Comments on: “That’s The Plan” in Iraq http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1326 Expanding Freedom in the 21st Century Fri, 24 May 2013 20:11:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Dan Morgan http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1326#comment-216851 Dan Morgan Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:29:41 +0000 http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1326#comment-216851 nobody, "What is the difference between this argument and the so called domino effect used to keep us in Vietnam conflict longer than we should have?" Who knows, if we had put troops on large bases in Vietnam and provided them with air cover, South Vietnam today might be a booming economic center (like South Korea) and a major trading partner. It might also be democratic. Regarding Iraq, your position is that the risk of quickly leaving Iraq is not that great and that it costs too much anyhow. I say the risk of quickly leaving is too high. So we just come down on different sides of the issue. nobody,

“What is the difference between this argument and the so called domino effect used to keep us in Vietnam conflict longer than we should have?”

Who knows, if we had put troops on large bases in Vietnam and provided them with air cover, South Vietnam today might be a booming economic center (like South Korea) and a major trading partner. It might also be democratic.

Regarding Iraq, your position is that the risk of quickly leaving Iraq is not that great and that it costs too much anyhow. I say the risk of quickly leaving is too high. So we just come down on different sides of the issue.

]]> By: nobody http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1326#comment-216821 nobody Mon, 11 Jun 2007 01:51:57 +0000 http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1326#comment-216821 What is the difference between this argument and the so called domino effect used to keep us in Vietnam conflict longer than we should have? The cost of stick around is not a few million dollars. It is in the billions. People are afraid that conflict in the region will disrupt oil export. For a couple of billion bucks, we could afford to give stablized fuel prices with subsidies. There is also concern that an broken Iraq would be a hot heaven for terrorist. What about the argument that our presence in those region is creating terrorists. America is far away from the sands of middleeast. The natives would be too tire fighting each other instead of us. The proponents of sticking around needs to make a better economic or national security argument for staying around. What is the difference between this argument and the so called domino effect used to keep us in Vietnam conflict longer than we should have? The cost of stick around is not a few million dollars. It is in the billions. People are afraid that conflict in the region will disrupt oil export. For a couple of billion bucks, we could afford to give stablized fuel prices with subsidies. There is also concern that an broken Iraq would be a hot heaven for terrorist. What about the argument that our presence in those region is creating terrorists. America is far away from the sands of middleeast. The natives would be too tire fighting each other instead of us. The proponents of sticking around needs to make a better economic or national security argument for staying around.

]]> By: Dan Morgan http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1326#comment-216763 Dan Morgan Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:26:06 +0000 http://nospeedbumps.com/?p=1326#comment-216763 nobody, "Given these are the cards on the table why pour more money into this sink hole know as Iraq?" Because, in terms of US interests, a failed state and regional instability could be far worse than a low-grade civil war in Iraq. Also, the potential for a humanitarian disaster is much greater. No one knows for sure what will happen if we just leave quickly vs. stay on bases for a number of years. It is a gamble either way. Sure a lot of people there don't want us there. But the risk of what might happen if we just leave quickly is very high. This risk is what those supporting a quick withdrawal will not admit to, but I think this will sink in over time. That is why I wrote in the post above: "And I bet even if a Democrat wins the presidency (especially Hillary Clinton) that he or she will maintain the same policy regardless of what candidates say now." nobody,

“Given these are the cards on the table why pour more money into this sink hole know as Iraq?”

Because, in terms of US interests, a failed state and regional instability could be far worse than a low-grade civil war in Iraq. Also, the potential for a humanitarian disaster is much greater.

No one knows for sure what will happen if we just leave quickly vs. stay on bases for a number of years. It is a gamble either way. Sure a lot of people there don’t want us there. But the risk of what might happen if we just leave quickly is very high.

This risk is what those supporting a quick withdrawal will not admit to, but I think this will sink in over time. That is why I wrote in the post above: “And I bet even if a Democrat wins the presidency (especially Hillary Clinton) that he or she will maintain the same policy regardless of what candidates say now.”

]]>