|
Americans are shocked: "Ungrateful" Iraqis want US troops out, poll finds (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Dude, I understand what you are saying. But you cannot sit there and say it's ALL the US fault. First off, Hussein has been ignoring and dismissing UN investigators for a long time before the war, he didn't allow them to check many facilaties that they wanted to examine.
It's enough evidence to be alert, though perhaps not to attack. Second of all, anyeone who clearly thinks that Hussein didn't bother the western world one bit is ludacris and the "fact" that there were no WMDs isn't proof of him being "innocent" he could've moved them or sold them months in advance or done whatever with them. Maybe even destroy them to destroy the US' credibility.
The harmony of interest in this dictates that we really meant to do good in this country, that liberal bull about oil and all that jazz.
We're in a very tight spot now, but saying that we can't withdraw now cause it would cause too much of a power vacuum, isn't really correct either. If we remain to help a country that doesn't want anything to do with us we'll get jack accomplished. See what I mean? |
I see what you are saying, Saddam was defently not a good man, but is the situation now a lot better? Don't think so. And for sure if the US pulled out, what would we see then, whatever we would see I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be better than what Saddam had. Hundreds of billions of dollars, just to make Iraq worse? Seems more idotic than the war in the first place, could as well stay there for a litle longer and make it better... Hopefully...
Anyway, I gotta go and eat... |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Dude, I understand what you are saying. But you cannot sit there and say it's ALL the US fault. |
It's not just the US's fault, it's the UK's and Australia's fault too, which is why each of these nations should keep troops there until the reconstruction is complete.
| quote: | | First off, Hussein has been ignoring and dismissing UN investigators for a long time before the war, he didn't allow them to check many facilaties that they wanted to examine. |
His compliance during the six months in the lead-up to war was actually pretty good, based on the UNMOVIC reports. If the primary aim of the coalition was to ensure that Iraq didn't have any weapons of mass destruction (gee, it's been a while since anyone's heard that phrase, huh?) then this aim could have been acheived without resorting to military conflict.
| quote: | | It's enough evidence to be alert, though perhaps not to attack. |
Nothing wrong with being "alert" and mandating that UN inspectors be allowed back into the country, but I am of the opinion that war should only ever be used as a final resort in desperate circumstances. There was never, ever any evidence to suggest that the situation was so urgent that war was the only available option, let alone the most preferable one.
| quote: | | Second of all, anyeone who clearly thinks that Hussein didn't bother the western world one bit is ludacris |
Er, define "bother" and then find me a conflict that was ever justified on the basis that one nation claimed to be a bit "bothered" by another one.
| quote: | | and the "fact" that there were no WMDs isn't proof of him being "innocent" he could've moved them or sold them months in advance or done whatever with them. Maybe even destroy them to destroy the US' credibility. |
You obviously haven't read the CIA WMD Report.
Some parts that may be of interest to you:
WMDs generally:
| quote: | | Iraq's WMD capability [...] was essentially destroyed in 1991. |
Missile Systems:
| quote: | | The ISG has uncovered no evidence Iraq retained Scud-variant missiles, and debriefings of Iraqi officials in addition to some documentation suggest that Iraq did not retain such missiles after 1991. |
Nuclear Program:
| quote: | | Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program. |
Chemical Weapons:
| quote: | | While a small number of old, abandoned chemcial munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter. |
Biological Weapons:
| quote: | | ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new Biological Weapons program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. |
| quote: | | ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons [sic] and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. |
| quote: | | In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons. |
Saddam Hussein didn't move them to another country or destroy them at the last minute to make the US look stupid, they were never there to begin with (well... since the mid-nineties, anyway).
| quote: | | The harmony of interest in this dictates that we really meant to do good in this country, that liberal bull about oil and all that jazz. |
Well that all depends on your definition of "good", but the aim here was always more about geo-political strategy than it was about WMDs or bringing "freedom" to the Iraqi people. You'd be as stupid to buy the "liberation" casus belli as you would be to buy the "oil" casus belli or the "WMD" casus belli.
