So It's a Quagmire

[waste gate]

So this war is a quagmire? Let's ask a few pertinant questions?
1. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.

So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive) we can see how microscopic your commitment to Democracy really is. You're more concerned about being called a Democrat"ic" party than you are committed to Democracy. If this is a quagmire, then you don't have any sense of perspective, not to mention a sense of commitment.

[Letum]

I think that decisions should be made according to the situation, rather then according to principles. I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation in Iraq to know what the best course of action is atm.

What are the immediate goals of the American Armed Forces there? (apart from self defence)

If they do pull out and Iraq is only left with only enough home-grown forces to protect a few government buildings; what would then be the worst case scenario?

What would be the best case scenario after a withdrawal?

*edit* Conversely, what are the best and worst case scenarios if The USA continues the occupation?

[Enigma]

i think the war is an absolute disaster of mismanagemnt, poor planning, and poor leadership, waged under false pretenses, and laughable policy.

Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive)

Oh! Sorry, you werent talking to me.

[waste gate]

I think that decisions should be made according to the situation, rather then according to principles. I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation in Iraq to know what the best course of action is atm.

What are the immediate goals of the American Armed Forces there? (apart from self defence)

If they do pull out and Iraq is only left with only enough home-grown forces to protect a few government buildings; what would then be the worst case scenario?

What would be the best case scenario after a withdrawal?

*edit* Conversely, what are the best and worst case scenarios if The USA continues the occupation?

I'll try to answer as best I can, knowing full well you won't change your opinion.

Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. You seem to stand on the premise that every situation has its own answer. That may be true but all decisions are based upon a belief. It is that belief that shapes the course of of how an individual and nations respond. Consequentially principals are always the guiding force.

The immediate goal of the US armed forces is to provide for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy requires the same protection that France and Spain provided the fledgling US government against the forces of Britain.

The best case scenerio after a withdrawal at this point would be complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq. The worst case scenerio is theater nuclear war based on the words of Iranian leaders visa vis Isreal.

The best case scenerio if the US continues to support the recently elected Iraqi government is a country which can contribute socially, politically, and economically to the betterment of mankind without threatening its neighbors.

I attempted to answer your questions. If I missed one let me know.

[Letum]

I'll try to answer as best I can, knowing full well you won't change your opinion.


Like I said in the first post:
"I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation in Iraq to know what the best course of action is"
i.e I don't have a opinion yet!


Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. You seem to stand on the premise that every situation has its own answer. That may be true but all decisions are based upon a belief. It is that belief that shapes the course of of how an individual and nations respond. Consequentially principals are always the guiding force.

As long as principles/beliefs are able to adapt to the situation, right?


The best case scenario after a withdrawal at this point would be complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq. The worst case scenario is theater nuclear war based on the words of Iranian leaders visa vis Israel.

The best case scenario if the US continues to support the recently elected Iraqi government is a country which can contribute socially, politically, and economically to the betterment of mankind without threatening its neighbors.

Thanks :up:
What would "complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq" be like?


I attempted to answer your questions. If I missed one let me know.

Just one.
You missed the worst case scenario if US forces continue the occupation.

[bradclark1]

So It's a Quagmire
Finally, he see's the truth.

[bradclark1]

What would "complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq" be like?
That happened after the invasion when we didn't plan beyond the battle.

[waste gate]

One at a time fellas.
Letum
Worse case scenerio if US forces stay in Iraq.

US and other coalition solders die. People have been dieing for freedom, their own or others, for centuries and all western militaries are a volunteer forces. No one forced them to enlist.


Quote:
So It's a Quagmire
Finally, he see's the truth.

I'll post it again for you.

. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.


regarding not planning beyond the battle: see the above.

[Tchocky]

1. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.

Doesn't the usual call of "quagmire" refer to the military situation rather than the political one? I mean, it's often mentioned along with a Vietnam comparison, a military reference.
And your classification of Democrats at the end ..
So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive)
again is a slur on their military proposals.

