Get Out of Iraq [Archive] - Outpost Nine Forums

ruaidhri

06-05-2006, 07:10 PM

I am very aware that this is primarily a forum for young people. True, there are a number of older members of which I am probably the oldest. Still, youth predominates.

War mostly impacts the young. They are the soldiers and sailors that risk their lives to put teeth in a country’s foreign policy. Many die and many more are injured fighting for their country. As an American and as a veteran I applaud our men and women in uniform for standing up to serve their country and its people. I believe our government has a special obligation to these brave men and women that demands that there be a clear purpose behind each military action large or small.

There have been a number of threads on this forum that have discussed Iraq and America’s actions. My posts in those threads revealed that while I was from the outset opposed to military action I didn’t believe a sudden unilateral withdrawal was in the best interest of the U.S., the Iraqis or the world. As the war has continued unabated fewer Americans see hope that our occupation forces will produce positive results for any party other than those growing rich off the suffering.

Urban warfare, religious fanaticism and suicidal terrorist actions reveal an enemy without a uniform. Our troops have no idea who may be delivering death to their doorstep and are often forced to treat all Iraqis as potential enemies. As a result, Americans kill and maim many innocent Iraqi men, women and children. Now we’re reading about atrocities committed by Americans. I wonder how a soldier can react to the death of a comrade without a bit of temporary anger, fear and insanity. Yet, it is they, not their insulated leaders in comfortable offices far from the action who face punishment.

I question if we still have that clear purpose I believe should always be present. From my old man perspective, we are not building peace, security and democracy. Instead, I believe, we are reacting to our own real fears with bullets. We are not building friendships; we are developing hatreds.

So, contrary to the message I delivered in previous posts in previous threads, I now believe the whole world would be better served if the U.S. were to pack up and leave Iraq. It would be, I propose, the lesser of two evils.

The Republic

06-05-2006, 07:17 PM

armchair warriors are the bane of the U.S. military. interesting you switched you views, as my dad did so just recently as well after about 4 years of supporting the war. This situation is one which will only be solved by the clerics, immams, and interpreters of Islam. Only they, not an army, can awaken the religion from its current slip into blind radicalism.

living with eyes closed is easy, and the fervor of the middle east has illustrated this in the last half century...

Orclover

06-05-2006, 07:34 PM

I agree. Pull out of Iraq, pull into Iran and start over. When we leave Iraq station bullet proof hidden cameras in every corner of the country to record the ensueing chaos behind us for future posterity and history books, that and it should make years of great television for the masses.

After Iran we could move on to Syria in a few years as we work our way through the middle east. Eventually we wont actually need to invade a country to destroy it we will simply need to inform its populace that we are comming to "help them from thier tyrant" and watch them eat each other while we save on ammo. When all the the middle eastern (and asian eventually, they are looking at us funny lately) nations are too busy throwing rocks at each other again they wont have time to annoy the western powers who can go back to whatever it was we were doing in 2000.

I like this plan ruaidhri! I am proud to be a part of it :D

Orclover

06-05-2006, 07:55 PM

I dissagree on all points, you see the War On Terror is madness. But it was born from madness. The attacks on the west were madness from before 9/11 through the latest fun and excitement in Canada. The reasons for those attacks was even more madness and the defense against them or for them, hah, the ultimate of self-delusion.

The west war against something it can never get its hands on is insane, the only thing more insane would be to do nothing and keep taking the hits, the only thing more insane than that would be to surrender or negotiate with the roots of this madness. The only logical answer to this is an answer that is far more insane than any of this, thankfully we are not that crazy. But dont kid yourselves, there is no sane way to fix all this, at best we can merely continue at the rate we are going with small choices as to where the explosions happen.

Keep terrorist out of our country? lol, hell we cant even keep out the illegals and the drugs, and now were talking about a group thats alot more motivated. My answer? set up the planets largest electric light bug zapper and fortify your stomach for the ensueing mess. If you cant do that then get used to being stung. *BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT*

setrict

06-05-2006, 08:39 PM

Mastiker

06-05-2006, 09:19 PM

First the "War on Terror".

This has to go, and the sooner the better. A War on an ideology is just nuts. The side effects of this little war on terror have had more negative impact than 1000's of 9/11's. The culture of fear, invasion of privacy, and the inability of the goverment to police it's own actions is much, much more critical in the long run than Iraq. I swear I'm thinking about starting a new political compaign focused soley on removing incumbents. I think that's how I'm going to vote from now on, the best new guy get's my vote. We need some fresh blood that hasn't been poisoned yet by the corruption.

here here! (or is it "hear hear"?... who uses that phrase anymore?)

Second the Iraq War.

We made a mess. We clean it up. I feel for the troop loss, and the civilian casualties, but I think we need to stick with it and finish what was started. Yep! I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I say it each time someone brings up the Iraq War. It's going to take a while before we can safely take our own troops out of Iraq. Granted, I'm not exactly all "YAY! War!" but if America was to pull out its troops now, more innocent people would die. Also granted, it wouldn't be at the hands of American troops, but that doesn't matter. An innocent's death is an innocent's death. I would much rather that American troops are regulating the action in a foriegn country that is a possible known threat... that phrase sounds kind of stupid, but you get what I mean.

Third, the dumb people have got to go.

If you think I might be referring to you, you're probably safe. The truly dumb people are the ones who are so self absorbed in their own righteousness that they can't consider the fact that they might be wrong and are hell bent on forcing their own beliefs on others.
nail, on, the, head.

After Iran we could move on to Syria in a few years as we work our way through the middle east. Eventually we wont actually need to invade a country to destroy it we will simply need to inform its populace that we are comming to "help them from thier tyrant" and watch them eat each other while we save on ammo. When all the the middle eastern (and asian eventually, they are looking at us funny lately) nations are too busy throwing rocks at each other again they wont have time to annoy the western powers who can go back to whatever it was we were doing in 2000.

Unless my teacher's information is incorrect, there is also a problem in Sudan. Supposedly, we're supposed to be saving the Sudanese under some "genocide" prevention bull or something. I think that America should just stick out of things for a while. The rest of the world (or, enough of the world >.>) is peeved at us because we're "policing" the world. Unless there's a threat to our welfare (as we thought in the Middle East) we should stay out of whatever it is.

Trump

06-05-2006, 09:40 PM

I strongly believe just up and leaving Iraq would be disasterous. I will give one historical example. After World War 1, we just left. We didn't stay and help rebuild, we didn't do anything. We returned to our isolationist policy of the day, and what happened? It left Germany ripe for another maniac to take over and in the end it left millions of innocent and even more millions of non-innocents dead. After World Ware 2 we stayed. Germany has recovered and their economy and culture has rebounded (finally).

If we left Iraq who do you think would assume power? I guarantee it wouldn't be the ones who want peace, no I believe it would be the one willing to do the most horrifying things to his contenders.

I really don't know what we are doing over there. You are right, we have lost our focus. But I think we just need to find the focus, act as a police force. People need to get it through their heads we are NOT fighting a war, we are aiding the state of Iraq. We are supporting an overextended police force in a country full of criminal activity. If we continue to call it a "War on terror" it isn't going to help!

Maybe we need to look at Israel as an example. They removed all of the Jewish settlers from Gaza and pulled out. Maybe we need to separate the groups who hate each other and form separate countries. There are tons of things to do but no one wants to really consider the other "less evil" solutions. But pulling out the way things are now would lead to total chaos and catastrophe.

Dahvood

06-06-2006, 01:23 AM

I'm still undecided as to whether we should have gone into Iraq in the first place, but now that we are there, I think we should see the job done.
After the fall of Sudan, the occupying forces are at least filling the resulting power vacuum. Sure, there is daily violence and tragedy at the moment, but I think it would probably pale in comparison to a full scale civil war for dominance.
Having said that, I would like to see a bit more focus, as others have mentioned. All that really seems to be happening is we find the largest group of insurgents we can, and stamp on them.

paul

06-06-2006, 02:35 AM

Unless my teacher's information is incorrect, there is also a problem in Sudan. Supposedly, we're supposed to be saving the Sudanese under some "genocide" prevention bull or something. I think that America should just stick out of things for a while. The rest of the world (or, enough of the world >.>) is peeved at us because we're "policing" the world. Unless there's a threat to our welfare (as we thought in the Middle East) we should stay out of whatever it is.

Yes, I really dislike people who say: "we" should go after this country, and then this country, because they are "problems". As if its no big deal. It is a big deal, for every civilian, and soldier that die, you need to remember that they too have individual lives, just like you. They have lived 10, 20, 30 and more years of their lives, with their individual memories, with friends, family. Not merely just collateral damage as a consequence their government being a "problem".

Every person that thinks America should freely "go after" countries in a carefree manner needs to think about this.

Buckwheat

06-06-2006, 02:54 AM

I have not supported the Iraq war at any time. I have never protested the war in any fashion either. I'm in college and I have work to do, I don't intend to trouble myself with other people's mistakes. Especially when I am not in a position to do anything about it.

