The San Diego Democracy for America Meetup Group Message Board › When someone objects to 'immediate withdrawal'
|A former member||
When you call for an 'immediate' (and everyone should realize that 'immediate in this case is not a 'right now' kind of event) withdrawal from Iraq and someone says what a disaster that would be, here are some talking points.
Here are some more rebuttals to the 'at worst' descriptions of what would happen if there were an "immediate withdrawal"(Senator Reed-D, concurred with the 'at worst' ideas):
_A civil war in Iraq resulting in far greater bloodshed than the current conflict, though presumably without further U.S. losses.
'Far' greater bloodshed than today? What is the basis for such an assertion?
_The transformation of western Iraq, which is dominated by Sunni Muslims, into a haven for international terrorists from al-Qaida and other groups.
Ok, but look at the geography;squeezed from ALL directions,no 'major' population centers. Seems to me that it wouldn't be much of a haven.
_A collapse of U.S. credibility among nations of the Middle East, whose leaders would probably distance themselves from Washington.
Uh, if the U.S. had any 'credibility' the Palestinian 'question' would have be resolved long ago. And since the people don't see the U.S. as having any credibility, this seems more like a plea to prop up the very leaders that are screwing the vast populace in the Middle East.
_A collapse of the Bush administration's push for democracy in the region.
GOOD. Now the grassroots needed for 'real' democracy can take hold. The whole idea that 'democracy' exists in the Middle East is a fantasy slowly becoming real and not in a manner dictated by the U.S.
_Instability in the Persian Gulf that could lead to steep increases in oil prices, driving the cost of gasoline beyond current record levels.
This is a 'bogeyman' issue entirely. the Middle East IS unstable and the price of oil is much more complicated than simply being tied to a 'stable' Middle East.