PDA

View Full Version : Get out of Iraq...NOW!


Obama08
02-23-2007, 02:07 AM
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041011/leaver

Top 10 Reasons for the US to Get Out of Iraq
by ERIK LEAVER

[posted online on September 24, 2004]

The US occupation of Iraq is the cause of, not the solution to, the violence and the mounting deaths that followed the invasion. During the recent fighting led by Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf, as in countless other battles inside Iraq, authorities in Washington have misread the military and political situation. The Bush Administration uses the fighting as justification for the continued presence of foreign military forces. Yet it is precisely the presence of foreign military forces that is a major cause of the instability. Ending the US occupation by bringing the troops home now is a first step toward ending Iraq's nightmare.

Most Iraqis agree. In a poll this past June, 55 percent of Iraqis opposed the presence of US forces in Iraq. While Iraqis cheered the overthrow of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, they didn't sign up for a foreign military occupation as a replacement. Now it is time to let Iraqis themselves choose an alternative. Here are 10 compelling reasons the United States should get out of Iraq.

1) The Human Costs Keep Increasing
On September 7 the death toll of US soldiers reached 1,000. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that the insurgency is likely to turn even more violent. While the American death toll made headlines across the United States, the mounting number of Iraqi deaths, at least ten times greater, gets scant attention. The US military refuses to monitor or even estimate the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. As Gen. Tommy Franks described the Pentagon's approach earlier in Afghanistan, "We don't do body counts."

2) Iraqis Aren't Better Off
While the removal of the dictator Saddam was a welcome development for many Iraqis, the streets of Baghdad and other cities remain dangerous war zones. Clean water, electricity and even gasoline in this oil-rich country are all in even shorter supply than during the dark years of economic sanctions. Women face new restrictions and new dangers. Democracy, freedom and human rights appear out of reach. And Iraq remains occupied by 160,000 foreign troops, with all of the indignity that military occupation brings.

3) The War Is Bankrupting America
This year's federal budget deficit will reach a new record--$422 billion. The Bush Administration's combination of massive spending on the war and tax cuts for the wealthy means less money for social spending. The Administration's fiscal-year 2005 budget request proposes deep cuts in critical domestic programs. It also virtually freezes funding for domestic discretionary programs other than homeland security. Among the programs the Administration seeks to eliminate: grants for low-income schools and family literacy; Community Development Block Grants; Rural Housing and Economic Development; and Arts in Education grants.

4) Halliburton's War Profiteering
The US government's Iraq reconstruction process has cost both Iraqis and Americans. Instead of boosting Iraqi self-determination by granting contracts to experienced Iraqi businesses and working to lower the huge unemployment problem inside Iraq, the US government has favored US firms with strong political ties. Major contracts worth billions of dollars have been awarded with limited or no competition. American auditors and the media have documented numerous cases of fraud, waste and incompetence. The most egregious problems are attributed to Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney's former firm and the largest recipient of Iraq-related contracts.

5) The "International Coalition" Is Fleeing
The "coalition," always more symbolically than militarily significant, is unraveling. While the impact is felt more at the political than military level, the Bush Administration's claim that it is "leading an international coalition" in Iraq is increasingly indefensible. Eight nations have now left the coalition and many other countries have reduced their contingents. Singapore has left only thirty-three soldiers in Iraq out of 191, and Moldova's forces have dwindled to twelve.

6) Recruitment for Al Qaeda Has Accelerated
The war against Iraq is leaving US citizens more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home and abroad. According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the best-known and most authoritative source of information on global military capabilities and trends, the war in Iraq has accelerated recruitment for Al Qaeda and made the world less safe. It estimates worldwide Al Qaeda membership now at 18,000, with 1,000 active in Iraq. It states that the occupation has become the organization's "potent global recruitment pretext," has divided the United States and Britain from their allies and has weakened the war on terrorism.

7) The War Is Draining First Responders From Our Communities
Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 364,000 Reserve and National Guard troops have been called for military service. This spring alone, 35,000 new Guard troops were sent to Iraq. Their deployment puts a particularly heavy burden on their home communities, because many of them serve as "first responders," including police, firefighters and emergency medical personnel. A poll conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum found that 44 percent of police forces across the nation have lost officers as a result of deployment to Iraq.

8) Torture at Abu Ghraib
The Bush Administration claimed that the liberation of Iraqis from the inhumane rule of a dictator was a good-enough reason for taking military action against that country. Now investigations of the US military's torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib has stripped the United States of even that wobbly claim. The Bush Administration has tried to blame a "few bad apples" for the torture, but abuse has been widespread, with more than 300 allegations of abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq or Guantánamo. Many more may exist, in light of the fact that Army investigators revealed in early September at a Congressional hearing that as many as 100 detainees were hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross at the request of the CIA. This was part of a larger strategy by the government, described by Human Rights Watch as "decisions made by the Bush Administration to bend, ignore, or cast rules aside."

9) Many Americans Oppose the War
Polls conducted in August 2004 by the CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup and the Pew Research Center showed a great divide in the country: 51 percent believe that "the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over" and 52 percent disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the war. Almost 60 percent believe that President Bush does not "have a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion."