I do know that no matter how long the US is in Iraq, nothing will change. If the US left today or ten years from now the government would still collapse on itself. Why? Because the Iraqi people did not earn freedom. Another country charged in and desposed of the regime and said, "Look your free now." Minutes later the riots started and the next weeks/months were devoted to imposing some sort of order. Now the US wants the factions that have been divided for a very long time to work together and build a nation. Wishful thinking.

ruaidhri

06-06-2006, 03:16 AM

I’m rather shocked at how little thought subsequent posters gave to real solutions that have potential for actually working. Iraq is dangerous because I don’t believe we can’t solve it applying our Western standards of behavior.

Rather than respond to other posts, I’m going to go over my initial statement. I wrote that war is fought by young people. I don’t believe there can be any argument that they are the ones being killed. They are the ones coming home without arms and legs. They are the ones coming home with severe damage from having their brains rattled around by roadside bombs. I believe they deserve a leadership with clear objectives that are attainable in a Middle-East culture. That, I believe, is not what we now have.

No matter how hard we try we can not make Iraqis into Southern Baptists or even Northern Episcopalians. We also can not erase centuries of distrust and actual hatreds between the different religious groups found in the Middle East. The truth is that like Vietnam we often find it impossible to identify our enemy. When in doubt, our troops understandably shoot first and ask questions later. As a result we kill non combatant men, women and, yes, even children. Is there any doubt that we are the best recruiters for future terrorists.

We say we want to bring a democracy to the Middle-East. That is indeed a lofty goal but is it attainable in our lifetime? Consider for a moment what is required for a democracy to work. Foremost a democracy requires that the minority accept the majority’s rule. Do you honestly see that happening in Iraq? I don’t. So, what happens? Do we spend the next ten, twenty years, billions of dollars and countless lives on all sides policing the Middle-East. I sure hope to God we don’t.

I was originally of the opinion that it would be disastrous for the U.S. to just get up and leave. I believed the vacuum our departure created would be filled with civil war and the worst possible government. This, I believed would be dangerous for the entire Persian Gulf, which, like it or not, is vital to our national energy demands.

But now I question if our continued presence is nothing more than a new crusade. With all the death and destruction, I question if many Iraqis truly “enjoy” America’s occupation because no matter how you sugar-coat it, that’s what it is, an occupation force.

So getting real about the problem, what can be done to bolster Iraq? Suggesting that we “stay the course” simply because we’re not quitters has the same logic as the captain going down with his sinking ship. It’s stupid!

But, what’s the alternative? We’ve created the problem with our invasion that used faulty intelligence. Iraq was not a party to the September 11th attack on America. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq never was a serious threat to America’s security. Iraq was, however, an embarrassment to George Bush senior and junior. Now, the weight of Iraq could drag our economy and our freedoms down with it just like a ship sinking in the sea.

I believe we need to enlist the aid of other Muslim countries. Let them police Iraq. Let them sort out the different factions. Let them restore order without Western interference. We may not always like their methods but I’ll bet they work better than ours.

Kannon

06-06-2006, 03:40 AM

The fact is, no matter the choices the U.S. makes; we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. In my opinion, it was extremely wrong for us to invade Iraq, as we had unfinished business in Afghanistan. Now that we are there, I honestly can't say whether it would be a better idea for us to stick it out, or jump ship at the moment. Like previously stated, us leaving -will- create a vacuum of immense proportions regarding many different aspects. Muslim countries police Iraq? Not a chance. All hell is breaking loose and it is our fault. The Muslim nation wants nothing to do with our mess. If we jet and think the Muslim countries will police Iraq, the only thing that will accomplish is the immediate decimation of any good we have done with their government, and a Saddamesque regime will rise in its place, as the only people willing to fight are the ones that think we shouldn't be there. The ones happy we took Saddam out of power have stated many times that we have worn out our welcome, but when it comes down to it the next one to put pressure on them will again have the upper hand.

What are we to do? Sadly the only choice I see is staying in country for a minimum of two more years. What happens in two years? Presidential election. Once Bush is gone, some fresh blood may have a chance at cleaning up this mess.

Orclover

06-06-2006, 04:07 AM

But, what’s the alternative? We’ve created the problem with our invasion that used faulty intelligence. Iraq was not a party to the September 11th attack on America. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq never was a serious threat to America’s security. Iraq was, however, an embarrassment to George Bush senior and junior. Now, the weight of Iraq could drag our economy and our freedoms down with it just like a ship sinking in the sea.

Lord knows they arent a embarrassment to them now :) Serriously though you lost me up until that last point, our economy however up and down it may ever be, has weathered far worse storms than Iraq. As for our freedoms, two words: Second Amendment. No matter how many "freedoms" we lose, we can always demand them back (when all of us are asking), and if we dont get them by vote.....

I believe we need to enlist the aid of other Muslim countries. Let them police Iraq. Let them sort out the different factions. Let them restore order without Western interference. We may not always like their methods but I’ll bet they work better than ours.

The difference between another muslim country committing atrocoties and our own soldiers committing atrocities is that instead of looking in the mirror in disgust like we are, instead we would get to stay home and go to bed with a warm fuzzy feeling thinking we arent the bad guys. I got news for the kids out there, there arent any good guys, there havent been any since 1949. But I agree if we arent going to abstolutely assbeat the neighbor muslim countries in the near future (like Iran) then lets give them lip service (political blowjobs if you will) and bribes and bring them into the equasion as partners so they can critique our torturing techniques or we can merely observe thiers and take notes from the masters at work. Mind you if we did bring in a neighbor country then either the Shia (If saudi's) or Sunnis (if Iranians) will throw a shitfit the likes we still have yet to see in magnitude. :gloomy: Hell they would be duct taping grenades to screaming babies by the dozens and tossing them into CNN vans with the pins pulled.

Mind you I am not dissagree'ing that it would be a bad idea, but serriously, be honest about what it is to do that.

Oh and add on to the likely list of future invasion sites: Somalia! yep, again! The Federal Islamic Council has now gotten complete control over Mogidishu and the majority of Somalia, backed by Al-Q. We either invade (not likely) or watch in horror as the reformation of Taliban II ELECTRIC BOOGALOO hits your CNN screens, comming soon! Its the greatest game of whack-a-mole but you cant use your good hammers.

ruaidhri I love the way you put it (whenever you say whatever), I just dont agree with it enough. :innocent:

setrict

06-06-2006, 05:22 AM

Ruaidhri: You are very right, and I apologize for not suggesting a solution. Sometimes I get caught up in my own ranting, and forget that ranting by itself doesn't actually fix anything. Though it can be satisfying sometimes. Let me try to outline what I would suggest as an alternative to both the current actions, and complete withdraw.

A smooth transition to a representitive government is not going to happen. I'll bring up the US Civil War as another example. It's been over 150 years, and we still have people in this country brandishing confederate flags, though most have stopped shooting each other. Or atleast stopped shooting each other over civil war issues. Take what you can get I guess.

To try and develop a peaceful, stable goverment in 6 years with 12 different factions is just not going to happen. Any solution here will be very long in coming, after many decades of work. It should'tt mean decades of military occupation.

What I think might work is building pockets of safety, and making them great places to live. Safe havens to show how it -can- be without the violence. A place where they can build goverment on a small scale, and see that it can work.

We don't need to eliminate insurgents. We need to establish places where a peaceful way of life can grow relatively unrepressed. If this takes airport level security at the gates and miles upon miles of chainlink fence then so be it. What is needed there is something that the Iraqi people can see the value of, and want to protect. It's the people with nothing to lose that are dangerous. Give the people who want a chance at peace a place to come.

I'd like to see a concentration of troop presence in a few critical locations focused on enforcing the peace and training police (not soldiers), and providing protection for development workers. We may only be able to secure a few relatively small areas this way, but if you can build a -good- place it will grow. Ideally these havens can become self-policing internally, and free up the coalitions forces to provide mobile support to the Iraqi police forces to handle any large scale attacks on the other havens. It' easier to defend than attack, and you will be far more likely to gain the support of the people by focusing on defense.

For you chemists out there, we need to provide the seeds so a crystal can grow. If you watch ice freeze (you're on OP9, ya got the time), it always starts with a few seed crystals, to which more and more water molecules attach to. An ice cube doesn't freeze all at once, it slowly builds up from these seed crystals. Right now our government is bent on trying to eliminate liquid water so we are left with only ice. We should be doing is forming seeds for Iraqi society to crystalise on, and trying to cool the situation down.

These havens local governments do NOT need to be representive of the country as a whole. If you are establishing one in a Sunni region, then it should be Sunni run. Trying to inject other tribes is just asking for trouble. Our biggest mistake was trying to build a national government as a democracy to soon. The top down approach is a big mistake in this kind of conflict. We need to start small, do it right, and slowly work to the top letting the Iraqi people find their own way. Even if the end result is not what -we- want (ie a democracy).

