|
United States in Iraq Poll: Leave or stay
|
View this Thread in Original format
| D-res |
i will admit im not the most educated on this subject but in my opinion, staying, atleast to install a civil and organized government would be the best option.
we should stop worrying about terrorists, etc. stop chasing everyone. just in try to keep peace in the country until the country can manage itself without people running around blowing themselves up. In the least, considering that could take a long time, make sure there is an adequate police force/military force to handle what threats still remain to the innocent civilians of Iraq.
flame me if you want... |
|
|
| dubblies |
Get out. We don't belong there. It is not our country. I thought the world was moving out of the whole colonial era.
Tens of Thousands of Iraqi - Men, Women, and Children
Over 1730 AMERICAN sons and daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers.
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
Based on Lies, Deception, Greed, and Revenge.
And people support this? You should all be ashamed.
So what if we install another government in the middle east. Do you think Peace will follow? Take the other failures for example and give up your pitiful support of the worst president our country has ever put up with.
Impeach the G.O.P. 2006/2008 |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by dubblies
Impeach the G.O.P. 2006/2008 |
This goes beyond partisan politics. Any other party would be no better.
For one thing the cost of war (human and monetary) should be on everyone's mind but, sad to say, it is not.
The US is still paying for older wars prior to First World War. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Once again I say stay. It's going to cost a lot more in the long run (to both the Iraqis and us ... but principally the Iraqis) if we leave now. As bad as things are now, it's not civil war. And the US most certainly doesn't need that on its shoulders to top everything off. |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| stay but not because we have to install a government, that is already in the process of being done, but instead we have to stay to make sure that the government doesn't collapse under insurgency, then it would cost more to have to go back and clean up a mess later. Stay, train their soldiers, let the government work get up and running, assess the situation, then gradually reduce troops. Leaving the job half assed is the worst thing you can do. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| I agree with BadBadNeil and occrider, although I also think that there's a moral side to the question. Basically Iraq is a mess today, only because of the coalition of the willing (of which only Bush and Blair seemed to have the real intelligence on no WMD in Iraq before going to war). Therefore, there's a moral responsibility for the countries participating in "liberating" Iraq, to stay on board with soldier, police, aid, and training until the Iraqis can care for themselves. |
|
|
| djallure |
We should have never went into Iraq, but we now have an obligation to get them on their feet.
Down with Bush and his party!
It just wasn't worth the lives, the lies or the money! |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by D-res
in my opinion, staying, atleast to install a civil and organized government would be the best option |
See, that's the problem with alot of people even now after being disillusioned by the war. Iraq was FINE before the Gulf War and the current war. The brutal dictator the US just removed came into power with US support to begin with. The gasing of the Kurds was done with US support, by wepons sold to him by the US. I forget when exactly, but in the mid-90s the US supported Sadaam in crushing a e uprising that would have very likely gotton rid of Sadaam and his regieme. My point is, the country was doing fine before the US intervened and ed everything up for it's own greedy self interest. Iraq has an insane amount of oil (second largest reserve in the world). The US is not bringing Iraq democracy or freedom, it's ensuring the installation of a Goverment friendly to US interests in the region (puppet Goverment), which obviously has nothing to do with the interests or hopes of the Iraqi people.
EDIT: I obvioiusly voted "get out." |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Iraq was FINE before the Gulf War and the current war. The brutal dictator the US just removed came into power with US support to begin with. The gasing of the Kurds was done with US support, by wepons sold to him by the US. I forget when exactly, but in the mid-90s the US supported Sadaam in crushing a e uprising that would have very likely gotton rid of Sadaam and his regieme. My point is, the country was doing fine before the US intervened and ed everything up for it's own greedy self interest. |
I dont like arguments like this not because they are incorrect (your right in what you say) but it fails to acknowledge that whatever happened in the past is unchangable and at present there is a problem. The fact that America helped Saddam come to power and sold him chemical weapons is irrelevent to the decision to go to war in 2003, as is the first Gulf War (which was justified) as they are events that have happened and nothing can be done to change that. Iraq was not "FINE" before this current war as thousands were dying from the sanctions regime. As it turned out the sanction regime was working perfectly (otherwise Saddam WOULD have had WMDs!) but it had to end cos of the suffering of the Iraqi people. But Saddam has shown in the past that he had expansionist aims (went to war with Iran, invaded Kuwait, wanted to invade Saudi Arabia - he was a classic pan-Arabist) and had also shown he was willing to develop NCB weapons. Removing the sanction regime would have removed his constraints and whether he would have gone back to his old ways nobody knows but if you're a policy planner you would plan for that outcome.
