As opposed to those being slaughtered now, which everyone on the ground agrees is worsened by the US’ presence?

But that’s not the point. The question asks me if I am ready to suffer the consequences of withdrawal, and I’m telling you there aren’t many consequences for me to suffer.

- Josh

Great point about Steve’s rationale: Leftwing Socialist indeed. I loved the best part that you imply, that he actually cares about the Iraqi people. Pure comedy, using JFK’s lines to tag Steve with.

As to dealing with Islam domestically, cut off the welfare state bennies and gubmint jobs and if they need a bigger hint, pay them to go home.

Islam isn’t going anywhere. It’s been around for over a thousand years. I agree with you that (fundamentalist) Islam is against freedoms. It is one of the main reasons why our immigration laws need to be enforced.

Liberty is dying across the world. EU has a democratic deficit. The US is becoming less of a free society day by day. Russia and Venezuela are heading toward authoritarianism. The picture is bleak in my opinion.

We have a terrific military but our leadership has undermined them every step of the way in Iraq. If our Emperor and his goons didn’t muck things up our troops would be home with their families now where they belong.

Some key characteristics of modern cults is that they threaten death to those who attempt to leave. Since it seems like Islam does this, Islam simply isn’t compatible with civilization. No other major religion, including aethiesm does this.

Until we come to terms with this, we will simply be paralyzed. How do we deal with the cults that are in the US? Coercion is a crime, and the adherents are arrested. In addition to this irreconcilable difference, there is also the fact that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with freedom of speech, general liberty, women’s rights, etc.

The bottom line is Stephen made some excellent arguments in the original posting. These are not neocon arguments, since these sentiments have been around for over 200 years, perhaps expressed most eloquently by JFK:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

President Lyndon Johnson: “F— your Parliament and your Constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant’s trunk, whacked good…”

A question like “when did you stop beating your wife”. Did we ever abandon West Germany, or Japan? A long term presence in Iraq is in US long term interest. We should pull out of South Korea (they can and should be able to defend themselves), Germany, etc.

>> And how do we define victory ?

When there is no way for them to claim victory. It is an undeniable truth that victory breeds recruitment.

>> What consequences? I don’t expect to suffer any consequences if the US leaves Iraq

What incredible naivete. If the they weren’t compelled to defend the seat of the caliphate, the forces of radical islamo-fascists would certainly be targeting american cities for terror attacks. My children and I live downwind of DC.

>> We can figure out how to spread moderate Islam

Why bother? All we have to do is ensure religious freedom, enforce laws against cultist coercion, and Islam will fade. Islam can only grow by force, and they know it. The natural conversion rate to Christianity and Aethiesm are significantly higher than Islam.

So Josh, you have no concern whatsoever about the Iraqis who will be slaughtered if we leave? That’s a little cold hearted don’t you think?

If you think there is a bloodbath now, if the troops leave prematurely, we will see a humanitarian disaster akin to the Rape of Nanking. But I guess that isn’t our concern is it?

It certainly wasn’t a concern going into the war, so why is it a concern now?

The chickenhawks have to get over themselves. It should be obvious by now that the Iraq war was about preserving the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. In the eye’s of the administration, 3000 or so dead US soldiers and however many Iraqis is a small price to pay to prop up the dollar.

WMDs was how the war had to be sold to the public. People aren’t buying that line any more. The dollar isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And, it takes gangsta like action on our part to force it down the rest of the world’s throat.

Now, if you want to talk about the “consequences” of the dollar no longer being the world’s reserve currency, that may be a more interesting discussion. But, don’t hide behind the “Won’t someone think of the Iraqis?!” bullshit because the administration sure as hell wasn’t thinking about them going into this boondoggle.

First, America should have the Iraqis redo their Constitution at gun point and make them do it NOW or we go home.

Second, we draw Al Qaeda out of Iraq or we go home.
Millions of Muslims have passed through Mecca and Medina as an obligatory part of the Hajj and ‘Umra. These holiest of sites in Islam are under the auspices of Salafi leadership, sanctioned by the Saudi royal family.
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370283

js290:

As the article I cited pointed out, many Iraqis are still greeting our troops as liberators. Of course this part is rarley reported in the MSM.

If you think there is a bloodbath now, if the troops leave prematurely, we will see a humanitarian disaster akin to the Rape of Nanking. But I guess that isn’t our concern is it?

Are we really prepared for the bloodbath which will undoubtedly occur if we were to leave?

First we were suppose to be greeted as liberators… Now, there’s going to be a bloodbath if we leave (as if there isn’t one now with us there)… Will the chickenhawks make up their fuckin’ mind? Or, are they just wrong on all accounts? Iraqi oil is trading in dollars again, isn’t that good enough?

What consequences? I don’t expect to suffer any consequences if the US leaves Iraq, and I expect marginal improvements in things like interest rates.

- Josh

“At which point is the abandonment of Iraq appropriate?”

I know it sounds trite but when the Iraqis can defend themselves without our help. That is how I would define victory. Whenever that is possible is anyone’s guess. We need to give the surge a chance to work. We are entirely too impatient when it comes to war; something this important cannot be rushed.

“The question is then, who is to blame? Obviously, Bush for incompetently conducting the Iraq War without making sure he had a real case for war. As for the Congressmen who voted for the war and are now against, again under the Constitution, Congress does not conduct war, the President does. They turned against the war because they saw it was being prosecuted incompetently.”

I don’t think pointing fingers at this point accomplishes anything. The focus should be what to do next. As you pointed out, international security is at stake here. There will be plenty of time to assign blame when Iraq is secure and the troops can come home.

Also, I only partially agree with what you are saying about the congress. I agree that if the war was going really well, every one of them would be bragging about how they supported the war. My problem with the congress is that their main arguments are not about incompetence (though these arguments are supplemental arguments) but about the reasons for war in the first place.

Many of these people had the same access to the same faulty intelligence and voted for the war on that basis. Now they are trying to pretend that it was only President Bush who was foolish enough to believe there was WMD or say that the president outright lied to them.

are you really prepared to deal with the consequences of leaving Iraq prematurely?

To which I pose a counter point:

At which point is the abandonment of Iraq appropriate ?

And how do we define victory ?