| quote: | | We're in a very tight spot now, but saying that we can't withdraw now cause it would cause too much of a power vacuum, isn't really correct either. |
Um, yes it is. The Iraq military is nowhere near prepared enough to take on the responsibility of keeping peace in the country right now, so if the US were to withdraw now, you'd be left with a nation without a legitimate government, bitter ethnic and religious divisions and an insurgency that outnumbers than the national military by a considerable margin. If that isn't a recipe for civil war, I don't know what is.
| quote: | | If we remain to help a country that doesn't want anything to do with us we'll get jack accomplished. See what I mean? |
So you'd be prepared to just write off the losses ($200 billion, 2000 US soldiers dead, 25,000 Iraqi citizens dead) and let the country fall apart, remaining a haven for terrorists in an already unstable region of the world? The war was a mistake and was horribly planned and executed, but we've come too far to just cut and run now... |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
I see what you are saying, Saddam was defently not a good man, but is the situation now a lot better? Don't think so. And for sure if the US pulled out, what would we see then, whatever we would see I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be better than what Saddam had. Hundreds of billions of dollars, just to make Iraq worse? Seems more idotic than the war in the first place, could as well stay there for a litle longer and make it better... Hopefully...
Anyway, I gotta go and eat... |
LOL right after my post I went to take a nap :p
Renegade you simply re-wrote all the points I've made, sorry. Not retorting. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
My view is that this war is a big misstake, US should never have gone in there, exactly for the reasons you stated plus more.
However, if you pull out now, that would only make it worse than it already is.
And I think that is what most ppl in here agrees with. Or do you actually think it would be a good thing to pull out now? |
| quote: |
How to Get Out of Iraq?
by Noam Chomsky
The Nation, May 6, 2004
Transfer real sovereignty
Occupying armies have responsibilities, not rights. Their primary responsibility is to withdraw as quickly and expeditiously as possible, in a manner determined by the occupied population.
It follows that the orders issued by Proconsul Bremer are illegitimate and should be rescinded, including those designed to place the economy effectively in the hands of western (mostly US) banks and multinational companies, and the 15% flat tax which, apart from its injustice, bars the way to desperately needed social spending and reconstruction.
Without economic sovereignty, prospects for healthy development are slight, and political independence verges on formality.
It also follows that Washington should end the machinations to ensure its long-term military presence and control of Iraqi security forces in defiance of the will of Iraqis, who call for Iraqis to control security, according to western-run polls.
These record only minuscule support for the occupying military forces and their civil counterparts (the CPA) or the US-appointed governing council.
With a decision, however reluctant, to transfer authentic sovereignty to Iraqis - not just the traditional facade for Great Power domination - there will be no justification for the huge diplomatic mission, apparently the world's largest, announced by the occupiers.
Such steps entail abandonment of plans to establish the first secure military bases in a client state at the heart of the world's major energy reserves - a powerful lever of world control, as has been understood for 60 years, a means to subordinate the region more fully to US interests and the prime motive for the invasion, according to western polls in Baghdad.
Some of those polled agreed with articulate western opinion that the goal was to establish democracy (1%) or to help Iraqis (5%).
A large majority of Americans believe that the UN, not the US, should take the lead in working with Iraqis to transfer authentic sovereignty as well as in economic reconstruction and maintaining civic order.
That is a sensible stand, if Iraqis agree, as seems likely, though the general assembly, less directly controlled by the invaders, is preferable to the security council as the responsible transitional authority.
Reconstruction should be in the hands of Iraqis, not delayed as a means of controlling them, as Washington has indicated.