Druid

06-06-2006, 05:36 AM

I wish that these damned bastards would come out and fight like men instead of hiding behind women and children. Cowardly they be....

Darth_E_

06-06-2006, 05:58 AM

Let me ask this question for the democracy-advocates here. Let's suppose that Iraq was finally democratized and all that fluffy stuff then had it's first presidential election, in which a leader with the characteristics of Saddam Hussein wins the election. Would your country respect that decision or not? Because if it did, then it would be approving a new tyrant. If not, then it would go against the very basic tenants it claims to have established , democracy. Either way, it would be going against the very reasons it claimed to have "liberated" iraq from. All in all, this is one big mess you guys are in now and in my humble opinion, will turn out to be worse than Vietnam.

As for that comment about rebuilding Iraq...gimme a break. I don't see any rebuilding anywhere. Heck, you haven't rebuilt afghanistan yet.

h2orowe

06-06-2006, 06:36 AM

We should have never entered Iraq. We should focus on the issues going on in our country. Like how we went from a 5.6 Trillion dollar surplus, to a 5.6 Trillion dollar defecit. Or the whole Enron scandal. Or how Bush repealed numerous environmental laws/acts. Or how we're losing millions of dollars in tax money because rich people can afford to buy P.O. boxes in places like Bermuda that exempt them from paying taxes.

I'm sure what I'm about to say will be mixed, but yeah, all of my posts are pretty much brainstorming ideas for posts and they don't get any point across, unless you disect them or something, anyway.

I'm getting sick of all this pro-Bush stuff. They say "Oh, he messed up, he's only human." Yeah. He had his chance to do mess ups as a kid, and as a teenager, but having a C grade President shouldn't fly for the world's super power country. I'm sick of seeing people waving around like "I'm so proud to be a sister of a marine who is in Iraq". Now I'm all for supporting our troops, but they seem to flaunt that their brother is a soldier. How can you be proud of that? I mean.. your brother is being sent away for a while just to kill people. War is not something to be proud of, a victory in war should be mourned, not celebrated.

In either 10 years, or the year 2010 (I forgot what year), the top richest 1% of our country will be getting 50% of our country's tax relief. If that isn't ridicolous, I don't know what is. I've come to the realization that this land is the home of the free. This meaning that we have the freedom to say what we want, and the freedom to vote for who we want. Even if we can say what we want, though, that doesn't guarantee that our voice will be heard.

Anyway, even though this is the land of the free, this doesn't mean that this is the land of the equal. America has always discriminated against some type of person, whether it be the Germans, Irish, Blacks, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Koreans, Women, Handicaps, Communists, Gays, Lesbians, and the Poor. If you're different, you've been discriminated against; people fear change, politcians are people with more power than others, so they think they have a right to oppress. Currently in America, it seems that the ones who are being discriminated against the most are Gays/Lesbians and the Poor. There are many great thinkers out there, who will not be heard because they like people of the same gender, or because they don't have the money to heard.

The point of this post:
With problems facing our country, still today, such as the patriot act, pollution, and poverty, I think we should fix ourselves before we fix anyone else. Bush has, or so it seems, set out to try and be a hero for the world; he fights against terrorists, but with all this invasion into people's home countries, he's really giving the people reasons to be terrorists.

I am like a dormant volcano. I am but 15 years old, with a sophomore education. Give me a decade, and I will awaken, and erupt all over this "land of freedom" with a new wave of change. I shall set right the wrongs that have been made.

Druid

06-06-2006, 06:39 AM

Good luck with that, byo. *whistles*

h2orowe

06-06-2006, 06:49 AM

Good luck with that, byo. *whistles*
I was kinda joking. I don't want to get involved with politics, but I would like to do something to help the environment. Yes. The environment.

Druid

06-06-2006, 07:00 AM

Fudge the damn environment as it were for now. Taint nothin we can do short of stopiing all industry around the world to change the way things are now. And we all know that ain't gonna happen. Plus, the sun is gonna explode anyway. Will destroy everything this side of Mars say thankya. Yarr, a word of advice to ya. The rational man adapts himself to the world around him. The irrational man tries to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the irrational man.

Jon885

06-06-2006, 07:25 AM

Our relationship with the Islamic world is strained to say the least, so letting them police Iraq would not be the best option. We never should've entered Iraq in the first place imo, and maybe pulling out would be a good idea, but I can't think of an effective strategy on how to make that work without the cival war there getting worse.

(Edit it appears some marines confessed to killing a man without provocation. Just found this out, and I'm not sure if these are the atrocities you're talking about, so I'll take that first part back)

Beowulf

06-06-2006, 07:36 AM

What I think might work is building pockets of safety, and making them great places to live. Safe havens to show how it -can- be without the violence. A place where they can build goverment on a small scale, and see that it can work.
Setrict, while this is a nice idea, it's just not feasible. Sure it would be possible to create these havens (let's call them Enclaves instead, it fits better) but would it be a practical solution? The problem is that it would divide the country further. It would allow the terrorists to say look at how such-and-such people are getting treated by the American devils! The enclaves would be targeted and ultimately destroyed. Yes, they would be easier to defend, but you'd be sacrificing the rest of the country to the wolves.

As to how to fix the country, I say ask India. With all the different languages, religions, ethnicities, etc. they still somehow got their democracy to run relatively smoothly. The thing is, America could never set up a democracy in the middle east because the middle east hates America. If Hitler rose from the grave, conquered America, then set up a new government, would you just let that happen? We have to keep in mind that that's how they see us. We're not merry liberators, we're crusaders, destroyers of everything they hold dear. That's the propoganda they've been fed for over half a century, we can't just get them to change their minds overnight.

These atrocoties. Have they been investigated yet? How is everybody absolutely sure these solders commited the atrocoties? I know it happens, but have these soldiers been to trial yet?
Not when the military covers it up for half a year.
Haditha rhymes with Attica. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/04/time.cover/index.html)

The Republic

06-06-2006, 12:00 PM

setrict, your haven idea sounds like the mistake the pentagon made during vietnam. We largely lost the war because we were not allowed to attack the enemy (no US troops or anything could strike into NV territory, we had to wait for them to come to us, hence the tet offensive.)

Heres my sollution: I say we leave Iraq. Now. The situation will not get any better, and the people will not love democracy anymore because they did not earn it. The reason the US is so democratic is because we strugled for 2 decades to get out from under despotic colonial home rule, and when we finally freed ourselves, we were very proud of ourselves because we did it against the (at the time) best military in the world, and so we wanted to live in a government far from what we had fought against. Hence, the american republic was born. However, the Iraqis have had no such struggle. They have not fought for it, so they do not yet see the full value of it. Much like what buckwheat said, they will not embrace democracy until they get fed up enough to die for it like america, france, etc did.

So in essence, the best thing we can do right now it leave. Sure it throws away billions of dollars that we invested in the war, but those monies were unjustly spent and for shaky reasons (WMDs) in the first place. In this, there is no sense in spending any more money and lives for a goal which political and military history, as well as human psychology clearly shows will not be acheived.

Furthermore, this iraq war is more akin to vietnam than it is to WW1 or WW2. Hitler rose in WW2 because of rediculous things WE imposed on his country (war debt, complete resonsibility for the war). A government that rises to power in Iraq after we leave (whatever it may be) will not be born, coincidentally, of our own lack of foresight.

Furthermore, I think the war on terrorism is foolish because ideas are, at the end of the day, more powerful than bullets. Why? I guess just because people allow themselves to get sucked into radicalism and seeing only one side/way out of a situation. The best thing we can do is be as un-antagonistic as possible to the islamics, and give them as little 'fuel' as possible for their flames of hatred, and eventually, terrorism will subside. That is, if it has not subsided already by the other means of my first post on this thread.

The politicians of our day have become too concerned with issues that DO NOT pertain to the well being of the people who elected them...

I am beginnig to see so many things, as I grow older (and completed my AP US government and history classes this year) that are wrong with this country's government and policies. (take the pork barrel scandals, heinous lobbying influence on capitol hill, and corrution against the public like patriot act and the social security mess.) It makes me see that, although this countries' government was formed in good intent, it has steadily become more and more skewed over the decades and centuries and is in DIRE need of change.

Trump

06-06-2006, 12:41 PM

The reason the government in the US worked was because it was centered around a federation of states. The states maintained control over their domain and the federal government oversaw matters that affected more than one state: interstate commerce, foreign policy, etc. Slowly overtime it has evolved so that the federal government takes more and more responsibility for everything.

I don't know exactly what type of system is being set up in Iraq, but from what I understand it is NOT a monarchy. I thought it seemed more like Great Britain with a parliament and prime minister. With that system there is no way a despot could gain control unless the parliament supported him, which really means he isn't a despot right?