Now I was against the war for British security reasons. I did not consider Iraq a threat to the UK or British interests. We were told by our government that Saddam had or was developing WMDs (the way information was presented to the UK public led us to believe Saddam could deploy these weapons in 45 mins but that actually refered to battlefield weapons). Then there was the American government telling the world Iraq had links to al-Qaida and that these WMDs would find their way to bin Laden. I knew imediatly that the American claims would be false cos Saddam is as much an enemy of the Islamists as America is. Why would you provide a group that has sworn to overthrow the governments of the Middle East with WMDs? That would be crazy! Also I did not believe that any weapins produced by Iraq would threaten the UK. As well as that, I believed going to war with Iraq would be a huge mistake when considering the war against terror. It was pretty obvious how Islamists would react to the US invading another Muslim country and I have been proved correct when I thought it would lead to further hatred of the West (it has also provided the perfect training excersize for new terrorist recruits like Afghanistan was in the 80s)
Something had to be done with Iraq at sometime or later and for me the timing was wrong due to the effect it would have on the war against terror. It would obviously be detrimental to that. So the reason I was against war was purely on a British national interest level. Obviously there is a humanitarain concern and war doesn't usually work out well for the population. However, if you can tell me how to end the sanction regime (which I am sure you will agree had to end) as well as at the same time ensuring Saddam did not go back to his old ways then I am all ears (options I can think of is taking the Qaddafi route and negotiating which is is not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination to succeed, or we could have sponsored an uprising which would have led to civil war and is also not guaranteed to succeed, indeed it could be worse for the Iraqi people than it is now)
| quote: | | Iraq has an insane amount of oil (second largest reserve in the world). The US is not bringing Iraq democracy or freedom, it's ensuring the installation of a Goverment friendly to US interests in the region (puppet Goverment), which obviously has nothing to do with the interests or hopes of the Iraqi people. |
Something I am currently researching is the neoconservative ideology regarding democracy and the Middle East and its quite interesting. The neoconservatives aren't rich business men like Bush and traditional conservatives in government. They come from a socialist/democratic tradition (indeed Richard Perle still refers to himself as a democrat I read recently). They are idealists and I do think spreading (or imposing is probably more correct) democracy is their primary concern (as a means to protecting American interests) and not oil (which may be a primary concern of traditional Republicans). They believe democratic (ie liberal democratic) governments would be naturally favourable to American interests which I suppose is a fair assesment (the EU and US may not see eye to eye or agree on anything but they are still each others allies due to shared political and economical beliefs). What really interested me is the neoconservative attitude towards Saudi Araba - America's number one ally after Israel in the Middle East (not hard to work out why!!) The neoconservatives hate Saudi Arabia and consider it the number one enemy of the United States regarding the war on terrorism (and that is an assesment I can sympathise with) They criticise Saudi Arabia for being oppressive while Bush praises Saudi Arabia for great strides it is making towards democarcy (a load of bull btw) America depends on Saudi Arabia for oil and military bases so neoconservatives see removing Saddam and installing a democratic friendly government the perfect way to remove the burden of Saudi dependency (as you say, Iraq has loads of oil and traditionally when you invade a country you get to have military bases there). When Iraq's oil industry is fully up and running, Saudi Arabian oil power will be reduced dramatically. Neoconservatives see this scenario as the perfect way to begin putting pressure on the Saudis - in their eyes the true enemy in the war on terror. So that also may explain their desire for war with Iraq
Oh yea I voted "Stay because we have to install a government" but I actually mean we should stay and help quell the insurgency as I do not believe the Iraqis will be capable of doing it themselves and there is a real danger the insurgents will succeed in bringing down the new government if the coalition forces leave |
|
|
| occrider |
So what happens if the US pulls out of Iraq? The Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites sit down for some tea and crumpets and celebrate the American withdrawal? The insurgents give up their weapons and take up farming? Hardly, in all likelihood you’ll see the country headed on a path towards sectarian conflict. The Kurds will probably consolidate and shore up their “country”. Since they had some semblance of an army during Saddam’s rule, they will probably be the most disciplined/motivated fighting force in Iraq after the Americans leave. In all likelihood they’ll suppress the inevitable backlash from the Sunni/Shiite minorities in their region as they seize control (we’ll ignore the whole Turkey situation … who knows what they would do with a Kurdish state on its border). Next the Kurds would seize oil rich Kirkuk area which they state they have territorial claim over. This will undeniably lead to tensions between the Kurds and the Shiites, but that will only come later once the Shiites organize.
As for the Shiites, their army/militia/police will immediately fall apart. The Sunnis and foreign fighters will step up insurgent attacks because they most certainly don’t want a Shiite dominated government. The Sunnis will want a Sunni government and the foreign fighters would probably want a Taliban style government. The problem is, is that once the government falls the Shiites will have no protection whatsoever. What will likely happen is that the country will revert to tribal militias since they’re already established, and that is the last possible thing to fall back to. To combat the Sunni insurgency you can bet that you’ll see a lot reprisals against Sunni groups. And since Shiites are the majority, I think you’ll see a lot of brutality waged against the Sunnis to silence their aggression. Best case scenario this happens quickly. Worse case scenario the Sunnis consolidate their strength and you see a long protracted civil war as all sides stake out their territorial claims to the country. Even if all sides manage to form into some kind of independent states based on territory, you’ll start seeing fighting over oil rich territories. The Kurds will want to hold on to the oil rich North, the majority Shiites will demand the majority since they’re the majority, and the Sunnis will fight to not be left out.
Basically you can roll the dice any which way and it all seems to add up to a protracted warring state similar to what Afghanistan was like after the Soviets withdrew, but probably more bloody given the ethnic tensions. Or maybe you can pray that they’ll all sit down for some tea and crumpets and simply celebrate … |
|
|
|
|