Do you mean "quagmire" militarily or poltically?

[waste gate]

1. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.

Doesn't the usual call of "quagmire" refer to the military situation rather than the political one? I mean, it's often mentioned along with a Vietnam comparison, a military reference.
And your classification of Democrats at the end ..
So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive)
again is a slur on their military proposals.

Do you mean "quagmire" militarily or poltically?

I think it is universally accepted that it was the politicians, not military defeat, which ended the Viet Nam conflict. The same cut and run ilk which is displayed by democrats today. Also the comparison ibtwn Iraq and Viet Nam is not legitimate. Unless you would like to talk about JFK's role?

[Letum]

One at a time fellas.
Letum
Worse case scenario if US forces stay in Iraq.

US and other coalition solders die.

Does that mean we are already in the worse case scenario?

[waste gate]

One at a time fellas.
Letum
Worse case scenario if US forces stay in Iraq.

US and other coalition solders die.

Does that mean we are already in the worse case scenario?

No. The battle for democracy continues unabated.

[Letum]

One at a time fellas.
Letum
Worse case scenario if US forces stay in Iraq.

US and other coalition solders die.
Does that mean we are already in the worse case scenario?
No. The battle for democracy continues unabated.

:doh: Im a little confused now.....
Is US and other coalition solders dieing the worst case scenario if US forces stay in Iraq?

[Tchocky]

I think it is universally accepted that it was the politicians, not military defeat, which ended the Viet Nam conflict. The same cut and run ilk which is displayed by democrats today. Also the comparison ibtwn Iraq and Viet Nam is not legitimate. Unless you would like to talk about JFK's role?
Way to miss my point.

You say it's not a quagmire, and provide figures on the political situation.
Usually "quagmire" is used to describe an intractable military situation.
Your characterisation of Democrats was a slur on their military proposals for Iraq.

I never claimed the comparison was authentic, I used it to show how the word quagmire is taken to describe a military situation. I don't want to talk about Vietnam.

Do you mean "quagmire" militarily or politically?

[waste gate]

I think it is universally accepted that it was the politicians, not military defeat, which ended the Viet Nam conflict. The same cut and run ilk which is displayed by democrats today. Also the comparison ibtwn Iraq and Viet Nam is not legitimate. Unless you would like to talk about JFK's role?
Usually "quagmire" is used to describe an intractable military situation.

I never claimed the comparison was authentic, I used it to show how the word quagmire is taken to describe a military situation. I don't want to talk about Vietnam.

Do you mean "quagmire" militarily or politically?

Quagmire can also and is used in the political arena. You are using it as a soley military term. At this point I don't believe Iraq is a quagmire either militarily or politically. because you frame it as such doesn't make it so.

Which is the point of my original post. If you cannot see that, well your position is noted.

[TteFAboB]

Granted there are some patriots inside the Democrat party. Let me see...yup, they definitely exist, I just finished counting them with the fingers of one hand.

[waste gate]

One at a time fellas.
Letum
Worse case scenario if US forces stay in Iraq.

US and other coalition solders die.
Does that mean we are already in the worse case scenario?
No. The battle for democracy continues unabated.

:doh: Im a little confused now.....
Is US and other coalition solders dieing the worst case scenario if US forces stay in Iraq?

You keep think'n Butch, thats what your'e good at.

[Tchocky]

Quagmire can also and is used in the political arena. You are using it as a soley military term. Not using, asking. Waiting for an answer to this question

"Do you mean "quagmire" militarily or poltically?"

Which I now have. Thanks :)

because you frame it as such doesn't make it so. see above (swap using with framing)

Which is the point of my original post. If you cannot see that, well your position is noted. Eh? I haven't taken a position yet!

