What One Reporter Thinks Would Happen if US Troops Leave Iraq

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 10:24pm

Now before you put yourself on blow-up, the reporter is from the Treason Times (the ultimate sign of liberal credibility!)

John Burns of The New York Times — who is considered the best print reporter on the beat in Iraq — disagrees with Democrats and other administration critics who think a U.S. troop withdrawal would make things better in Iraq.

Burns told Charlie Rose — "It seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence."

Burns says the Sunni minority has the most to lose. He said one senior American official told him that Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hasimi — when told of the serious possibility of a withdrawal — said — "then we will all be slaughtered."
Cutting and Running is Stupid

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:13pm

"who is considered the best print reporter on the beat in Iraq"

According to who, Fox News or Charlie Rose?

[iHeartMyGeek]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:25pm

Wow, look, two perfect examples of closemindedness on both sides of the political bloodbath within two posts! How neat.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:30pm

If asking for clarification is closed mindedness...so be it. I'm just interested to know how and who arrived at the decision that John Burns was the BEST print reporter on the beat in Iraq. In order for the post to have the credibility that I'm sure the poster was hoping for, it would be helpful to know how that particular accolade was awarded.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:38pm

The fact that he reports for the NY Times isn't good enough?

[iHeartMyGeek]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:43pm

It's not specifically what you said, JustAGuy, it's just a continuation of this pattern of mudslinging that now happens in every political thread because HD2 can't see past his side and the majority of us, as "liberals", can't see past our own. I mean, I don't mean to be all "can't we all just get along?" but maybe if we just tried once, instead of immediately going to hostility and the same stereotypical arguments, we could stop thisperpetual bitterness and personal attacking and learn a few things as well. If we all just softened up a little, y'know?

But it could just be my young, idealistic side coming out.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:44pm

Oh shut up, geek. ;-}

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:48pm

Geek, I can definitely see past my side. That's why I thought that this would make a good post. The Times reporter and I agree for once.

[iHeartMyGeek]

Posted: 7/20/07 at 11:55pm

I just think, maybe, if we all just took our guard down for once and didn't automatically resort to schoolyard insults, we would all be better off and maybe actually have some decent political debate.

[JustAGuy]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 12:00am

"The fact that he reports for the NY Times isn't good enough?"

In a word, no.

John Burns had considerably more to say when speaking with Charlie Rose including that the United States has exhausted nearly all it's options in Iraq and that we're getting very close to midnight. That's paraphrasing, but it's curious that that wasn't also included in your original post.


Interview

Updated On: 7/21/07 at 12:00 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 12:18am

That was ALWAYS going to happen when Saddam was overthrown. Every mideast and near-eastern scholar knew that the only thing that was keeping the Sunni and Shiites from slaughtering each other was a dictator.

The same thing was true in Yugoslavia--look what happened there after Tito.

The only idiots who thought they could instill democracy in Iraq were Bush and Cheney and their gang of neocons.

Funny they would think that, while at the same time dismantling so many aspects of AMERICAN democracy, starting with the Constitution.

I'm a student of the Near East. I don't think the bloodbath will be much worse than what's going on now. But I do think Iraq will be divided into three or four ethnically ruled nations: Sunni-stan, Shiite-stan and Kurdistan. (The 4th would be controlled by Halliburton, let's call it Oil-stan.)

The real bloodbath would be in Kurdistan, which would be savagely attacked and possibly annexed by Turkey.

And, yes, the whole damn thing will be George Bush's fault.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 12:19am

I didn't know about it, that's why it was not included.

By the way, the reporter is right on all counts. I agree with him in all he has said.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 12:22am

That's because you didn't bother to read anything John Burns said or listen to him talk to Charlie Rose. You just repeated what you found on Fox News.

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 8:58am

That's simply not true.

And I said, I agree with the reporter.

Did you have some evidence or something factual from someone on the ground to dispute the reporter's claims?

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 12:47pm

Obama basically says if their is a bloodbath there is nothing we can do about it

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/21/07 at 2:23pm

There is a bloodbath already and there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it.

Posted: 7/21/07 at 7:27pm

THERE IS NO PAPER CALLED THE TREASON TIME YOU STUPID PIECE OF DOG _____. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR THIRD GRADE NAMECALLING. GOT IT?

No more will I post on a thread that you have besmirched with your third grade attempts at wit.

Begone. Updated On: 7/21/07 at 07:27 PM

[HDThoreau2]

Posted: 7/22/07 at 1:17am

Have you seen the Sunday Treason Times?

Do you agree with the editorial board at the Treason Times?