I do agree with Setrict. I believe we need to be more passive in Iraq. We need to let the Iraqis fight their battle while we just help where we are asked. I don't understand how it is a war, who are we hunting down? It is more of a police effort now, but it isn't represented that way to the American people. The burden of peace needs to be shifted to the Iraqis with American support, not with an American spearhead. But I still believe leaving would not solve anything.

Mastiker

06-06-2006, 01:54 PM

We say we want to bring a democracy to the Middle-East. That is indeed a lofty goal but is it attainable in our lifetime? Consider for a moment what is required for a democracy to work. Foremost a democracy requires that the minority accept the majority’s rule. Do you honestly see that happening in Iraq? I don’t. So, what happens? Do we spend the next ten, twenty years, billions of dollars and countless lives on all sides policing the Middle-East. I sure hope to God we don’t.

so... Iraqi's don't want democracy?

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

right. that's why they have a president.

i can't find the source, but i'm pretty sure there was a better voter turnout in Iraq than there was for the last election in the U.S.

Iraq wants democracy, and this isn't a new thing.

edit: rather, not Iraq as a whole, but enough Iraqi's do.

ruaidhri

06-06-2006, 02:20 PM

Kannon, I agree nothing will probably happen until Bush is gone and we have a new President and a new Secretary of Defense. At present, I seriously question how much good our presence actually produces. I believe that even the Iraqis that don’t want us to leave consider us nothing more than a necessary evil. In the meantime our troops are stuck in a holding pattern. Their role is reactionary and often necessarily vicious. There’s the rub. When a young soldier or marine sees his friend, his buddy blown up into pieces with no uniformed identifiable enemy how should we expect him to react? Where is the border between reasonable and atrocity?

While I believe Iraq was never a military threat to America it’s geographic location certainly makes it an economic threat. The Persian Gulf is vital to our interests. That’s why I originally favored staying until the job was done. But, now, I doubt if the job will ever be done. I don’t believe we’re moving forward. We’re in a holding pattern with a nation tired of the war and a Congress facing new elections. I seriously believe we will not stay much beyond Bush’s presidency regardless of where the Iraqis are in governing themselves. With that in mind, I don’t see any benefit to our staying another day.

Setrict, a far better solution than what we’re currently doing in Iraq. It builds on success rather than reacts to failure. It recognizes culture differences and encourages unified city-states. I actually believe it could be successful. But, what it wouldn’t do is erase the distrust and hatred between the different sects. Regardless of what we do I would be surprised if the end result were not a civil war that eventually involved the other Middle-Eastern countries.

Meanwhile, our soldiers and marines are suffering death and unbelievable injury for a battle that can’t be won. I’m a Vietnam era veteran. This is all very familiar to me. We eventually abandoned Vietnam. We’ll do the same with Iraq. What happens following our departure will, I believe, happen regardless of whether we stay another day, year or ten years.

No one can argue that the lives lost and dollars spent on a battle that can’t be won are a cost that destroys more opportunities than it creates. With Iraq, we are in a lose-lose predicament where the only reasonable reaction is to walk quickly to the nearest exit.

H2orowe, wow! It hard for me to believe you are only 15; you are wise far beyond your years. Work hard in school. Get a good education because without that key the doors will not be opened. You have a lot of fire and emotion that must be shared with the world. You’re alright in my book!

Beowulf, yes creating enclaves would create jealousies. Every time we tried to take one step forward we’d fall back two. There are far too many people intent on destruction for any real success to flourish.

Yes, India is an interesting alternative. But, then again, India has had its hatreds between its own religious groups, It still has internal battles that are often bloody. Yes, it’s a democracy that works but it’s not a Muslim nation and I don’t believe it would be any more welcome than America.

The Republic, I’m impressed. You have very good insight. It’s people like you that give me hope for the future. You correctly foresee that the U.S. can expect no reasonable return on its investment of men and dollars on Iraq. It’s time for us to cut our losses and let them earn their own freedom. Then and only then will it be something they will fight for.

Trump, I agree with you that leaving will not solve Iraq’s problems. It will however solve America’s problem with Iraq. Actually, I don’t believe we’d ever be able to solve Iraq’s problems. They must do that for themselves. Our presence only makes that more difficult.

Edit to add response to Mastiker..
Yes, certainly many Iraqis would like a democracy. If you read my statement you'll note that I wrote they would have to be willing to lose for it to be successful. The minority has to accept majority rule. That's what I don't see happening in Iraq.

Mastiker

06-06-2006, 02:30 PM

edit: nevermind :P

seriously though... our presidency will not back out of Iraq until this is finished. the next president to come along will probably be the one that claims they will do all they can to end the "war" as swiftly as possible. that's even worse in my opinion. the only thing to end the insurgency is to see it through. but do you know why our presidency won't back out? is it because Iraq is economically necessary to our country's oil supply? not entirely. we still have texas and alaska to drain oil from, not to mention plenty of other countries with oil. is it because we wish Iraq not to have an insane dictator? partially. we were fine with Suddam for the most part until recently. is it because our presidency has too much pride, and not enough intelligence?... yep! (and by intelligence i refer to the CIA, not actual intelligence :P)

Trump

06-06-2006, 04:24 PM

What percentage of our oil do we actually get from the Persian Gulf?

Resolut

06-06-2006, 06:05 PM

I don't know how to make the quote bubbles, but here's what ruadihri said: "Yes, certainly many Iraqis would like a democracy. If you read my statement you'll note that I wrote they would have to be willing to lose for it to be successful. The minority has to accept majority rule. That's what I don't see happening in Iraq."

Eventually the minority will accept majority rule. Just because they haven't yet, doesn't mean they won't eventually. I've seen the Civil War mentioned; The Confederacy didn't accept the Unions terms, so they segregrated. The country was split in two, and it was mended again. Almost two centuries later, and we still have arguements over the same things as we did back then. America isn't a perfect country, and while the minority in this country isn't nearly as violent as Iraq, we still have problems where the minority doesn't accept the majority. Now, though, we understand democracy better. We're allowed to change things through our words, not our actions. If the entire world could change things through words, there would be no more, or at least significantly less, war. However, people still fight. It won't be until all people understand that war is meaningless and words are the true power that all will be right. For now though, we Americans should stay in Iraq, if only to clean up the mess we made.

The Republic

06-06-2006, 06:59 PM

Resolut, you can say that words are more powerful than wars, but that is only if the entire human population is rational and can accept swallowing their ego/pride when their wrong in a forum other than the battlefield. Sadly, although I think this day will eventually come when humanity can rise above violence against their fellow man, it wont come for many many centuries.

Ruidiari, such praise from a forum memeber whom I consider probobly the wisest here is much appreciated.

if you observe the sitution, US involvement in the middle eastern islamic crisis is foolish beyond description. It is essentailly a blazing fire of hatred, militarism, and extremism... one which we dropped our soldiers and tax payer money directly into... and they're still there. In this, I fall back to my previous overview that this inferno can only be doused from the source, hence taking away the fuel (reasons) for Islamic hatred of the west like our occupation in Iraq and our (what the hell are we doing) support of Isreal against the palestinian world. Either that, or the inferno will burn itself out once the muslim world comes to its senses and holds a mirror up to itself.

stop blatantly supporting isreal... they can defend on their own and it is only making islamics angrier. thats one quick step in the right direction.

My view seems somewhat manipulative but it is valid... Why do the grunt work when:
1 the citizens of iraq would have likely revolted given time and THEN maybe would have been a good time for MULTILATERAL military intervention.
2 the value of freedom to the iraqis is much lower than it could be (or have been) if they fought for it themselves
3 The US is not in any better shape economically (IE oil reserves) as a reslut of the war, which admit it or not, bush, was a large goal of yours. (a goal which I dont necessarily object to because it is in the interest of AMerica).
4 The US presence in Iraq is fueling the fire of hatred for islamic extremists.

edit: Also interesting, ruidihari, is that your reasons for falling out of favor with the war are nearly exactly the same as my dad's

Resolut

06-06-2006, 07:20 PM

I understand that it will take a long time, Republic, which is why I stated something along those lines to begin with. I tried a bit more subtlety, but apparently I should be more direct.

Now, to point out your arguements...

US involvement anywhere is foolish. However, we have gone in there, we have taken their leader out of power, and we have assissted them in setting up a democracy, and they have elected a President.

1. true, the Iraqi citizens would have revolted GIVEN TIME, but that was something that America didn't care about. We knew that Saddam Hussein had to be taken out of power NOW or at least SOON. And I'm not entirely sure a revolution would have effictively worked in Iraq. America went in, not to take out Saddam Hussein for Iraq's sake, but for America's own sake.
2. While the value is lessened, does it make freedom and less free? Do their votes count 1/3 less than they should, simply because they didn't have a revolution of their own?
3. We have known for years that part of the tension between the Middle East and America was because they nationalized oil, driving its price up. Therefore, it's not new news that we had a financial agenda while going to Iraq. However, if America was solely interested in getting money from Iraq, we would have simply taken it over, instead of letting it's own people run its own country.
4. The US was present in Iraq, even before the "war on terrorism." To say that it's adding fuel to the fire is redundant. It's always been adding fuel to the fire.

ruaidhri

06-06-2006, 07:26 PM

Trump, I found the answer to your question at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.htm

Here is the 2006 year to date data

The Republic

06-06-2006, 09:27 PM

Resolut-

sorry i didnt catch your drift on the subtlety.