For the record, I think Iraq is a bloody mess militarily, and not much better in the political arena. There seems to be very little will among the government to end the violence, and the population seem determined to vote on religious grounds. Which makes no bloody sense to me. Also, the Sunni/Shia imbalance from the previous regime is being carried on today, a lot of grudges are being held that would be best, if not easily, forgotten.

Granted there are some patriots inside the Democrat party. Let me see...yup, they definitely exist, I just finished counting them with the fingers of one hand.
All the better. Not being a patriot doesn't automatically equate to working for your countrys destruction. I'd always prefer realism over pride/loyalty/patriotism/duty. But that's just me :)

[Ducimus]

Im gonna pretend to be a headshrink for a moment.

To me, it sounds like somebody's frustrated, and feels threatned by any implied or perceived reality which has the potential to shatter any comforting paradigm or bubble in which they've placed themselves.

Consquently this person feels compelled to lash out in order to reassure themselves of a perceived moral highground that we did and are continuing to do, the right thing - in order to further buttress and reinforce that comforting paradigm or bubble.

[Letum]

I'll try to answer as best I can, knowing full well you won't change your opinion.

Like I said in the first post:
"I don't know anywhere near enough about the situation in Iraq to know what the best course of action is"
i.e I don't have a opinion yet!


Which is the point of my original post. If you cannot see that, well your position is noted. Eh? I haven't taken a position yet!

Waste Gate, you seam to have a habit of thinking people are against you before they have stated their position. :hmm: Why is that?


*edit* Ohhhhh! thats (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=401456&postcount=19) why! thanks Ducimus!

[gdogghenrikson]

quagmire.....here I thought this thread was about Family Guy...giggity giggity goo

[baggygreen]

you took the words from my mouth mate! i was thinking family guy as well!

as for Iraq, Letum asked for worst case if we pull out, i actually wrote that out a few weeks back i'll find and linky it.

Personally, i think theres a need for the military (all coalition and Iraqi forces) to clamp down on these *****s fighting from within the population. only way to root em out is to go right in deep into the civilians where all these bastards are hiding.yeh, you're gonna cop casualties, n you're gonna cause casualties, but if its the only way to win...

[The Avon Lady]

So this war is a quagmire? Let's ask a few pertinant questions?
1. How long has the first fully-elected government of Iraq been in office? ANSWER: 10 months. The cut and run crowd really likes to gieve democracy a chance, eh?

2. How long has Iraq had their first full elections? ANSWER: Just over a year ago, ditto the comment on question one.

3. How long has Iraq had their new constitution? ANSWER: About 15 months. How stable was the U. S. Government after its first 15 months?

4.How long has it been since Iraq had its first elected interim President? ANSWER: Less than two years, April 2005.

5. How long has it been since Iraq had its first multi-party election in over 50 years? ANSWER: Just over two years.

So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive) we can see how microscopic your commitment to Democracy really is. You're more concerned about being called a Democrat"ic" party than you are committed to Democracy. If this is a quagmire, then you don't have any sense of perspective, not to mention a sense of commitment.
I'm not:

1. a "Mr.". :p
2. a Democrat, though I vote for people best qualified, not for their parties.
3. liberal - at least no one ever called me so.
4. secular progressive - oh, no, no! :nope:

But I don't believe Iraq will ever become a western democracy, even should all of Iraq's Sunnis and their local and imported terrorists magically disappear overnight and even should Coalition troops repair Iraq from top to bottom. See these very recent Iraqi poll (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013344.php) results, for example.

The first advantage of being in Iraq is its attraction to Islamic terrorists from all over the world. Don't belittle this, as it may possibly rank as one of the greatest military diversion tactics in history. The problem is there's no way to measure what the effect would have been on world terrorism had the fly paper not been laid out in Iraq.

The second advantage of being in Iraq is being poised next door to Iran. Only the future will tell how significant this can or will be.

[Chaotic42]

I'm skeptical about Iraq (even though I tend to be very conservative and pro-military). I don't think that you can force democracy on people. If they were capable of sustaining a democracy on their own, they'd have revolted and formed one.

