that we made a mistake. It's our only hope that the region forms some resemblence of unification. And while that's good for Iraq, it's bad for the US, and may result in economic penalties of great proportions.
Iraq will certainly be more accepting of a new administration, but would view a Republican administration as more of the same. But, good negotiations could result in nothing more than higher oil prices (which they are not benefiting from at all right now).
The area will most certainly break into widespread civil war--unless we can install another Hussien. Joe Bidens plan to divide the country into 3 territories could work, but the impimentation would be huge.
Short answer--we're screwed!
No, I'm not more concerned about them killing each other than the U.S. being attacked. I have just refined the question to the Iraqi death toll in this case.
Leaving or staying...neither provides a panacea of good news. But the meat of my question is...what do the anti-war advocates think if the killing escalates tremendously.
Do we let the Iraqis fend for themselves...do we return?
You're right...I'm not for debating...today... how and why we got to this situation. I'm just asking any anti-war people...if the killing becomes catastrophic...what then?
That is a good question, however you framed it as a dichotomy that isnt necessarily the only choice. We leave. Things get worse to the point of genocidal civil war. We could at least start with an international force that would be less likely to be associated with our foriegn policy. Say an international force of Arab league Non colonial European and Asian peacekeepers. IF that doesnt work perhaps we would look again.
Thanks...and of course there are other choices. I have framed this question in this manner because I would like to hear the rationale from anti-war advocates on this one issue.
Question...how would you go about lining up the participation of an " international force of Arab league Non colonial European and Asian peacekeepers"?
Question...are you suggesting that a group of "blue helmet type" peace keepers could accomplish what the greatest military force in the world struggles with daily?
Considering that our occupation is the ROOT CAUSE of the violence in Iraq.....maybe leaving will pull the core from the abcess and allow the wound to HEAL? Strategy ala Logic.
Regardless of how we got to this point...it is what it is.
It is what it is, fool, because of the LIARS who LIED us into this nightmare. Unfortunately, those killed and maimed in this unholy action don't have the luxury of hindsight or perspective. You know very well "how we got to this point", you disingenous stooge, and it DOES matter because it speaks to the evil that these men possess. It is people like you who have enabled these murderers, and you are just as complicit in the crime as they are.
No, I don't think it will be resolved "peaceably" -- I'm not sure I've read any of the "anti-war crowd" who thinks that either (although there are surely some out there).
The problem is that there won't be a "stable" Iraq until all sides of the various Iraqi factions settle their differences. And that will come either through negotiation or civil war or (my bet) a combination of those two. Otherwise, we will be babysitting that "government" for at least ten years, and guaranteeing greater civilian casualties because of the insurgency (or "resistance", the term I prefer, as our military is an occupying force).
It's a Hobson's choice -- 30- to 50,000 dead if the troops leave with something of a clear victor or combination of victors) versus 60- to 100,000 if the troops stay (and further aggravate the spread of factionalism and violence). Not the most appetizing choice, but it's where we are and a product of this administration's total f*ck-up, and it must be made soon, or the sh*tstorm this war has unleashed will never be resolved in any kind of "stability."
Meant for there to be a parenthesis in front of "with a clear victor...." but forgot.
Wes, what do think of this? As a result of recent history, a certain number of live are going to be lost in Iraq, wether we pull out and that number is reached in 24 months, or we stay in one way or another and it takes 10 12 15 years of what we see now?
I am certainly not in favor of continuing...for 10-15 years...with this situation.
If we can't win this war and are defeated...we will be forced to retreat...and it will be a tragic event in world history.
If we leave...and the killing does not escalate...the Iraqi's are capable of handling it...and the anti-war crowd will have been proven right.
Yet if the killing escalates from hundreds to thousands...are you ok with that?
"
If we leave...and the killing does not escalate...the Iraqi's are capable of handling it...and the anti-war crowd will have been proven right.
Yet if the killing escalates from hundreds to thousands...are you ok with that?"
I think what he is getting at is that if we leave now or we keep fighting the end result is inevitable. If the Iraqis are gonna come out of this for the better, I don't believe it wil be due to us. If it all goes down hill that is the path our administration has setup for the Iraqis regardless of if we stay and fight or if we leave tomorrow.
That depends. If we stay for a decade at a rate of hundreds of deaths a month we are still talking about tens of thousands if we leave and it escalates to thousands a month but that shakes itself out in six months then it will still be better for the Iraqis.
There may not be a "good" solution. Sometimes you just can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
There may not be a good solution...but there will be an outcome.
