If we quit Iraq will 15 Million people be slaughtered like animals like when we left Vietnam?

Question

I mean it's the same thing. Crazy gun toteing people from the country next door will fund a civil war and kill all the intelectuals and people that supported us. We didn't know this would happen in 'Nam for sure but now we know it this time because history repeats itself. Can we live with the blood of so many intentionaly soaking our hands so we can save our few brave soldiers? Speaking of them what do you think they feel about this? Do you think they want to run away at let all these people die?

Answer 1

Easily that many. The Kurds will be victims of the worst case of Genocide in thousands of years.

Answer 2

But Vietnam is still on the earth and its people are doing well now. They don't even hate Americans.

It will take a while to reach a new equilibrium after the old one was destroyed, it's painful but not impossible.

The problem has been in the region in thousands of years, don't think a country with 200 years history has a recipe for all problems, a big part of the world is beyond Americans' comprehension.

Answer 3

If we leave, it is extremely unlikely that 15 million Iraqi's would die. This is based on historical data of masscres and civil wars. Typically, the same people that do the fighting and killing are also your work force. Even if the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites do all fall upon each other, you still need people back in the heart of their territory to continue to procure food, fuel, etc...

Right now, the best guess is that somewhere between 35,000 and 50,000 Iraqis are dying violently each year. Claims on the order of 500k+ are badly discredited due to poor samplimg methodiology.

Historically, once 20% of a country's population has been killed it means that you don't have anyone left to keep on fighting. You're down to old men, women, and infants, and a few young men left to maintain basic necessities. When considering Iraq it must be noted Arabic culture in recent history doesn't make it a habit of killing all the women and children after winning a war. Typically once you win you enforce you will Saddam style. So, even if one side does completely conquer another, it is unlikely that they will commit genocide after the ability to resist is gone. This does not mean there won't be widespread atrocities, just not a Nazi like organized policy of extermination.

So, what does this all mean to Iraq? Essentially, if we leave and the absolute worst case scenario occurrs where each side fights to exhaustion without a winner, the death toll shouldn't exceed 5.2 million based on historical precedent.

Answer 4

I don't think the toll in post-Fall of Saigon Vietnam was that high, even if you include the 'genocide' in Camodia.

I doubt that whoever won the resultant civil war would have to kill something like half the country's population to consolidate it's control. So, while a lot more may die than have been killed in the war so far, I doubt it'd be 15 million.


Can we live with the blood of so many intentionaly soaking our hands so we can save our few brave soldiers?

Yes. It's not like we haven't done it before.

Answer 5

First, I don't even think there were 15 million people in Vietnam by 1975! Many thousands who had supported the US were killed, and something like 200,000 refugees fled the country, but most were happy the Americans were gone and the war was over.

Second, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and stopped Pol Pot's slaughter, so I don't see the comparison to Iraq.

Third, yes, many would die if the US pulled out, but it seems like they are dying by the thousands even with us there! Over 30,000 civilians died in 2006. The total is well over 100,000. We would have to double US forces at least to stop this killing.

The best option is to partition Iraq into at least 3 nations, Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia, and have US/UN/NATO peacekeepers patrol the borders and keep the groups separated. It worked in Yugoslavia. I don't understand why no one in the US government is discussing this option.

Answer 6

I would like to know what other options we have. If we leave the troops in Iraq, won't thousands (where'd you get the 15 mil figure from? honest question.) of people die anyhow? And wouldn't you say that thousands are already being "slaughtered like animals"? I would say so. With war comes death and there are only so many ways we can keep the death toll from rising. So what do you suggest we do? As for the soldiers' point of view, I don't think anyone but the soldiers themselves has any room to talk about how they "feel" about all this. They wouldn't be "running away" from this war, I know that much, because the decision to pull out will be that of the government and those soldiers won't have much say in the decision to stay or not.

Answer 7

15 Million people killed after we left Viet Nam is a gross exaggeraton. Many people were sent to reeducation camps, the economy sucked there was widespread repression and millions of refugess left the country but 15 Million killed, no. Maybe you are confusing Vietnam with Cambodia under Pol Pot where up to 3 million people where killer by the Kyhmer Rouge (interesting that CommunistVietnam invaded Cambodia to stop Pol Pol's killing spree) . It certainly was pretty horrible for a lot of people, no doubt.. But saying that a number equal to the entire population of Cambodia were slaugthered after we left Vietnam is quite a stretch.

In Iraq they are already killing teachers doctors professionals etc. and millions them have already left the country.

I don't claim to know exactly what will happen if we leave but I don't think 15 million slaughtered is a forgone conclusion if withdrawal is done intellentgently and some kind of non US peacekeeping force is put in place of our troops, who the majority of Iraqis want out due to the incompentence of the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam - the damge of that can't be undone. There are alternatives to your scenario but BUsh and Co. are doing nothing to explore them and continue to push a failed policy.

Answer 8

I find it hard to believe you are sincerely concerned with the lives of Iraqi civilians. As someone previously noted, there have been hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed since we invaded, and add to that the number of injured and displaced (the refugee crisis for Iraqis is staggering) and you'll realize that it can't get much worse for Iraqis. It's no coincidence that people like you consistently ignore the atrocities that are being carried out daily to sustain this war of plunder. I'd be surprised if you had a humanitarian bone in your body.

You pro-war types will try any angle you can to get people to back this criminal war. First you tried to use fear, and when that fell through, you tried to talk about spreading Democracy. When everyone realized you were full of **** and only in it to control the oil, you told us that we needed to support the troops who were in harm's way. When we told you to take them out of harm's way, you respond, "Think of the Iraqis." Well guess what? We have been thinking about the Iraqis, and unlike you we actually listen to them when they say they don't want us occupying their country.

Your time is up, chickenhawk. We're taking back this country, and you better step aside.

Answer 9

Probably not that many but it would definitely be a large number, and who can tell who is going to wind up taking control..

Answer 10

The libs are our biggest enemy as of now because theyre in some control (they aren't fit for it) but anyway it will be a slaughter if we leave, Vietnam is a good example