Every country always has exactly as much democracy as it can handle at the time.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

quagmire.....here I thought this thread was about Family Guy...giggity giggity goo


http://forums.battle-forum.com/hosted/mcclaud/quagmire-3865.jpg

[baggygreen]

strewth, can we get more OT lol

[Sailor Steve]

So Mr. Pull-Out-Now-Cut-and-Run Democrat(read liberal, secular progressive) we can see how microscopic your commitment to Democracy really is. You're more concerned about being called a Democrat"ic" party than you are committed to Democracy. If this is a quagmire, then you don't have any sense of perspective, not to mention a sense of commitment.
That's a great way to debate: call people names. My experience has shown that the people most likely to be wrong are the ones who "know" they're right. They are also the most dangerous to a free society.

You keep think'n Butch, thats what your'e good at.
I see very little thought in your posts, just diatribe.

"The purpose of an argument or debate should be progress, not victory."-Joseph Joubert

[bradclark1]

But I don't believe Iraq will ever become a western democracy, even should all of Iraq's Sunnis and their local and imported terrorists magically disappear overnight and even should Coalition troops repair Iraq from top to bottom. See these very recent Iraqi poll (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013344.php) results, for example.

The first advantage of being in Iraq is its attraction to Islamic terrorists from all over the world. Don't belittle this, as it may possibly rank as one of the greatest military diversion tactics in history. The problem is there's no way to measure what the effect would have been on world terrorism had the fly paper not been laid out in Iraq.

The second advantage of being in Iraq is being poised next door to Iran. Only the future will tell how significant this can or will be.

100% Right

Right. IMO terrorism got a terrific boost.

Who's to say Iraq would even allow themselves to be used in any form against Iran. They are of the same religion. The U.S. will bend over backwards to not have to confront Iran. Not that I agree but I think thats the reality of it.

[ASWnut101]

then what about the Iran-Iraq war?



And p.s.: the largest percent of the population of Iran is actually Persian, NOT Arabic. BIG difference. The government is run by Arabs.:yep: Arabs and Persians absoultaly HATE each other, like the bloods and the crypts. There is little that is stopping them from killing each other right now.

[bradclark1]

then what about the Iran-Iraq war?
Sadam was running Iraq then.


And p.s.: a large, if not the largest, percent of the population there is actually Persian, NOT Arabic. BIG difference. The government is run by Arabs.:yep: Arabs and Persians absoultaly HATE each other, like the bloods and the crypts. There is little that is stopping them from killing each other right now.
Religion, and isn't Iran sponsoring al Sadhr or whatever his name is?

[ASWnut101]

And he was an Arab. Both the Ayatollah Komeiny and Akmadinijad are (and were) Arabs. The population of Iran is Persian.

[TteFAboB]

Granted there are some patriots inside the Democrat party. Let me see...yup, they definitely exist, I just finished counting them with the fingers of one hand.
All the better. Not being a patriot doesn't automatically equate to working for your countrys destruction. I'd always prefer realism over pride/loyalty/patriotism/duty. But that's just me :)

I meant exactly that. That because most Democrats still vote for the country when it comes to it they manage to maintain the appearance of being patriots, since they used to be, while infact the Democrat leadership would destroy the country if given the chance.

[Sailor Steve]

Sorry my last post was cut short; I was out of time at my first session at the library. I'll continue:

Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
A quick, pat answer, and I disagree. There is a point at which a decision is made, based on available information. If you've already made up your mind before all the facts are in, you are almost certain to be wrong somewhere.
The immediate goal of the US armed forces is to provide for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy requires the same protection that France and Spain provided the fledgling US government against the forces of Britain.

The best case scenerio after a withdrawal at this point would be complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq. The worst case scenerio is theater nuclear war based on the words of Iranian leaders visa vis Isreal.

