Why are we still in Iraq?

I'm honestly asking.

Our young people are still dying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/world/middleeast/10iraq.html?ref=world

And so are theirs.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMsa0707782

The group obtained an estimate of 151,000 violent deaths, with a purported 95% confidence interval of 104,000 to 223,000 — a massive death toll — since the 2003 invasion. Violence was found to be the leading cause of death among Iraqi men between the ages of 15 and 59 years and a leading cause of death among Iraqi adults in general.

Even the statisticians are dying.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMp0709003

Under the current conditions in Iraq, it is difficult to envision a study that would not have substantial limitations. The circumstances that are required to produce high-quality public health statistics contrast starkly with those under which the IFHS study group worked. Indeed, it must be mentioned that one of the authors of the survey was shot and killed on his way to work.


Why?

 

I never understood the argument that if we leave, bad things will happen, which is why we should stay.

"Bad things" were always going to happen when we decided to invade. There was going to be a high casualty rate over a short period if we pulled out quickly, or there was going to be a high casualty rate over several years while we were occupiers. The difference? IIn one scenario, thousands of US soldiers have been killed or wounded and our international reputation has taken a huge hit.

 

Beats me.

I think at this point, the foot-dragging Iraqi "government" has to start taking it's fair share of criticism, too.

This week, I had two more friends go. That brought the total to 12 in country, now.

 

If you don't keep the soldiers busy, they'll just get into mischief?

 

Outside Fredo, has anyone at any point uttered a nice word about the Iraqi government? I have to ask because I don't think anyone even considers them anything but a joke.

 

We are in Iraq so we can easily move over to Iran.

It's all about establishing pipelines and controlling oil flow.

Did you know Iran has the power to cripple the world's oil production because they have a rocky hill that over looks a vital shipping straight.

Sure, if they attacked, we would blow them up in a matter of hours, but losing those hours would throw the world's oil market into such a tizzy that prices would be staggering.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0715889720080107

30-40 percent of the world's oil would be stopped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

 

We'd own that hill in 15 minutes with 25 "soldiers."

 

I'm incredibly naive when it comes to politics. I'm admitting that up front.

I'm the guy who advocated a Festivus Pole in Jerusalem where all parties could air grievances ... and therefore would be in position for a once-and-for all fracas to decide who controls the Holy Land if grievance-airing didn't lead to resolution.

Back on subject: If all the democratic candidates advocate a pullout of Iraq and almost all of the GOP candidates advocate at least a gradual pullout of Iraq, why doesn't the Bush administration get the hint that nearly everyone in the country advocates some lessening of our presence over there?

 

I heard the Governor of Montana speak on this subject while stuping his coal agenda, and I think they are a little more entrenched. I guess the hill is solid rock or something like that. It would be messy.

 

With Al Queda in Iraq under control and almost wiped out, the genocide pretty much complete -- which has helped lead to the downturn in violence -- Bush should declare that "We've won!", or at least that we've "turned the tide", "on the right track", or whatever and get the hell out.

He'd win some kudos, help with his legacy (which he's obviously obsessed with) and undercut the Democrats to boot. Why not? I don't know.

If we was going to do so, now would be the perfect time before something goes horribly wrong.

 

Right on. They'll probably form vigilante gangs, and when was the last time any of those turned out to be good?

 

You hit it right on the head, 93Devil. We are there because of oil. That's all this has ever been about. If Saddam and Iraq had been located somewhere without oil interests, we wouldn't have gone in. The rest of the world knows it. Our "establishing democracy in the region" is bullshit. Even if that's really what it was about, it wouldn't work. You can't just institute a new mindset - and that's what Democracy is - overnight in a region that has never had it, or made any indication that they want it. This is as blatant example of big business driving foreign policy as I can ever remember. Isn't it just quaint that the big business in question - OIL - is tied to our good ol Boy from Texas. What a coincidence!