1. Please elaborate on how we went in for Americas' sake not Iraq's? Im not quite sure what you mean...
On the note of a revolution, surely even if a domestic one wouldnt have worked, we could have waited for it to happen and THEN gone into help, hence giving a much prettier portrait of our invasion as 'helping people help themselves' in toppling a dictatorship? Furthermore, if we could have and did pursue this course of action, there would be little to no need for an occupation force whos situation is looking more like vietnam every day and is costing the tax payer 1 billion dollars every three days.
2. As for votes counting, i am speaking in the more broader sense of the value they have learned that democracy holds pertaining to individual rights. Hence, you appreciate something more when you've fought for it/have seen the opposite end of the spectrum.
3. However taking it over outright would be political suicide. The US has to play a balancing act with the rest of the western world on this war, too. what i'm advocating in this assertion is that the gov should strive to own up to reasons for going to war. Hence, the Bush administration still wont admit that the big reason for the war was oil, and the gov has consequently lost credibility in my eyes. Im not saying oil is an INVALID reason for going to iraq, as economics plays a large role in the instigation of most modern wars, it's just that the tactical climate of Iraq means that we are having and will continue to have a devil of a time getting any oil (or anything else of value for that matter) out of Iraq and into the global/US economy. In essence, the unstability of the pipelines, refineries and ports has all but driven away foreign and private investment now, and whos going to foot the bill if we dont pull out? you and I, my friend (that is assuming your a US citizen)...
4. And an interesting irony it is... WE put saddam in power. hmmm... can you spell foresight? The CIA sure cant. And true that it is and has been adding fuel to the fire all these years... that doesnt mean that a time like now is not the best time start trying to douse that fire.

oh and PS, resolut, those 4 points werent necessarily argumentss against you, they were rather contentions further developing my standpoint.

Trump

06-06-2006, 09:33 PM

So less than 20% of our oil and petroleum come from the middle east? I agree, oil was not a good enough reason to go to war. I also do not think that 20% is a big enough number to stay in Iraq. Our reasons for going were flawed, and our reasons for currently staying are flawed. But it is the reasons and not the action I disagree with.

I care about what happens to the people living there. I believe that the quality of life of Iraq's citizens have improved since the "war" started. I believe if we stay the improvement will continue and last longer than if we left immediately. To me that is the ONLY valid reason we've had for being in that country, not oil, not terrorists, nor anything else. So we should stay a little longer. I believe by the time Bush leaves office the situation there will have stabilized enough for a withdrawl. I sure hope that in the next two years Iraq will have a government with enough sway and staying power to maintain control. If that hasn't happened, I do not believe they ever will so we might as well leave anyway.

So I just want us to stay a little longer. Screw the oil, screw the power struggle, I just want the people there to be able to go outside, go to worship, or go to buy groceries without being afraid for their lives.

h2orowe

06-06-2006, 11:53 PM

Hitler rose in WW2 because of rediculous things WE imposed on his country (war debt, complete resonsibility for the war).
You do know that we weren't the ones blaming the war, nor putting debts on Germany right? The reason that we didn't join the League Of Nations was because of the Treaty of Versailles being to harsh on Germany. We were friends with Germany for a while, and the reason they had an economic crash, was because of our economic depression. (I might be wrong, >_<; This is just what I remember from earlier this year, I took world history though, not US History).

Fudge the damn environment as it were for now. Taint nothin we can do short of stopiing all industry around the world to change the way things are now. And we all know that ain't gonna happen. Plus, the sun is gonna explode anyway. Will destroy everything this side of Mars say thankya. Yarr, a word of advice to ya. The rational man adapts himself to the world around him. The irrational man tries to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the irrational man.
We don't have to stop industry, we just need to get our asses out of Iraq, stop spending money on war, and start spending money on science. We need to find better sources for fuel, or some other answer to help our environment. Even if we are American, they're Iraqi, or they're Chinese, or they're South African, whatever, we're all people first. We need to have some meetings to sort out these problems, and work together to save our asses. Even if the sun DOES explode, if we actually worked hard enough, we could maybe colonize other worlds? Who knows, maybe by that time, when the sun explodes, we'll find a way to prevent it from wiping out humanity.

H2orowe, wow! It hard for me to believe you are only 15; you are wise far beyond your years. Work hard in school. Get a good education because without that key the doors will not be opened. You have a lot of fire and emotion that must be shared with the world. You’re alright in my book!
Thank you. This means a lot to me, because I consider you (pretty much everyone does) one of the smartest, if not THE smartest, posters on this message board.

Also, whoever said the thing about India having a diverse population but living in peace, do you not know of Pakistan? Sri Lanka? Even Sri Lanka is having problems with a diverse population (Buddhists/Tamils).

erbiumfiber

06-07-2006, 12:06 AM

Trump, I found the answer to your question at

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.htm

Here is the 2006 year to date data

Well, then we clearly need to invade Canada!

ruaidhri, welcome to the light side of the force. I knew you would come around.

I probably can't add a lot to what's already been said except that I believe a lot of the violence will end when we leave. I believe a lot of the violence currently centers around killing people believed to be cooperating with US forces. Also, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq actually got on amazingly well before we blundered upon the scene. Intermarriage, living in the same neighborhoods, it wasn't a huge issue.

For as long as we stay in Iraq, I believe a lot of Iraqis will look upon the current government as a pawn of the US. I think it will gain increased legitimacy the day we leave.

What's the oath of a physician? First do no harm? All we can do is harm these days. We can physically leave and then pay war reparations for all the damage we've done so they can build their own schools and infrastructure, not fatcat no-bid American contractors.

One of the worst days in my life was the day that Colin Powell went to the UN with pictures of a bunch of trailers alleged to be making weapons of mass destruction. Powell didn't want to invade Iraq but they forced him into being a "team player." If he had resigned and spoken out, I think we would have never gone to war. Congress would have stood up to the President and we wouldn't be in Iraq. At least Powell wanted no part of a second term.

Ten times (at least) as many people have died as died on 9/11. Has it really been worth it?

c-rex

06-07-2006, 02:29 AM

Well ruaidhri while I agree with your ideas about our troops on the ground having no idea what the hell is going on, I do have to argue that America pulling out would cause more trouble than staying in Iraq.

First off just to be clear I never really supported the Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was a secular whose goal was to gain more regional power and prestige for his ego. He knew damn well popping off a nuclear weapon was the best way to ensure the creation of a new feature known as Lake Iraq and he was in no hurry to die for Allah.

First off I have to agree with the earlier posters that we clearly are guilty of “We broke it, we bought it” and have to live with the terrible price.

But what I’d really like to respond to is the idea of letting the Muslim League put in troops. This sounds like a truly terrible idea. The Arab League is made up of corrupt dictatorial states (Egypt for example), socialistic nutty and semi terrorist states (Syria, Libya) and a bunch of other flavors of fruit. These guys can’t even stop the violence in Lebanon or work to create a solution for Palestine. You start sticking major concentrations of these nations’ troops in Iraq and they’ll use those troops to attempt to create domestic Iraqi groups that will bring Iraq into their corner. Secondly Iraq has to have some form of representative government to survive due to the diversity of its population. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis all need say in it or they’ll get pissed and rebel and create even more trouble in that region. No Arab League government wants a representative government in Iraq since they are afraid the idea will catch on and their people will want one too (which would be bad since the Arab League has no true representative governments). Also none of the Arab League countries are going to be willing to appear to be a tool of the USA and aide us there in any meaningful fashion.

I don’t know what the solution will be in the end, but I just hope my cousin makes it home alive and his unit wins a PCU so all the guys in it get their much desired to gut punch Bush when he shows up to give it to them.

The Republic

06-07-2006, 11:58 AM

h2orowe: precisely, and that is why the iraq situation differs from the post WW1- german situation.

Trump

06-07-2006, 12:18 PM

You do know that we weren't the ones blaming the war, nor putting debts on Germany right? The reason that we didn't join the League Of Nations was because of the Treaty of Versailles being to harsh on Germany. We were friends with Germany for a while, and the reason they had an economic crash, was because of our economic depression. (I might be wrong, >_<; This is just what I remember from earlier this year, I took world history though, not US History).