If it falls to genocidal chaos...are you willing to let the Iraqi people be slaughtered? That's a hard situation to consider...but a situation that the anti-war folks should answer.
"a situation that the anti-war folks should answer."
No, that's a situation that the pro-Iraq-war folks (Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Hannity, et al) should answer to. The explanation for the dead-end mess we're in rests on their shoulders
Still living in the past...
You have a chance to state your opinion about the future outcome...based on your decision.
If you think we should leave...and if Iraq becomes a slaughter house...are you okay with that?
It's a straight forward question...
"Still living in the past..."
Not living---learning. As they say, 'those who don't learn from the past...' The Iraq-warmongers haven't.
"If you think we should leave...and if Iraq becomes a slaughter house...are you okay with that?""Becomes"??? Are you serious?? Iraq has been a slaughter house for over four years. They're worse off, we're worse off, and getting worse by the day.
As I said above, Bush & Co., and his enablers, -unprovoked- got us into a dead-end, $500 billion quagmire. It is an unwinnable war. All that is left is to get the dead-enders -a minority of Americans, btw- to be honest and admit it, before another thousand American kids die-for nothing.
It's fine with me if you won't or can't answer the question...que sera sera.
"It's fine with me if you won't or can't answer the question...que sera sera."
This oughta be obvious, but the premise of your question -"if Iraq becomes a slaughter house..."- is obviously bogus. Because Iraq already has been, and already is, a slaughter house.
It is and never was a winnable situation. It is a dead-end, a Bush-inflicted quagmire.
In case you need a reminder, tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children would today be alive if we hadn't invaded their country, unprovoked. And almost 4,000 Amerian kids wouldn't have died. Go and tell their families "que sera sera".
It's still fine with me that you won't answer the question...some people get along just fine with just complaining about the past...and not offering solutions for the future.
If you choose to answer...great...if not...yaawwnn.
Fix the premise of your question and you might get an answer. Sorry but you don't get to ask questions with faulty premises and have others obediently accept same faulty premise, but that's just too bad.
He answered YOUR question -- why won't you answer his?
How convenient. President Numbnuts gets a pass for starting an unnecessary war, and liberals get to take the blame for the resulting disaster? This from the party who demanded accountability from Bill Clinton for lying about a blowjob? Are you friggin' serious?
- and liberals get to take the blame for the resulting disaster? - nerzog
I won't put words in your mouth...but it sure looks like you're saying that pulling out will be a disaster...feel free to explain.
I have not given Pres.Bush a pass...but I have asked the question...If we leave...what then?
If a peaceful Iraq is the result...wonderful. If Iraq becomes a full fledged slaughterhouse...what then.
"Becomes" a slaughterhouse? What would you call it now?
Well I guess I would expect that kind of an answer. You know damn well that leaving could escalate the slaughter to thousands per day.
If we leave...and the violence decreases...great. The anti-war people will have been right.
However, if the violence increases dramatically...what then? If you don't want to take ownership of that position...then you also get a que sera sera...for your non-answer.
No, I won't take ownership of Bush's mess. Sorry...nice try though. Things may get worse when we leave, but they also may get worse if we stay. It's a gamble, either way, but if we pull out, or redeploy "over the horizon", we can give our troops a breather. If mayhem insues, we can always re-invade. After all, we've proven that invading Iraq is relatively easy...it's holding it that is a bitch.
I KNOW I dug a deep hole and cant get out but if YOU drop me a ladder and I slip off of it and break my neck are YOU willing to be responsible for it? Yeah, right. Once we invaded Iraq the sectarian violence monster was out of the box. NOTHING that happens gets to be foist off on the anti Iraq war contingent as being THEIR fault as a consequence of now having nothing but bad choices. You want a good answer I say build a time machine go back to February of 2003 and the lets invade Iraq contingent can listen to those of us who were RIGHT ALL ALONG.
Even though I don’t like answering questions based on someone’s assumption or speculation, I’ll take a crack at it anyway. I really don’t think there will be genocidal chaos in Iraq. Shiites represent at most 15 percent of the Muslim World population. If they attempt some sort of genocide of the Iraqi Sunnis, the 85 percent or more Sunni Muslim population will not stand idly by while it happens. The Shiites of Iraq will be wiped out if they attempt to do something that stupid.
Secondly, I think we should look into partitioning Iraq into three sectarian areas. The Kurds don’t want to be apart of Iraq anyway (they’ve basically been separated from the rest of Iraq since 1991) and some Sunnis and some Shiites are willing to kill each other over their differences. In the future, they probably could reconcile their differences and form a union with a stable government and draft a constitution that is primarily written by Iraqis.