The best case scenerio if the US continues to support the recently elected Iraqi government is a country which can contribute socially, politically, and economically to the betterment of mankind without threatening its neighbors.
I agree. Of course the big question is, can it actually happen, given the number of opposing factions willing to kill each other and themselves just to make a point?

[waste gate]

Sorry my last post was cut short; I was out of time at my first session at the library. I'll continue:

Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
A quick, pat answer, and I disagree. There is a point at which a decision is made, based on available information. If you've already made up your mind before all the facts are in, you are almost certain to be wrong somewhere.
The immediate goal of the US armed forces is to provide for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy requires the same protection that France and Spain provided the fledgling US government against the forces of Britain.

The best case scenerio after a withdrawal at this point would be complete anarchy within the borders of Iraq. The worst case scenerio is theater nuclear war based on the words of Iranian leaders visa vis Isreal.

The best case scenerio if the US continues to support the recently elected Iraqi government is a country which can contribute socially, politically, and economically to the betterment of mankind without threatening its neighbors.
I agree. Of course the big question is, can it actually happen, given the number of opposing factions willing to kill each other and themselves just to make a point?

Based on your reply I conclude you approve of the thought I put into my answers. I see very little thought in your posts, just diatribe.
Regarding the first; You assume that people who stand for something will 'rush to judgement' based on what they believe. Only the very foolish do such things. The Duke University case and those who rushed to judge the La Cross team members is a prime example.

Your second paragraph presumes that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence, which is very likely fueled by Iran. Regardless, reducing force structure in Iraq does not allow for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy.

[Tchocky]

Firstly, if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything. You seem to stand on the premise that every situation has its own answer. That may be true but all decisions are based upon a belief. It is that belief that shapes the course of of how an individual and nations respond. Consequentially principals are always the guiding force.
I'm with Steve here. Answers can be changed as a situation does, but beliefs have a nasty tendency to stick around..."There are no American tanks in Baghdad etc.....'
(Maybe not the best example, but a relevant one)
I believe (argh!) that each situation must be judged on its own qualities and not beliefs/principles (not principals, they run schools). This ensures no ideological/political blinkers.

And the assertion that if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything is absurd

[bradclark1]

Granted there are some patriots inside the Democrat party. Let me see...yup, they definitely exist, I just finished counting them with the fingers of one hand.
All the better. Not being a patriot doesn't automatically equate to working for your countrys destruction. I'd always prefer realism over pride/loyalty/patriotism/duty. But that's just me :)

I meant exactly that. That because most Democrats still vote for the country when it comes to it they manage to maintain the appearance of being patriots, since they used to be, while infact the Democrat leadership would destroy the country if given the chance.

There is absolutely no significant idea that stupidity would not know how to apply; stupidity is active in every direction, and can dress up in all the clothes of truth. Truth, on the other hand, has for every occasion only one dress and one path, and is always at a disadvantage." - Robert Musil.

[bradclark1]

And he was an Arab. Both the Ayatollah Komeiny and Akmadinijad are (and were) Arabs. The population of Iran is Persian.
The Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988 was for Iraq to gain control over the resource-rich province of Khuzestan. I'm sure Arab/Persian was a side benefit though.

[TteFAboB]

There is absolutely no significant idea that stupidity would not know how to apply; stupidity is active in every direction, and can dress up in all the clothes of truth. Truth, on the other hand, has for every occasion only one dress and one path, and is always at a disadvantage." - Robert Musil.

Fine. I guess I deserve that for picking on the Dems. To be fair then, yes there are also people who would deliver the country on a silver platter in the Republican party, beginning with W. Bush himself and his participation on the North American Community project, considering he could put it all to a stop or at least go down trying, leaving politics to enter history.

[The Avon Lady]

But I don't believe Iraq will ever become a western democracy, even should all of Iraq's Sunnis and their local and imported terrorists magically disappear overnight and even should Coalition troops repair Iraq from top to bottom. See these very recent Iraqi poll (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013344.php) results, for example.