Well, while it is not exactly the same situation I think it is fairly similar. I also understand that while WW1 aftermath may not have been the US, it was someone and that is all that matters. In this case, it is the US so we have to deal with it. But here are the similarities: Total devastation of their infrastructure, complete collapse of their political system, low quality/standard of living, diverse population creating many possible scapegoats, and there are more. I think there is a little less economic pressure than in Germany following WW1, but what few resources they have (read oil) are controlled by the wealthy few so the common man sees little benefit. To me there are enough similarities to think that it is not worth the risk of pulling out cold turkey.

I probably can't add a lot to what's already been said except that I believe a lot of the violence will end when we leave. I believe a lot of the violence currently centers around killing people believed to be cooperating with US forces. Also, Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq actually got on amazingly well before we blundered upon the scene. Intermarriage, living in the same neighborhoods, it wasn't a huge issue.

The Shiites and the Sunnis have hated each other for.. centuries. The only thing keeping them in check previously was the regime in power. And what about the Kurds that are being slaughtered? If you think the religious differences will just... go away and everyone will live in peace just look at Israel. Israel has been established in the region for 50 years now they still live under the constant threat of almost outright invasion by its neighbors. Its citizens are still targetted by bombs and other attacks and recently Israel had to forcibly remove residents from places for their own safety. It is fairly obvious this isn't due to the US support of Israel, and I believe neither is the situation in Iraq.

Resolut

06-07-2006, 12:36 PM

Republic, it's quite all right.

1. I don't know how to quote, so... just look up if you forgot what you said. We went in for America's sake because America was afraid of Iraq becoming a terrorist threat, well, a bigger one than they already were. We understood that Saddam wasn't exactly the best person in the world to run a country, but we let him stay as long as he behaved. Using UN Sanctions as an excuse, and terrorism as a playing field, Bush sent American troops into Iraq to remove Saddam out of power. Of course, this is speculation, considering I'm not part of the Bush Administration, nor do I have any actual connection in the White House. I'm just a high schooler with an idea.

2. And like I said; it's going to count for the same. Democracy is democracy. Don't shoot a gift horse in the mouth (or however the saying goes). If the Iraqi's really want democracy, they're not going to care how they got it. They do, however, have the right to complain. Thanks to democracy.

3. I am aware of the political stupidity it would be to take over Iraq, but it's been thought of before (I'll mention that in a moment). The reason the Bush administration won't admit that the war was for the oil, was because it wasn't. If we're going to invade a country based on oil, we might as well go for Canada, like what erbiumfiber said, because they give us more than Iraq anyways. To go to war for oil is just as equally bad. I believe this war is just a silly pride thing. Bush, and his father, both had troubles with Saddam. Both cases was over pride. A bruised ego with a Bush, equals a senseless war.

4. Speaking of foresight... when Saddam invaded Kuwait while Bush Sr. was President (for oil and land :D) United Nations troops stepped in. Which means American troops, and others. Eventually the troops chased Saddam's troops out of Kuwait, and there was debate about whether we should invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power. Two groups had two opinions. The first was: "If we don't take Saddam out of power, we'll just have to deal with him later on down the road." The other group said: "But if we go in, we'll have to stay a lot longer than intended, and it will be a messy ordeal." Sadly, both groups were right. Attempts to douse the flames have been tried, but this has just turned into a tire fire. Nothing's going to put it out for a long time.

I realize that they weren't arguements against me, but that doesn't mean I can't debate them :D

ruaidhri

06-07-2006, 01:20 PM

C-rex, yes, I understand what would happen if Muslim nations policed Iraq. They would restore order. Most likely, they would also destroy any hope of a truly democratic republic that represented all of Iraq’s citizens. I don’t question that their methods would probably be far harsher than ours. Still, they have an excellent incentive to bring peace to the Persian Gulf. It’s called money, money from oil.

A question for the board. Are there any predominantly Muslim nations that are truly democratic republics without strong man leadership? And, along with that, do they have true religious freedom for other sects, religions and non-believers. If there aren’t and that’s the reason for resisting Muslim forces restoring order in Iraq than may I again suggest that what we are engaged in is a new crusade, a battle that will never be won.

Yes, indeed. The U.S. broke Iraq. We’ve also poured our heart and soul into fixing what we broke and building a far better infrastructure. We’ve sacrificed our youth and the many opportunities both they and our own nation lost because they were sent off to die or be grievously injured. We poured billions on billions of dollars into Iraq and away from fixing our own problems. Still, we suffer daily attacks that continue to kill and maim our troops. Then, our understandably harsh reaction further distanced us from the very people we’re trying to help.

I’ve always considered myself a compassionate man. I believe in helping. I believe in being kind. But, I also believe that the first person you should be kind to is yourself. By that I mean that you shouldn’t majorly harm yourself to benefit others.

Trump suggested that we wait a couple of years before leaving. I fully expect that will happen. I don’t believe Bush will withdraw troops. I also don’t believe that staying will improve anything for the average Iraqi. Yes, you are correct. Hatred runs rampant in that part of the world. The grievances are hundreds of years old. The vacuum from our departure could produce a bloodbath if not prevented by an international military police force led by Muslims. What could a Muslim force do that we can’t? They would take away the aura of a crusade, which leaves a very bitter foul taste in the mouth of many Muslims.

Bottom line is that I believe with Iraq we are truly in a lose-lose situation. I sympathize with the Iraqi citizens that must live in constant fear of attack from all sides, including from the Americans and other coalition forces. But, let’s not forget our own injuries. We also are being harmed and our injuries are not producing results that foretell a reasonably satisfactory conclusion regardless of how long we stay. Consider, would any business sacrifice the profits of its stockholders to stay the course in such a lose-lose scenario. Either the leaders would be fired or the company would go bankrupt.

I know that my call for an immediate withdrawal will not hasten the departure of a single man or woman. But, collectively, the call of many Americans both on the streets, in the halls of Congress and in the voting booth will produce results and our troops will return.

Resolut

06-07-2006, 01:39 PM

It is true that given an incentive, such as getting money, would bring peace to a nation, but not in the immediate future. However, that wouldn't be beneficial to us. Although the Middle East isn't the biggest import of oil that America has, it's still fairly big. We would want some compensation now but we can't get that if the Middle East is mad at us for letting them clean up our mess. We broke it, we bought it. :D

I can't answer that question, simply because I practically failed History this year. I'm not good with knowing who did what, and that sort of leaves me out of answering your question.

You focus on the bad that the troops are doing, and while you mention that we're doing good, you don't really respond on it. I'm assuming since you used to be for the war (your first few posts gave that impression) you know that there is good that the troops are doing. We react harshly, but that's bound to happen, no matter who it is.

Would that be in comparison to committing suicide so that others should live? The way I see it, giving yourself up to the better of the whole is the way you should lend your life. That's why I respect troops, policemen, and fire fighters. The way I see it, it's perfectly okay for us to help out another country when our own is in turmoil. Our problems will always be there, but we need to help Iraq while we can.

Taking away the aura of crusade would be nice, but in it's place we would leave the bitter taste of "we broke it, we don't know how to deal with it... here, you take control of our problem." That would just cause more resentment towards the U.S. And on top of that, many Muslim nations would not agree to it in the first place.

Question though: does anyone have the link of the money counter? The one that shows how much money is bein spent in the war. That one.

Ichisan

06-07-2006, 01:48 PM

What you need to do is build a giant bubble around America, possibly encompassing Canada too, which will shield you against all attack. Hell, it could shield you from tsunamis, cosmic rays, and the onset of a new ice age too! Then you can happily ignore the rest of the world and drop any pretence of listening to the U.N., and if any two-bit country presents any kind of threat at all, be it military or economic, you can simply blow it to bits with remote-controlled missiles.

The lives of any soldiers who may need to be sent onto the ground to secure an objective - an oilfield or a presidential palace, as it may be - can be secured by small-scale shield-domes and other high-tech security solutions. After all, they are Americans too. Hail the New Order! Hail to the New American Century!

Resolut

06-07-2006, 01:51 PM

Ichisan, you're my kind of dictator.

Ichisan

06-07-2006, 02:20 PM

Noted. Your citizenship rights are assured, aspirant. Continue your demonstrations of loyalty!

ruaidhri

06-07-2006, 02:56 PM

Resolut, be careful what you write and say. You can easily destroy your own argument. Logic can be very fragile if not handled properly. Yours leaves me at a loss for what you are trying to say.

You agreed that money is an incentive for bringing peace but then you dismissed its immediate results. What? Did you understand the point I was making? The Persian Gulf nations source of wealth is their oil. Unrest in Iraq threatens the entire Persian Gulf. That threatens their source of wealth. That’s the incentive to “fix” the problem as quickly as possible.

We buy oil from the Middle East. We don’t get a special rate. If the U.S. somehow found another source of energy to run our cars, heat our homes and fuel our industry, and no longer required oil from the Persian Gulf the price would drop precipitously. Their wealth would disappear. They are sellers; they need buyers.

You might believe we are morally responsible for the mess in Iraq and I don’t entirely disagree. However, I do not want to “break” America to fix Iraq!