Reparations - not just aid - should be provided by those responsible for devastating Iraqi civilian society by cruel sanctions and military actions, and - together with other criminal states - for supporting Saddam Hussein through his worst atrocities and beyond. That is the minimum that honesty requires. |
|
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
been there. you have no proof of any of your statements. first off, life has improved in Iraq in many ways, computers and internet has become more accessible for one. Second of all, I have a dozen or more friends serving in Iraq which is how i don't see how those statistics make any sense. |
Says you. Before you blow steam, go learn some history and do some research instead of talking out of your ass.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Lastly, why do I even care? I live in the western world and that's the world I should care about. Oh, I forget, caring about where YOU'RE from is now a crime if that's in contridiction of what others want. |
You don't even know where I'm from moron. Technically I'm not arab. I'm only part Middle Eastern, and in order to be Middle Eastern, I would need to be a full blood Arab. Neighter was I born in the Middle East, I was born in Greenville, South Carolina (of all places :p).
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
It's enough evidence to be alert, though perhaps not to attack. Second of all, anyeone who clearly thinks that Hussein didn't bother the western world one bit is ludacris and the "fact" that there were no WMDs isn't proof of him being "innocent" he could've moved them or sold them months in advance or done whatever with them. Maybe even destroy them to destroy the US' credibility. |
Again, you demonstrate nothing but your own ignorance here. Renegade already responded to parts of it so I'm not going to repeat what he said. You stupid , Sadaam came to power with US support and commited his worst attrocities with chemical weapons sold to him by the US. The US ignored the human rights violations and re-established diplomatic ties with him. The US goverment (not the people) have never given a about horrible ruthless dictators, and infact have supported many in the past as long as they follow orders and make sure US interests are met. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
How to Get Out of Iraq?
by Noam Chomsky
The Nation, May 6, 2004
Transfer real sovereignty
Occupying armies have responsibilities, not rights. Their primary responsibility is to withdraw as quickly and expeditiously as possible, in a manner determined by the occupied population. |
Sure they have a responsibility to withdraw as quickly and fast as possible, but really, we are not there yet. If the coalition forces left now, civil war would break out for sure, and the biggest freak would win and be the new dictator.
| quote: | | It follows that the orders issued by Proconsul Bremer are illegitimate and should be rescinded, including those designed to place the economy effectively in the hands of western (mostly US) banks and multinational companies, and the 15% flat tax which, apart from its injustice, bars the way to desperately needed social spending and reconstruction. |
Agree, US is using this war for business purposes, that's just another reason why Bush screwed up. However, that is not a reason to withdraw, but rather to change policies.
But as for the flat tax, I still think that's a great idea. But that's another topic I guess, and obviously the authour of this article is not too into economics ;) Not to forget either, most of the worlds countries are in the hands of (mostly US) multinational companies... With all its pros and cons...
| quote: | | Without economic sovereignty, prospects for healthy development are slight, and political independence verges on formality. |
Not that I don't partly agree, BUT, no western country in the world today has economic sovereignty, yet they are politically good countries ;)
| quote: | | It also follows that Washington should end the machinations to ensure its long-term military presence and control of Iraqi security forces in defiance of the will of Iraqis, who call for Iraqis to control security, according to western-run polls. |
Well, the US are building Iraqi security forces. But really, you can't build an army over night...
| quote: | These record only minuscule support for the occupying military forces and their civil counterparts (the CPA) or the US-appointed governing council.
With a decision, however reluctant, to transfer authentic sovereignty to Iraqis - not just the traditional facade for Great Power domination - there will be no justification for the huge diplomatic mission, apparently the world's largest, announced by the occupiers. |
Okay?
| quote: | Such steps entail abandonment of plans to establish the first secure military bases in a client state at the heart of the world's major energy reserves - a powerful lever of world control, as has been understood for 60 years, a means to subordinate the region more fully to US interests and the prime motive for the invasion, according to western polls in Baghdad.
|
I don't disagree here either. However, that still has nothing to do with weather to pull out or not.
| quote: | | Some of those polled agreed with articulate western opinion that the goal was to establish democracy (1%) or to help Iraqis (5%). |
I don't disagree here either. However, that still has nothing to do with weather to pull out or not.
;)
| quote: | A large majority of Americans believe that the UN, not the US, should take the lead in working with Iraqis to transfer authentic sovereignty as well as in economic reconstruction and maintaining civic order.