The first advantage of being in Iraq is its attraction to Islamic terrorists from all over the world. Don't belittle this, as it may possibly rank as one of the greatest military diversion tactics in history. The problem is there's no way to measure what the effect would have been on world terrorism had the fly paper not been laid out in Iraq.

The second advantage of being in Iraq is being poised next door to Iran. Only the future will tell how significant this can or will be.

100% Right

Right. IMO terrorism got a terrific boost.
But I didn't say that. :nope: What I said was that terrorism got diverted and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Who's to say Iraq would even allow themselves to be used in any form against Iran. They are of the same religion. The U.S. will bend over backwards to not have to confront Iran. Not that I agree but I think thats the reality of it.
The US is already bending over - you can chose whichever direction you think illustrates this best.

[bradclark1]

[quote=brad]Right. IMO terrorism got a terrific boost.
But I didn't say that. What I said was that terrorism got diverted and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
And I agreed with you. Then just added on that in my opinion terrorism also got a boost as in personnel influx.
It's not changing what you said it's just further adding my opinion.
The US is already bending over - you can chose whichever direction you think illustrates this best.
:) Time will tell I guess.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree. Of course the big question is, can it actually happen, given the number of opposing factions willing to kill each other and themselves just to make a point?
Your second paragraph presumes that the US is responsible for the sectarian violence, which is very likely fueled by Iran. Regardless, reducing force structure in Iraq does not allow for the security of the democratically elected Iraqi government which in its infancy.
No, I don't believe we have anything to do with the sectarian violence. I was just speculating on the idea that if they refuse to stop killing each other, we may find ourselves stuck there forever.

On a personal note, I was originally against going into Iraq, simply because I felt we should do one thing at a time, and the first thing was to get Bin Laden. That said, it wasn't my decision to make and I argued both sides of the move with various people I know. I still question whether it was the right move, but the administration gets my support mainly because in my observation most people against the Iraq war aren't against the war itself, but rather hate Bush for the same reasons that so many conservatives hated Clinton--because he represented the other side and hating is easier than thinking.

For however long we stay there will be 'Lefties' crying that more soldiers are dying and we should leave now, and no matter when we actually leave Iraq if the situation there falls into chaos there will be 'righties' saying "I told you so"! Every day I read about another car bomb killing another sixty people and it seems to me that the only real solution is for the people who live there to learn that that won't solve anything...but they seemingly never will.

[Tchocky]

For however long we stay there will be 'Lefties' crying that more soldiers are dying and we should leave now, and no matter when we actually leave Iraq if the situation there falls into chaos there will be 'righties' saying "I told you so"! Every day I read about another car bomb killing another sixty people and it seems to me that the only real solution is for the people who live there to learn that that won't solve anything...but they seemingly never will.

Sadly the US has lost the moral authority it once had, and can't say "Stop killing each other" to anyone. It's a shame.

As regards leaving, I used to be of the opinion that the US should stay in Iraq until the job is done, until the country is stable and peaceful. This wasn't borne out of concern for the Iraqi people, more out of annoyance and general anger at the decision to go to war in the first place. If you're going to smash up a country, you have in that act taken on the responsibility of putting things right.
In recent months, I've become less sure of this. Iraq has become a magnet for terrorists who want to take a crack at the US Army, so it stands to reason that the job wont be finished until the US is gone.......and my previous statement collapses in on itself. It's a no-win situation. Pulling out isn't going to help, neither will staying.

[Sailor Steve]

It's a no-win situation. Pulling out isn't going to help, neither will staying.
That sounds like the description of a quagmire to me. Quicksand central.

[PeriscopeDepth]

It's a no-win situation. Pulling out isn't going to help, neither will staying. That sounds like the description of a quagmire to me. Quicksand central.
Yep. Pacification simply isn't possible. And just pulling out now would be a ****storm and a half.

PD