Never, never preface an answer to a question with a self degrading statement. My question about Muslim nations without strong man leaders was somewhat rhetorical. It was meant to drive home the point that their culture is not the same as ours. We can’t bring them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century if they don’t want to come. While majorities rule in Democratic Republics let’s not forget that all it takes is a fanatical minority to destroy everything the majority builds.

Now, I’ve never intended to “focus on the bad that the troops are doing”. I honestly believe they want to do good. I also believe that circumstances have forced them into a reactive role that is becoming more and more violent. Remember, it’s the one violent act that can destroy a thousand good deeds. People always remember the bad over the good.

Resolut, I hope you are not suggesting that the U.S. destroy itself to benefit others. I certainly object! Yes, individuals do place themselves in danger for the greater good. They are not doing this to die. They are not suicidal!

Resolut, do you understand the significance of the crusades to Muslims? Do you understand that it is us that is the problem? They don’t want Christians coming to their country to save them from Muslims and their way of life. They already resent the U.S. and that resentment is growing day by day.

Now, how do you know the Muslim nations wouldn’t agree. You started off your post with the statement that money is truly an incentive. Well, a messed up Iraq could very definitely affect their bottom line especially if it places the entire Persian Gulf in turmoil.

Ichisan, old idea. Think back to Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars protective bubble over America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon . The problem is that nothing works against terrorists, which is what our current actions in Iraq are promoting.

Resolut

06-07-2006, 03:34 PM

I'm sorry ruaidhri, but I'm not very good at speaking (or writing in this case.) and I tend to screw up my objective, mainly because I stray from the original thought. What I was trying to say is, although getting together would be a good cause, America doesn't extremely benefit from getting oil. Yes, we benefit economically, but not a giant amount. It would probably be more beneficial to clean up our mess before we leave.

It's like... I made a huge mess in my Mom's car, right? And instead of cleaning it, I left it there. My Mom waited until I would clean it up, without saying anything. Then, eventually, she had to clean it up, instead of me, even though it was my mess. She not only yelled at me, after she cleaned it, she also wouldn't let me take the car out. If we left Iraq now, for the rest of the Middle East to clean up, they wouldn't particularly want to be friendly with us, thereby not giving us the best deal with their exports.

They are sellers, and they do need buyers. But there are plenty of other nations that have the same need as the U.S. They could just as easily sell their oil to Russia, then to the United.

I'm sorry if you don't like my "self-degrading" statement, but it was simply me saying "I'm not that intuitive on the world around me"... most of my opinions have been morale-related, not historically-related, and since the question was related to current events, I was unable to answer it in my own way. If you click on the link Mastiker gave, it shows that people in Iraq do want democracy. We're not forcing them into anything they don't want to do.

I'm not suggesting that America destroy itself; obviously there should be a point where we need to stop, and we will. I'm saying that if it benefits others, self-sacrifice is the greatest need. That's the only thing I saw during the 9/11 attacks; not suicide bombers attempting to destroy our nation, but self-sacrificers attacking beliefs that they don't agree with. The main reason I didn't agree with the "war on terrorism" is because we were retaliating. Everyone was for it after 9/11, but once people cooled off, they started to see that the "war" wasn't worth it, because the Middle East just wants to win more. It's not an intentional thing, their suicide. But most troops who go into war realize that they are going to either die, or live. It's not a surprise when a troop dies, and I don't understand why people symphasize with troops.

No matter what we do, we're going to upset the Middle East. That's just how it's going to work.

They wouldn't agree, for the same reasons that Latin America isn't one nation; it just doesn't happen that way.

Ichisan

06-07-2006, 04:24 PM

Ichisan, old idea. Think back to Ronald Reagan and the Star Wars protective bubble over America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon . The problem is that nothing works against terrorists, which is what our current actions in Iraq are promoting.

Yes, indeed. I remember the Star Wars project. And I hope you realise I was being satirical!

For sure, nothing works against the terrorists. I honestly can't fathom why it's taken people so long to figure this out (although I understand the feelings 9/11 provoked). If someone is determined to get into the US you can't stop them. Even if you build a giant wall along the Mexican border, are you going to stop every boat on every mile of coastline too? And once they're in the US there are a thousand ways to cause death and mayhem if you're prepared to die, you have a plan, and you're armed with even a box-cutter. That's without even contemplating the nightmare scenario of a terrorist somehow having access to the funds and technology for a nuclear strike or biological attack.

To my mind it's analogous to nothing working against a psycho. Anyone out there can come up and kill me as I go about my daily business any time if they're willing to sneak up behind with a knife, and there's nothing I can do about it. Does this mean I'm going to walk around in a suit of armour and magnetically scan every place I go? Of course not. If I got mugged I might get paranoid but, beyond a few common sense precautions, behaving in a paranoid way isn't a rational way of making me safer.

America's response to 9/11 is something like a guy who got mugged turning into a vigilante. Except even with a vigilante their main advantage in combat doesn't lie in superior weaponry, or martial arts skill, or marksmanship, but in their basic willingness to be even more ruthless and psychotic than the people who attacked them by hiding in the dark and catching them with their backs turned.

America doesn't want to be as ruthless as the insurgents in Iraq, thankfully. I didn't support the war to begin with and I now don't see any solution to it. It's taken over 50 years for the conflict in Northern Ireland to simmer down and the situation in Iraq is really much worse. Pull out and there'll be a civil war followed by another regime at least as bad as the Baathist one. Sooner or later the US has to back one particular faction against the others even if they don't pull out - and pulling out completely with Iran waiting in the wings would undo American Middle Eastern policy objectives for the last 50 years too. Perhaps the US will pull out of Iraq but leave a beefed up presence in the Gulf and in Saudi to deter Iran (even though infidel presence on holy soil is a casus bellum for extremists like Bin Laden).

Meanwhile, I don't see how any of this affects terrorists at all.

Trump

06-07-2006, 05:07 PM

It is interesting to see you compare this to a business effort. While it is true that in most cases you just abandon the course there are many reasons to continue it. For example, a company may take a contract at a loss to maintain its workforce between other contracts. They minimize their loss and maintain their skill base. The stockholders may suffer for a couple quarters, but when the big contract comes in they usually see the benefits. It doesn't directly apply to Iraq, but when politics are involved I can definately see merits to holding out even at a loss. You said it yourself, it is a lose-lose situation so you have to decide which loss to take.

I definately understand there is a limit to being a good semaritan. You need to look after yourself or you can't help others effectively. But maybe that is my problem. I really don't believe the current administration will spend the money any better at home. What has been on the news recently? This godawful press about the gay marraige ban amendment. Don't get me started about how stupid this situation is, I will just say that regardless of your views about the issue it should NOT be a constitutional amendment. I hear Bush talk about this issue and realize he isn't talking about education, the economy, the energy crisis, or one of many other more important issues. I'm even beginning to feel that this administration is a power hungry and financially corrupt political front instead of even a remotely competent administration. You have no idea how much I hate that feeling.

I have even less faith in this administration and its domestic policy now than when it began 6 years ago so I will at least support them in this one thing. Yes, it could be implemented better, but at least they are trying. Sometimes I try to think, what will the (unbiased) history books say in 40 years? Will they say the US put in a half-hearted effort to help Iraq before bugging out or that they sacrificed quite a bit to help, even if the help was misguided or misunderstood?

setrict

06-07-2006, 05:48 PM

I've heard a lot in this thread about cultural differences, and I agree there are some big ones. I have to wonder at how deep those differences really are though, and let me explain why.

I was talking with a client a few months ago, and noticed she had a map of Saudi Arabia on the wall which I asked about. She and her husband had spent a little over a decade living and working there in the 1990's, and we had an interesting discussion about the time she spent there. From what she said the ultra-religious face shown is just on the surface for many of the people. While drinking was strictly forbidden (public lashings), she said it was very common to find wet bars in homes. The outside public face was stern and very pious, but inside peoples homes it was much more casual and friendly. The term she used to describe the cultural was 'two-faced'.

I'm sure that much of this was due to the people she would have associated with as a foreigner, but it reminds me greatly of the 'sunday christians' we have in the United States. The ones who show up on Sunday with a bit of a hangover, but come to church because it's somewhat of a social obligation (I think that's why many churches have choirs and singing, to punish those hungover). I wonder how many people over there simply go along with the extremists in fear of their lives or social standing.

I guess what I'm getting at is that maybe the cultural issues are a hard, seemingly impenetrable shell around a tasty chocolate center. Sorry, that's what I get for skipping lunch and posting hungry, but you know what I mean.

Resolut

06-07-2006, 05:52 PM

Iraq's really just a yummy chocolate nugent? Yay! Sign me up.:clap:

King Kong

06-07-2006, 06:35 PM

ruaidhri

06-07-2006, 06:51 PM

Ichisan, yes I realized that you were using satire. I treated it as an opinion because even satire can have a basis in fact, which your post had. I believe the point behind your satire was that we can’t truly escape the world around us. I agree. I’m just tired of being its police force.