And why did Bush put the Shiites in power if he thinks the Shiites are capable of genocide? You either trust the Shiites or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
Well reasoned thoughts about the solutions and outcomes.
But the question is still there. What if leaving turns into catastrophic deaths...what then?
I'm not asking the question because I think that is a certainty...but what if?
It's a fair question. We could ask you the opposite...What if the violence continues, despite our continued occupation?
I would add...if we stay for another ten years, at a cost of 10,000 American lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis...and the violence continues...what then?
Should that be OUR choice? The Iraqis want us gone. How in the world do YOU think it make sense to tell them WE dont care what YOU want WE will decide what is best for you?
If you define Iraqis as the citizens in general...then polling data supports your statement.
If you define Iraqis as the freely elected government of Iraq...then you are incorrect. Presently the Iraqi government supports our presence in Iraq.
There are rumbles that the government might change its position...but until the Iraqi parliament changes course...they are not asking us to leave.
"If you define Iraqis as the freely elected government of Iraq...then you are incorrect. Presently the Iraqi government supports our presence in Iraq."
al-Maliki says American troops are free to leave at any time.
And a majority of the Iraqi parliament signed a petition a few months ago demanding the U.S. set a timetable for withdrawal.
Put Bush and Cheney in prison for starting it, then let the U.N. clean up Bush's mess.
Well Wesley...
I would hate for our government to continue to sacrifice our brave men and women's lives for a lost cause. If we pull out, chances our Iraq will crumble, but what has staying there for as long as we have done to help the Iraqi people. Iraq has failed to meet ANY of the benchmarks the UN(or U.S. can't remember to be honest lol) set for them. Al Quada(sp?) is still rampant throughout the region, and we are as many have said been involved in a continuous match of Whack-a-Mole. I fear this disaster will never be fixed no matter how hard we try; it is about time the American People face reality and bring our troops back home...I wish for no more needless suffering...
- If we pull out, chances our Iraq will crumble...it is about time the American People face reality -
So far...the only one who has answered the question is monk.
While I don't agree with monk...he answered honestly that if Iraq turns into a holocaust...he is resigned to the fact that is the best we can do.
The rest of you have skirted the issue...
You appear to be saying that you can accept a slaughter of Iraqis when we pull out...is that what you're saying?
What I am saying is the Iraqis should make their OWN choice about that and let the consequences be what they are. It should be THEIR decision and not ours. They want us gone. So we should go. IF things spiral out of control THEN we can look at THAT situation and deal with it IF it happens
What then? We spend billions more to help them rebuild, put a monument in DC for those who died for no reason, then go back to watching Paris Hilton and Britteny Spears on the evening cable news channels while the next tragedy isn't being reported.
NO DOUBT, IT WILL BE HORRIBLE !
But, your question is offensively dishonest. We've got to leave sometime, and there certainly will be more killing whenever that time is. Those who kill will be responsible for their crimes. And yes, too many people WILL suffer and die when we leave. Too many have suffered and died now. But, leaving is not a crime. The invasion of Iraq was the crime.
I understand that you don't want to talk about how we got there, but if you want to talk culpability, then how we got there is the only subject.
Wesley,
I've always found one of the most offensive statements to be; "I told you so!" But it certainly applies in this case. I love how you expect the left to come up with a way to fix the right's mess, yet didn't want to listen to us when we said we were against this war.
Sadly, that's how it will end up once again. Bush was brought up with someone following him around, picking up his dirty clothes, and cleaning up his messes. Now it would seem that you expect us to do the same.
Shame on those who put such a low value on the lives of those who would be affected before going into this wretched war, who now claim they care deeply about the mass killings that will certainly happen in the future if we leave. I pray you're not one of these people. I don't know if I could live with myself.
We stand by with the international comunity. As areas become stable or look to be heading in this direction, we support and protect them. Aid should be under their control to use for what they believe is proper. If the oil is a make or break issue. I'd recomend those who feel strongly about it get the opportunity to protect it. Profits to the U.N. for use to support some structure of government in the area that works for the people in the area.
Oh yea, and we appologise to the Iraq people. In that vein, it wouldn't hurt to admit to the international comunity that we've had our heads up our ass's and will try to act a little more intelligently in the future.
The McGovern/Polk book "Out of Iraq" is very good.
