What are these "disastrous" consequences?

VoiceOfReason · #1 (**permalink**) 04-04-2006, 10:32 AM

I keep hearing Politicians on TV speaking of the "disastrous" consequences of not winning the war in Iraq. Recently McCain and even Harold Ford. Are these the same arguments that the Vietnam war supporters used? Looking for posters opinions and media to ask politicians for specific disastrous consequences. Would like to know. Maybe we should be getting prepared for the disasters.

George O Well · #2 (**permalink**) 04-04-2006, 04:55 PM

Some people just don't view the deaths of 13 GIs over the weekend as a disastrous consequence of staying there.

But they are right in one sense. Leaving Iraq now would be disastrous - for their careers.

rodstrom · #3 (**permalink**) 04-04-2006, 09:26 PM

disastrous consequences:

1. Iraq falls to the terrorists, and becomes a sunni based government in support of other extreme sunni movements, such as that of OSAMA. Providing funding and structuring for the dismantlement of peace and western Civilization through terrorism.

2. Iraqi people form an extreme shia based government that is dominated by the shia mullahs of Iran. This partnership leads to a stronger reluctance of those darned iranian mullahs to act sanely. cuz if you give crazy people more power ... well lets try not to give the crazy people power huh.

3. America, the only real policeman of the world is seen to be weak. Terrorism flourishes in dodgy countries. No annoying little autocracies feel that respect for international laws is really much necessary anymore.

4. The iraqi people are set to be abused even more

5. the progress of democracy in the middle east takes a generous step backwards

George O Well · #4 (**permalink**) 04-05-2006, 11:35 AM

And staying there is going to change anything??? Let me answer for you - not a chance!

VoiceOfReason · #5 (**permalink**) 04-05-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodstrom

disastrous consequences:

1. Iraq falls to the terrorists, and becomes a sunni based government in support of other extreme sunni movements, such as that of OSAMA. Providing funding and structuring for the dismantlement of peace and western Civilization through terrorism.

I Don't agree that terrorists can accomplish this feat. "The only thing you have to fear is fear itself".

2. Iraqi people form an extreme shia based government that is dominated by the shia mullahs of Iran. This partnership leads to a stronger reluctance of those darned iranian mullahs to act sanely. cuz if you give crazy people more power ... well lets try not to give the crazy people power huh.

Iraq and Iran would go back to hating each other the minute we weren't around to absorb all the hostility. They each hate us(infidels) worse.

3. America, the only real policeman of the world is seen to be weak. Terrorism flourishes in dodgy countries. No annoying little autocracies feel that respect for international laws is really much necessary anymore.

Always hated the "world's policeman" role. Hated it when GBush the first, adopted it. Hated it when Clinton continued it. And hate it now. I just can't see the benefit for the average American. Not to mention the angst it seems to generate toward Americans. You know the whole, "America is so arrogant" viewpoint that other nations seem to mention.

4. The iraqi people are set to be abused even more
If you care spend your own money. Not mine.

5. the progress of democracy in the middle east takes a generous step backwards

If you care spend your own money. Not mine.

How many lives?
How many years?
How much debt?

gratefuldawg77 · #6 (**permalink**) 04-07-2006, 04:02 PM

Leaving Iraq now would be disasterous to Halliburton. Their patsy Cheney would have less than three years to find another oil rich country to go to war with under false pretenses.... ohh, wait a minute.... IRAN!!!!

nevermind.