10) No "Sovereignty" Has Been Transferred
The US occupation of Iraq officially ended on June 28, in a secret ceremony in Baghdad. Officially, the Americans handed "full sovereignty" to the Iraqi Interim Government. This was sovereignty in name, not in deed. Not only do 160,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of former CPA head Paul Bremer remain to control the economy. Although many thought the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq, Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to the undemocratically appointed interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, who has longtime ties to the CIA.
I would like for anyone who disagrees with this to please tell us what benefits staying in Iraq will have on the US other than stealing Iraqi oil.

Stoner
02-23-2007, 02:31 AM
Wow, he listed 10 reasons and there were 10 lies in the article.

I didn't find one word of truth in that hack piece.

Obama08
02-23-2007, 03:05 AM
Wow, he listed 10 reasons and there were 10 lies in the article.

I didn't find one word of truth in that hack piece.
Then apparently you need to work on your reading comprehension.

Red Dragon
02-23-2007, 03:11 AM
Actualy the first one is true the death toll is rising. So is third one, wars aren't cheap you know. The fifth and sixth ones are true, for every Terroist that we kill two more are recruited to replace them. And our list of aliies in this war are shrinking. And lets not forget the ninth one, we know that one is true. All we have to do is go on the internet, there's likley to be at least one story saying something about it. And well the otheres are true though a little bit opionated.

BoogyMan
02-23-2007, 03:16 AM
Wow, he listed 10 reasons and there were 10 lies in the article.

I didn't find one word of truth in that hack piece.
Then apparently you need to work on your reading comprehension.


Obama, this is an opinion piece, and a poorly sourced one at that. I will pick apart just one point to give you an idea of its lack of accuracy.

Check out what the Wall Street Journal has to say about the budget deficit as stated by the Congressional Budget Office, not the Whitehouse.


Source: Link (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009630)

Fiscal Revelation
The federal budget deficit just keeps shrinking.

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Politicians are typically late in picking up trends, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes Washington to acknowledge the big story in the Fiscal 2008 budget that President Bush unveiled yesterday: To wit, with a little spending restraint, Congress could balance the budget in no time.

You wouldn't know this from all the garment-rending yesterday in response to Mr. Bush's proposal to spend the not-so-meager sum of $2.9 trillion. Our favorite agonist is Kent Conrad, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman, and he didn't disappoint. "The President's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality, and continues to move America in the wrong direction," said the Senator who was himself blocked from sneaking nearly $5 billion in "emergency" farm spending into a military construction bill in the final days of the last Congress. The North Dakotan needs to keep shouting disaster in a crowded political theater so he can justify his desire for a big tax increase.

The news Mr. Conrad won't broadcast is that over the past three years the federal deficit has shrunk by 58%. The Congressional Budget Office--not the White House--is estimating that the current year's deficit (for fiscal 2007) will fall to $172 billion. That's not bad given continuing Katrina relief spending, $30 billion for homeland security, and a couple hundred billion or so to fight the war on terror.

The White House is projecting that its new budget will eliminate the deficit by 2012 assuming Mr. Bush's tax cuts are extended after 2010. We don't put much stock in future budget forecasts because they depend on so many variables. But even CBO predicts the deficit should remain near or below 1% of GDP for the rest of the Bush Presidency. That's well below the 40-year average of 2.4% of GDP.

This also means that the federal debt burden will continue to fall. Alarmists point to the $1.4 trillion rise in total federal debt from 2003-2006, but that amount is dwarfed by the $14 trillion in new household wealth created over the same period. And for all the international scolding of an allegedly profligate America, U.S. federal debt as a share of GDP is falling again (see the top chart nearby). At 37% in 2006 and heading south, the U.S. figure compares to 52% in Germany, 43% in France, and 79% in Japan. Once again rising total "debt" is a scare word used to justify higher taxes.

The real game to watch isn't debt or deficits but spending. Here, too, Mr. Bush has an improved track record in his second term. From 2001-2005, outlays ballooned by $609 billion, or 33%, and Mr. Bush never did veto a spending bill. By contrast, on current pace his second term outlays will grow by 21%--hardly tightfisted, but a third slower.

The other news you won't often hear concerns the soaring tax revenues in the wake of the 2003 supply-side tax cuts. Tax collections have risen by $757 billion, among the largest revenue gushers in history. Receipts, especially from high-income individuals and corporations, have been growing for some two years at nearly twice the rate of spending, which explains the falling deficit. Economic growth is always the key to eliminating red ink, which is why keeping this 63-month expansion rolling needs to be the main domestic priority. This requires making those lower 2003 tax rates permanent, rather than letting them expire in 2010 and socking the economy with the biggest tax increase in history.

The more immediate budget brawl between Mr. Bush and Democrats will be how to divide that mere $2.9 trillion between guns and butter. Mr. Bush wants $245 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan for 2007 and 2008. His overall Pentagon request of $606 billion in 2008 has been lambasted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a "huge number" and Democrats are moaning that their cherished social programs will suffer.