We should do the same thing for Iraq and Israel. Tell them that every year our aid, support etc will decrease by 10% . Kind of forces them to reach out to their neighbohrs with the honest intention of negotiating peace. The less international intervention the better in that region. Israel is like a fun drunk, at first it's fun to buy them drinks, but pretty soon the same jokes and schtik are tiresome and you are sorry you enabled them. Iraq on the other hand was a stable drunk and an ally, (unless those pictures of Sadam and Rumsfeld were faked), obviously, without our intervention for the last 50 60 years this area would have settled down into countries based on flavor of religion.
"But the question is still there. What if leaving turns into catastrophic deaths...what then?"
Thats funny, since when did YOU or PRO-WAR Bush cronies like you EVER CARE ABOUT THE IRAQI PEOPLE?? Can you answer that? PEOPLE LIKE YOU were the ones that tried to hide how many the masses of innocent people are dying in Iraq everyday. "Yeah there just casualties....".
OUR PRESENCE has instigated this and escalated it to a whole new level. Do you DENY that?
"Yeaah, yeahh but btu the Al Qaeda is in iraq and iran, blah blah" MAYBE YOU SHOULD have thought about that before invading? Hmm?
ALL people LIKE you care about is "VICTORY" and if we benefit from IRAQI OIL in anyway, like some f*ckin video game where you the prize is a lifetime supply of the crude stuff.
NO... WE should not have to answer ANY questions about this war, NOT ONE, we didn't start it. Instead, YOU PRO-KILLAMERICANSOLDIER people should have to answer to US. First question:
1) Was it worth it?
2) What would YOU DO if IRAQ FALLS FURTHER into chaos after we leave and heres the key... we RE-INVADE? WHAT THEN? START THE CYCLE ALL OVER AGAIN?
3) Why do we need a centralized iraqi government? What makes you think, sunni's and shia's will ever stop hating and killing each other in IRAQ? Why dont we do what we did in N. and S. Korea, create demilitarized zones and divy up the oil revenue (NO, WE do NOT get a share) and allow the healing process to begin. IT WILL TAKE TIME.
4) How do you fight a war against a slogan> AL Qaida roughly translates into "The Movement"..
5) How do you win a military war against a religious rooted ideology that our mere presence paradoxically incites to further extremes?
Worst case senario. The Shiite an Sunni Fight it out, just as the Union and the Confederacy did. Hundreds of thousands will die, just as hundreds of thousands died in the US Civil War. But war will not last forever. and somewhere down the line a nation will emerge from the ashes and pools of blood. It took America less than half a decade. It took the french almost a century. But again, no war last forever.
"The Shiite an Sunni Fight it out, just as the Union and the Confederacy did..."
Do you think before you type? Iraq is in a civil war yes... but what started it, are the circumstance the same as in the US civil war? I think not...
What makes you think "one nation" will emerge?
"It took us a half a century"
Yeah, and thats not even with an occupying force in the middle of it? You forgot about that?
sorry that was supposed to read a century for the french
One nation, three nations, the point I was trying to make is, though the outlook is grim, WE CANT FIX IT. Since we have proven that we cant, why dont we let the Iraqis atleast try, even at the cost of massive human life. I hear pundits demanding that the Iraqis should be willing to fight and die for their future. How can they if the Coalition keeps putting its troops between them.
I agree, I think were actually on the same page.... just came from different ends of the book so to speak.
CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT WAS THAT IRAQ WAS WORSE UNDER HUSSEIN THAN IT IS NOW?! And why is it that staying and killing more Iraqi patriots makes for a better nation?
He complied with all the UN demands. He maintained a kind of peace less lethal than the one Bush has imposed. And his nationalized oil fields were benefitting the Iraqi people better than the PSA law Bush and the corporate thieves are shoving down Iraq's throat!
Wesley,
Do you honestly believe that Iraq will degenerate into another Cambodia? I doubt it. Cambodia didn't have billions of barrels of oil too keep the rest of the world interested in what happened there. So the rest of the world didn't care and it was easy for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to take over and kill millions. What does the United States and by proxy the rest of the 'free' world want, OIL. Will Iran pull a Vietnam and invade Iraq? Thats possible but not probable. Just as the future of SouthEast Asia was decided by the people who actually live there; I see the same future for the 'Cradel of Civilization'. They will decide there future, good or bad. Now am I going to say that its O.K. that another genocide happens in Iraq as happened in Cambodia, hardley. The real question should be, if it does, how much blame will be placed on the United States and our failed attempt to democratize Iraq, that being our reason for staying after we used the WMD ruse to invade.
"See, free nations are peacful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
George W. Bush -- Milwasukee, Wisconsin; October 3, 2003.