That is a sensible stand, if Iraqis agree, as seems likely, though the general assembly, less directly controlled by the invaders, is preferable to the security council as the responsible transitional authority. |
That would be great, if the "coalition of the willing" could promise to help the UN to do so.
| quote: | | Reconstruction should be in the hands of Iraqis, not delayed as a means of controlling them, as Washington has indicated. |
Really, the biggest reason why reconstruction is delayed is not because of Washington, but because of Iraqi insurgence.
| quote: | | Reparations - not just aid - should be provided by those responsible for devastating Iraqi civilian society by cruel sanctions and military actions, and - together with other criminal states - for supporting Saddam Hussein through his worst atrocities and beyond. That is the minimum that honesty requires. |
Agreeed. |
|
|
| Kzwei |
propogandate the election of a leader or leadership council who would
promote nationalism of the people
diminish religious fanaticism
effeciently use the countries oil : use the oil income for the country's benefit rather than politician luxuries eg. stronger military, education, productive municipalities
also a leader who would co-operate with US suggestions
US train(with full ass) A NEW QUALIFIED Iraqi Military and Police Force specializing in rebel/insurgent control
eliminate the stupid murderers, kill them, capture and trial them,
instate law to punish families of suicide bombers
let the iraqi ppl have faith in their military rather than fanatical insurgent
US stick around make sure Iraqis on right track
destroy jihadists and their cells (make examples)
jihad = not good
strong military leadership for betterment of country in world = good
US help Iraqi Military - Iraqi Military help US whenever in Mideast ventures
include Iraq as ally in war on terror ( war on Jihadists)
US watch IRAQ, make sure theyre not fukin up actually helping dangerous islamic extremism
UN + other joint nations watch US just make sur they got right intentions 2
betterment of Iraq as a potentialy industrious country
Iraq Leadership give favours to US for the trouble, some oil fields, help in mideast wars against islamic terrorist factions
any iraqi politician, military leader sympathetic to jihadists must be put out of commision
US distance themself when it seems is self sufficient
come back if iraqis sidetrackin
stick to the fukin plan
murder those jihadists
DESTROY THE OPPOSITION TO ALL
time for smart iraqis to stand up to the rest
third world conutry, lot of uneducated ppl. learn them AK wielding fodder to convert to moderate or die |
|
|
| Chris Larkin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kzwei
propogandate the election of a leader or leadership council who would
promote nationalism of the people
diminish religious fanaticism
effeciently use the countries oil : use the oil income for the country's benefit rather than politician luxuries eg. stronger military, education, productive municipalities
also a leader who would co-operate with US suggestions |
That's all good stuff - BUT, apart from the last one, that's pretty much what the people of Iraq under Saddam. And, you know what? They don't want the last one. They want an independent government, not a puppet of the USA. If they had that, they would be no better off than before.
| quote: | | US train(with full ass) A NEW QUALIFIED Iraqi Military and Police Force specializing in rebel/insurgent control |
It's what they're trying to do, but as illustrated in that incident a few weeks back where the British had to storm an Iraqi prison to stop their men being handed to a mob, as many Iraqi police and soldiers are loyal to their tribal or religious leaders as they are to the government.
| quote: | | eliminate the stupid murderers, kill them, capture and trial them, |
A nice thought, but it's rather difficult. My first suggestion to getting this done would be to secure the borders far better.
| quote: | | instate law to punish families of suicide bombers |
Hmm... because you'd like it if you were punished for your brother going on a killing spree without telling you, wouldn't you?
That's a pretty idea, I have to say.
| quote: | | let the iraqi ppl have faith in their military rather than fanatical insurgent |
Great! But how're you going to do that?
| quote: | | US stick around make sure Iraqis on right track |
It's not really what anyone wants. As soon as the 'coalition' goes, attacks will drop, especially if the Iraqi government is not seen as a puppet of the USA. Why not just get the political and military institutions up to a level of competence, then get out?
| quote: | | destroy jihadists and their cells (make examples) |
It's kind of difficult, but if you have any good ideas on how, PM them to Donald Rumsfeld.