In fact, Mr. Bush's request would only bring defense outlays to 4.2% of GDP, or about 20% of total federal spending. That compares to 4.7% of GDP even under Jimmy Carter, and 6.2% of GDP in 1986 at the peak of the Reagan defense buildup (see bottom chart). Budgets are about setting priorities, and if Democrats agree that defeating terrorism is vital they will put it ahead of funding the National Endowment for the Arts.

Or how about capping subsidies to farmers with incomes above $200,000? Senator Conrad could lead by example in accepting that White House proposal, and in return zero out Mr. Bush's $200 million political sop for state and local police.

All in all, the fiscal news is so good that the tax hike lobby has had to do a bait-and-switch and fret about the "long-term." Somehow this wasn't a priority when Democrats and Republicans alike were trying to kill Social Security reform in 2005. But all of a sudden penury is said to be right around the corner. Well, Congress could always reform those programs, but don't hold your breath. Mr. Bush is proposing a very modest $96 billion reduction in the growth of Medicare and other entitlements over five years, and Democrats are already outraged.

The best news in yesterday's budget may be that Mr. Bush seems to be rediscovering some fiscal nerve. His proposals won't raise taxes, while using the power of the market to combat problems in health care, and putting a tight leash on domestic discretionary programs. Defense gets the bulk of spending increases, as it should in a time of war. Maybe we'll finally get a debate over national spending priorities.

Harry01
02-23-2007, 03:36 PM
The occupation of Iraq and its aftermath should not be debated in terms of American or Americas` losses or disadvantages but on a more ideological basis which is that of Imperialism!!! It is utter nonsense for any political scientist or historian or economist to cry on behalf of the economic losses the U.S has made as regards the war in Iraq and leave out the ideological aspect of it; that what America did was akin to what Hitler did when he plotted to take-over the word through his imperial conduct,or equally what the Western Europeans plotted at the Berlin Conference which saw them colonising an otherwise happy and content Africa!!!!

bobbylien
02-23-2007, 07:35 PM
I think Iraq is more a result of past American Imperialism. Comparing the invasion of Iraq to Hitlers invasion of Poland is absolutely ridiculous.

I think we should continue with the surge but put a deadline for our occupation. We should have 90% of our troops out by 2008. A vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave, that should be enough.. our current mission is to put Iraq in the hands of its people right?

Stoner
02-23-2007, 07:44 PM
A vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave

Now that's just an outright lie that you bought from the liberal-media.

Harry01
02-23-2007, 08:23 PM
A vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave

Now that's just an outright lie that you bought from the liberal-media.


I dont know which liberal-media you refer to but the point is quite clear that Americans are unwanted in Iraq by the local citizens...
And mind you America should not just pull out and be forgiven for what it did...........it should in fact foot all the bills of Iraq reconstruction with no conditions and after that America should be hanged for its murderous conduct!!!!!!

Obama08
02-23-2007, 08:35 PM
I dont know which liberal-media you refer to but the point is quite clear that Americans are unwanted in Iraq by the local citizens...
And mind you America should not just pull out and be forgiven for what it did...........it should in fact foot all the bills of Iraq reconstruction with no conditions and after that America should be hanged for its murderous conduct!!!!!!
Don't bother responding to him.

Stoner please log back on when your not high ok?

Elrathin
02-23-2007, 09:11 PM
Stoner please log back on when your not high ok?


Not high? You might as well just ask him to leave lol.

Harry01
02-24-2007, 05:04 PM
The real reason why America is not pulling out of Iraq is not to do with feared sectarian violence but it is because they have grotesquely failed to extract the quantity of oil they had hoped for!!!!!

Stoner
02-24-2007, 05:06 PM
The real reason why America is not pulling out of Iraq is not to do with feared sectarian violence but it is because they have grotesquely failed to extract the quantity of oil they had hoped for!!!!!


You believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory, don't you?

Harry01
02-24-2007, 05:10 PM
[quote=Harry01]
The real reason why America is not pulling out of Iraq is not to do with feared sectarian violence but it is because they have grotesquely failed to extract the quantity of oil they had hoped for!!!!!


You believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theory, don't you?
[/quote

Sorry i am a bit lost which conspiracy theory are you talking about i think there are quite a number

bobbylien
02-24-2007, 07:41 PM
A vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave

Now that's just an outright lie that you bought from the liberal-media.


– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.

– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).
Sorry I don't just throw words around like you do, I check for facts first. Maybe you wouldn't look like such a retard if you figured out how to use google.

ECW
02-24-2007, 10:17 PM
A vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave

Now that's just an outright lie that you bought from the liberal-media.


****– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”

****– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.

****– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.

****– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.

****– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).

Sorry I don't just throw words around like you do, I check for facts first. Maybe you wouldn't look like such a retard if you figured out how to use google.


BUSTED!

Light another bowl to get the humiliation out of your mind.

BoogyMan
02-25-2007, 02:29 AM
The real reason why America is not pulling out of Iraq is not to do with feared sectarian violence but it is because they have grotesquely failed to extract the quantity of oil they had hoped for!!!!!


How about substantiating that fantastic claim Harry?