Yes, Bush Jr. has certainly put us in a world of hurt. We’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. Literally, there is no way to win. So, what do we do? If we leave we create the very vacuum I feared in earlier posts on other threads. Do I believe we should just abandon Iraq? No, that wouldn’t be a good idea for Iraq, the United States or the world. So, what should we do? What is a good answer? There simply isn’t one.

I believe part of the problem remains that the U.S. is primarily a Christian nation. We’re simply not well received. Also, while many Iraqis say they want a democracy, I don’t believe they support diversity and understanding between the religions. The majority wants their way and their way alone.

It takes planning, effort and money to build. It only takes ignorance, jealousy and anger to destroy. I believe Iraq has too much of the later to counter whatever we’re able to accomplish by staying.

I do agree that we can’t just abandon Iraq to the wolves. There has to be a plan and we do have an obligation to a part of its execution. What I primarily object to is our continuing to spearhead the effort. I do believe a Muslim police force under the direction of the United Nations would be a better solution than having American troops forced to react to roadside attacks.

We say we want the Iraqis to choose. But, what if they chose a leader like Sadam or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran. They could. I believe the longer we force our will on them the greater the chance they will.

Trump, yes, businesses do often stick with decision in hope that the future will bear fruit. But, sometimes you just have to know when to get out. I lived through Vietnam and this is all very familiar. We lost many lives and spent billions there just as we’re doing in Iraq. When we finally left we did so with our tail between our legs. We won all the battles and still lost the war both in Vietnam and at home. I fear that history will once again repeat itself.

Like you I am totally fed up with Bush, Jr. and his government. I’m not even convinced that they are staying in Iraq for the “righteous” reasons proposed in this thread. Regardless, I acknowledge that we probably won’t just abandon Iraq. We will however leave and when we do I seriously doubt that much progress will have been made between now and then.

Josh

06-07-2006, 09:02 PM

I say we finish up Iraq, then go back into deep Isolationism. Im talking pre-WWI stuff. Then let the world figure out its own things and see how that goes. Just my opinion.

I don't agree with the war at all and I think it was founded on bogus info, but Gosh... Every country has its politically murky war, why are ours so looked down on by the rest of the world?

Resolut

06-08-2006, 02:23 AM

I don't agree with the war at all and I think it was founded on bogus info, but Gosh... Every country has its politically murky war, why are ours so looked down on by the rest of the world?

It's sort of like when a couple divorces; not that big of a deal. But when a celebrity couple divorces, oh my gawd, talk about WW3 going on.

Druid

06-08-2006, 02:35 AM

The future of warfare.

http://cosbystrikesback.ytmnd.com/

But really. If there ever was a WW3, we'd be screwed six ways to sun down.

Mysticalmelody

06-08-2006, 03:57 AM

I think america is god damned fortunate that we haven't fought a war on our soil for many many years. Think about how horrible it would be for people to be shooting and bombing each other right next door to you, for years on end.

That said, we should never have gone to Iraq. If Iraq wanted democracy and independance from their dictator they needed to get it the same way we did, at least starting the revolution on their own. If their majority had enough problems with saddam to act on it then they would have done so. We shouldn't have stepped in. In my opinion they were pretty okay before we did what we did. There were problems before we came but now in comparison, there are so many more. We created a government to replace the one we destroyed but there are so many people who do not wish to follow that government. Congrats on your plan Bushy boy. You've destroyed a system that essentially worked for a country and replaced it with anarchy, consequently giving more reasons to terrorists who are considering stopping by the US for a visit.

Oh yeah and Osama's still free. Remember Bush? That guy that was the one responsible for 9-11?

On another note, I have total support for our troops. They've gone through hell and then come back for a third and fourth tour of it. I could only imagine being in the family of a soldier. My very best friend is in the latter part of training as a marine. My boyfriend considered the military for a while which scared me so much... I do have a lot of respect for those that go through with it though. Having a governement like ours right now be pretty much in control of your life is a tough decision to make.

Beer Pope

06-08-2006, 04:48 AM

Oh yeah and Osama's still free. Remember Bush? That guy that was the one responsible for 9-11?

Actually, he wasn't. The "confession" video was faked (poorly). Still, he's a wanted criminal and we have reasons for hating him.

Mysticalmelody

06-08-2006, 05:09 AM

Whoever it is, it wasn't Saddam :P

Resolut

06-08-2006, 05:25 AM

That said, we should never have gone to Iraq. If Iraq wanted democracy and independance from their dictator they needed to get it the same way we did, at least starting the revolution on their own.
Maybe they couldn't. Besides, I think that we didn't go to war to benefit Iraq; we went to war to benefit OUR nation. Giving them, or at least, helping them get democracy is what we did after the major damage, but I don't think it was an original goal.
If their majority had enough problems with saddam to act on it then they would have done so.
Yes, but maybe their majority DID step in, they just didn't have the man power? Maybe the Kurds who were being slaughtered by the hands of Saddam were too busy dying to defend themselves. Maybe the people were too busy being oppressed for many years. And not to mention, the only reason that the United States won the Revolution was because of luck, and the French. We barely won our own battles.
We shouldn't have stepped in. In my opinion they were pretty okay before we did what we did.
See above paragraph. They were definitely NOT okay.
There were problems before we came but now in comparison, there are so many more. We created a government to replace the one we destroyed but there are so many people who do not wish to follow that government.
But there are so many that do. Plenty of voters turned up to vote for the Iraqi election; hell, they had a better voter turnout over there than they did the last presidency.
Congrats on your plan Bushy boy. You've destroyed a system that essentially worked for a country and replaced it with anarchy, consequently giving more reasons to terrorists who are considering stopping by the US for a visit.
It wasn't just Bush's plan. Hell, most of this probably wasn't done by him. It was mainly done by the administration that runs things. They didn't destroy a system that essentially worked for a country; they ended a government which used power to control and abuse it's citizens. We replaced it with a system of government, which is, by definition, NOT anarchy. Terrorists are going to bomb people no matter what. If we didn't go to war, there would still be a military impression there, and the terrorists would still hate Americans, the British, or any other group that pisses them off.

Mysticalmelody

06-08-2006, 06:11 AM

Maybe they couldn't. Besides, I think that we didn't go to war to benefit Iraq; we went to war to benefit OUR nation. Giving them, or at least, helping them get democracy is what we did after the major damage, but I don't think it was an original goal.

Yes, but maybe their majority DID step in, they just didn't have the man power? Maybe the Kurds who were being slaughtered by the hands of Saddam were too busy dying to defend themselves. Maybe the people were too busy being oppressed for many years. And not to mention, the only reason that the United States won the Revolution was because of luck, and the French. We barely won our own battles.

See above paragraph. They were definitely NOT okay.

But there are so many that do. Plenty of voters turned up to vote for the Iraqi election; hell, they had a better voter turnout over there than they did the last presidency.

It wasn't just Bush's plan. Hell, most of this probably wasn't done by him. It was mainly done by the administration that runs things. They didn't destroy a system that essentially worked for a country; they ended a government which used power to control and abuse it's citizens. We replaced it with a system of government, which is, by definition, NOT anarchy. Terrorists are going to bomb people no matter what. If we didn't go to war, there would still be a military impression there, and the terrorists would still hate Americans, the British, or any other group that pisses them off.

I'm not saying it was the true goal I'm saying that's why people support the war. Few are openly saying they support the war for the real reasons that it started.

It's true our revolution was aided but we started it. We lost MANY lives in battles before the french came to our aid. Yes the situation was bad for many in Iraq, but the majority were okay with it. If the majority had been so oppressed that they would put their own lives on the line to make a change then it would have happened.

Afre they okay now? Okay with bombs going off in their backyards? Okay with the total rift we created, people who support our invasion and people who don't and who refuse to follow the government we set up. We created more problems than we solved. It feels like for every terrorist we killed another was born out of hatred for us and hatred for democracy because of us. I never said they were completely fine. I'm saying they were better by comparison.

Plenty turned out to vote. They've got to live with the democratic system now though really. That's the only sort of system we left them with. We took away anyone who could possibly have support as another dictator.

Of course it wasn't just bush's plan, but bush is shorter and more fun to say than naming off everyone involved, excuse my innacuracy there. ;) Government is nothing without the support of the people. If there's a government and nobody agrees it should be in place, then there might as well be nothing because nobody will follow its law. Now, in iraq many do agree to follow the new democratic government, but there are so many that don't that there won't be peace in iraq for years and years.

I just think that more people will have died because of this war than ever would have died because of saddam being in power. Between our soldier deaths, the deaths of civillians, iraqi soldiers and everyone else that will die in the future (while we're there or after we leave because of the conflict we created) there are a lot of missing people that would not have died had we not stepped in.