Higher Jihad (the fight within oneself against temptation) is very good, and is an integral part of Islam. Lower Jihad (the fight against enemies who have attacked you) is less good.
Get your Jihads sorted out.
| quote: | | strong military leadership for betterment of country in world = good |
Erm... wasn't that exactly what Saddam was trying to do?
| quote: | | US help Iraqi Military - Iraqi Military help US whenever in Mideast ventures |
I don't feel they should be bound to, as that would show they were puppets, which is in no one's interest.
| quote: | | include Iraq as ally in war on terror ( war on Jihadists) |
Only if the Iraqi government agrees, and they need to sort out their own nation before gallivanting off to invade others.
| quote: | | US watch IRAQ, make sure theyre not fukin up actually helping dangerous islamic extremism |
This sounds as if you want Iraq to be indirectly controlled by the USA. Which would not be good for anyone.
| quote: | | UN + other joint nations watch US just make sur they got right intentions 2 |
Because we all know that the USA always listens to the UN, don't we?
| quote: | | betterment of Iraq as a potentialy industrious country |
Yes, but there'll be no outside investment unless secuirty is guaranteed.
| quote: | | Iraq Leadership give favours to US for the trouble, some oil fields, help in mideast wars against islamic terrorist factions |
No way. You US people seem to have the idea that when you go and 'liberate' somewhere, you are owed something. You aren't, and shouldn't expect anything.
| quote: | | any iraqi politician, military leader sympathetic to jihadists must be put out of commision |
That lackof political freedom sounds exactly like what was happening under Saddam.
| quote: | | US distance themself when it seems is self sufficient |
ASAP
| quote: | | come back if iraqis sidetrackin |
Let Iraqis run their own country without outside interference.
| quote: | stick to the fukin plan
murder those jihadists
DESTROY THE OPPOSITION TO ALL |
Rule da worldz!!!!
No.
| quote: | | time for smart iraqis to stand up to the rest |
Try replacing 'smart' with 'USA sympathetic'. I think that's what you mean.
| quote: | | third world conutry, lot of uneducated ppl. |
Economically it was more second-world under Saddam, certainly no worse off than other middle eastern countries. The education system wasn't up to much, but I think your idea of education is indoctrination in Western ways, which is really going to piss everyone off.
| quote: | | learn them AK wielding fodder to convert to moderate or die |
Yeah........ |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| Yay! Finally Americans can know the truth and can now get thier asses out of thier. Before we reach another milestone of dead US troops. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
Yay! Finally Americans can know the truth and can now get thier asses out of thier. Before we reach another milestone of dead US troops. |
Did you like, not read the thread whatsoever? :haha: |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
Did you like, not read the thread whatsoever? :haha: |
No, I was too lazy to. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
|
says people who carry more weight in their words than your retarded ass. Keep thinking you're right and you actually know something about the world. Saddam came to power because it was profitable to the US, then it was apparent that it was a mistake, so we took him out.
Second of all, did you say in order to be middle eastern you have to be an arab? wow you're trully a mistake of nature, aren't u? So, when the Hebrews lived in the Middle East and the Jews that live there now, aren't considered Middle Eastern? Though ALOT of them, even nowdays look "Arabic". Wow, good job backing up you're claim that I don't know history.:rolleyes:
You're responding back with nothing but "Go learn history" "idiot" "You don't know anything" "Someone already said it so i'm not going to"
:haha:
So, what's your point again? Oh, right you don't have one. ( a reply in your fashion, blackguard.) You could just sit on your fat ass and look up articles and think you know how to make sense of them.
Go and moan like a bitch all you want, it just adds laughter to my day. But remmember that at the end of the day, the troops will remain in Iraq, they will attempt to help people, they will attempt to improve on the things that've gotten better as I previously mentioned, OR we could follow the wonderful plan that you posted to withdraw from Iraq, and that could fuel your grumble and you could sit on forums and claim how they never should've deployed from Iraq.
Go read a a few books on the Vietnam and Korean wars before arguing about this one. |
|
|
|
|
