If, after we pull of of Iraq, there is a MASSIVE BLOODBATH, should we go back in? (interview, Baghdad)

[Dd714]

Yes I fully expect it to happen as well but if it is just limited to Iraq in a few year I don't see us going back in. Our public and political (but not the military) will to fight is gone. President Hillary Clinton will make a few speaches to the UN, a few debates will be held, that's about it. Same thing happened with Vietnam, i.e. the Pol Pot regime.

But this is what will eventually happen - it will spread to a regional war involving Iran, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, possibly Turkey and Israel. Then we will be pulled back in weather we want to or not.
A bloodbath? No one has seen anything yet. We are going to pull out, save a few 100 more lives, and sacrifice 10,000 lives in that part of the world again in about a decade.

[carolinajack]

what would be the point of going back in if we are too cowardly to get the job done now? It is silly, finish it and clean up our mess or leave it and let the people kill each other, and when it is destabled even more we will pay a heftier cost later--more terrorism

[RogueMom]

That was my point. It's not a matter of scale, it's still blood being shed on a constant, daily basis, with apparently no end in sight. And no, I really don't know what the answer is at this point. I just feel that we need to start listening to some of our un-biased military leaders regarding what progress is or isn't being made and what is likely to happen if we pull-out of Iraq, not to "sound-bites" coming from the Bush adminstration, with a President and Vice President who avoided at all costs having to serve active military duty themselves. I"m afraid Bush's motive is to keep the war going until he can "sneak out the back door" in 2008, and leave whoever the next President is holding the bag, and the blame. I'm sorry, but I have no confidence in him as Commander-in-Chief whatsoever, or in his honesty or motives, or in his military "expertise".

[doc1]

Nah. We've learned our lessons. Give it to the UN. They'll handle it.

[Sgoldie]

No, we should not go back in.

If their present govt, who thinks they can take a two month vacation while our people are sweating daily for their lives to protect them is any indication, one: we cannot be effective in establishing peace in a tribally divisive civilization, and two: we can't do it for them.

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by doc1

Nah. We've learned our lessons. Give it to the UN. They'll handle it.

The U.N.? That was sarcasm I assume, right?
UN handling Iraq, HAHAHA

UN couldn't handle giving out lolipops at a childrens birthday party.

[Hawkeye48]

When we pull out there probably will be a huge increase in violence. But that's to be expected. They will have their civil war and then peace will follow.

[carolinajack]

give it to the UN like Rwanda and Darfur and Serbia

i dont think so

[fishmonger]

Is the bloodbath inevitable? Will us staying there another 5, 10, or 20 years prevent it from happening when we leave (and we don't have the troops to stay there forever)?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Sgoldie

No, we should not go back in.

If their present govt, who thinks they can take a two month vacation while our people are sweating daily for their lives to protect them is any indication, one: we cannot be effective in establishing peace in a tribally divisive civilization, and two: we can't do it for them.

That 2 month vacation is inexcuseable, unacceptable, and a slap in the face to all the service people who get no vacation. It's time Bush put his foot down and told them in no uncertain terms they either work until their job is done our evry American in Iraq takes a 2 month vacation, let them clean up their own mess.