Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Fugee

I think (and am guessing Sidd feels the same way) that we never should have gone there in the first place. Gazillions of dollars spent and lives lost and I think they're just going to trade one kind of violent or repressive non-democratic government for another.

The question of when and how to get out is different than getting in; getting in was a decision of such monumental stupidity that anyone named Bush ought to be barred from office to the eighth generation.

There is no good time or way to get out, and we should count ourselves lucky that what has happened in the last 24 hours didn't happen a week ago. We had to get out. I'm glad we got out without an explosion prior to leaving, and so far, from our perspective, so good.

The notion that we brought them democracy through the barrels of our tanks is just idiotic. Democracy doesn't come from outside a country and get brought there; that is antithetical to democracy. The place is going to be a mess, and let's hope some variation of democracy arises from this, but, sad as it is to say, it probably needs to be a mess because the invasion and war let loose a whole lot of tensions that have to work toward some resolution.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Serious question: Do you think we should have stayed?

Yes. I think we should have stayed.

Home.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The question of when and how to get out is different than getting in; getting in was a decision of such monumental stupidity that anyone named Bush ought to be barred from office to the eighth generation.

There is no good time or way to get out, and we should count ourselves lucky that what has happened in the last 24 hours didn't happen a week ago. We had to get out. I'm glad we got out without an explosion prior to leaving, and so far, from our perspective, so good.

The notion that we brought them democracy through the barrels of our tanks is just idiotic. Democracy doesn't come from outside a country and get brought there; that is antithetical to democracy. The place is going to be a mess, and let's hope some variation of democracy arises from this, but, sad as it is to say, it probably needs to be a mess because the invasion and war let loose a whole lot of tensions that have to work toward some resolution.

I agree. I don't think Obama pulled out too early. If anything, the opposite. Staying in Iraq was pouring blood and money down a rathole. [Intentionally offensive diatribe]If these people want to keep slaughering each other over whose Imam fucked whose third wife back in the 12th century, let them.[/Intentionally offensive diatribe.]

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Fugee

I think (and am guessing Sidd feels the same way) that we never should have gone there in the first place.

I understand that, but that's not the question I'm interested in. Given where we are in 2011, should we have stayed?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I agree. I don't think Obama pulled out too early. If anything, the opposite. Staying in Iraq was pouring blood and money down a rathole. [Intentionally offensive diatribe]If these people want to keep slaughering each other over whose Imam fucked whose third wife back in the 12th century, let them.[/Intentionally offensive diatribe.]

I can't quite figure out where I come out on this. I understand your view above and definitely sympathize with the cutting our losses view, but also wonder where this goes from here, especially vis a vis Iran.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

For Hank:

The two parties do not agree on extending the payroll tax cut. Democrats want to extend it, and Republicans want voters to think they want to extend it. But those two positions are actually very different.

In “The Social Network”, Aaron Sorkin gives his Mark Zuckerberg character a devastating rejoinder to the Winklevii twins. “You know, you really don’t need a forensics team to get to the bottom of this,” he says. “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook.” Similarly, if Republicans wanted to extend the payroll tax cut for a full year, they would have extended the payroll tax cut for a full year.

But they don’t. They want to make spending cuts and secure the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline and force everyone on unemployment insurance to get drug tested. That’s what this debate is about. But it would be unpopular for Boehner to come out and say that that’s the Republican position. So instead he says things like, “Yesterday, I spoke with President Obama. I urged him to call on Senator Reid to work with us to finish this bill that will provide for one year of tax relief for American workers.”

Washington is dysfunctional, but it isn’t so dysfunctional that the two parties can’t legislate in the cases when they agree. The reality here, however, is that the two parties don’t agree. Even in the Senate, Republicans only agreed to extend the payroll tax cut for two [months] — agreed, in other words, to settle their disagreement after the holidays.

Ezra Klein

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I can't quite figure out where I come out on this. I understand your view above and definitely sympathize with the cutting our losses view, but also wonder where this goes from here, especially vis a vis Iran.

Iran is a huge question and one we have little control over and not much more influence; Pakistan is just as big a question, less dire, and one we have at least some influence over.

We have to find ways to open up commerce in both countries. It's the way we're going to gain leverage. Meanwhile, Iran's influence is Iraq is naturally limited by religion - which is not to say it can't have very significant influence, just to say, I don't think it will be controlling. The funny thing is, we've been the greatest limiter of Sunni power.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I can't quite figure out where I come out on this. I understand your view above and definitely sympathize with the cutting our losses view, but also wonder where this goes from here, especially vis a vis Iran.

No place good, but five years from now the answer would be the same or worse.

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I can't quite figure out where I come out on this. I understand your view above and definitely sympathize with the cutting our losses view, but also wonder where this goes from here, especially vis a vis Iran.

It went great vis a vis Iran when we went in and destroyed Iraq as a viable regional counterweight, and it will continue to go great for them for the foreseeable future as they fill the Iraqi power vacuum with as many of their people as they can. Another good reason to have stayed home in the first place, and I doubt that such an outcome was unforeseeable in 2003 (except to the very dimmest).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Iran is a huge question and one we have little control over and not much more influence; Pakistan is just as big a question, less dire, and one we have at least some influence over.

We have to find ways to open up commerce in both countries. It's the way we're going to gain leverage. Meanwhile, Iran's influence is Iraq is naturally limited by religion - which is not to say it can't have very significant influence, just to say, I don't think it will be controlling. The funny thing is, we've been the greatest limiter of Sunni power.

We have made Iran more powerful in the region by removing a Sunni government in Iraq and replacing it with a Shiite government.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have made Iran more powerful in the region by removing a Sunni government in Iraq and replacing it with a Shiite government.

If only the Shiite and Sunni Arabs could set aside their difference and unite in their hatred of Persians.

I mean, they can do that for the Jews, so why not?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have made Iran more powerful in the region by removing a Sunni government in Iraq and replacing it with a Shiite government.

We did.

My suspicion is that our departure has as much chance of weakening Iran, by letting the Sunnis loose, as it does strengthening Iran. It's also more likely to require Iran to increase its assets on the Iraq border, since while we were there it was relatively unthreatening, and that may help us in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We did.

My suspicion is that our departure has as much chance of weakening Iran, by letting the Sunnis loose, as it does strengthening Iran. It's also more likely to require Iran to increase its assets on the Iraq border, since while we were there it was relatively unthreatening, and that may help us in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I thought the current leader of Iraq has close ties to, and some suspect is funded by, the Mullahs?

ETA:

Iraq’s vice president says that Iran is “definitely” behind Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s move to jail him on terror charges, saying it is “not a coincidence” that his arrest warrant was announced the day after the last U.S. troops left Iraq.

“Definitely Iran was involved,” Tariq al-Hashemi told The Washington Times in an exclusive interview, speaking by phone late Wednesday from a Kurdish town in northern Iraq. “My dear friend, they have … staff now in the government and in the parliament. They are representing Iran.”

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I thought the current leader of Iraq has close ties to, and some suspect is funded by, the Mullahs?

ETA:

He does, but I think GGG's point is that the Sunnis are still powerful and dangerous, especially without the US there to keep a lid on. I agree with that, and would only add "Kurds."

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

He does, but I think GGG's point is that the Sunnis are still powerful and dangerous, especially without the US there to keep a lid on. I agree with that, and would only add "Kurds."

So you envision a civil war (whether overt or subvert) coupled with a Kurdish succession?