|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Should the United States withdraw from Iraq?
I have read a few discussions on whether or not the US should keep fighting to "free Iraqi people," as was often said by President Bush. It seems to me some prefer the country to keep going in its mission; others claim the US is invading Iraq and therefore, should withdraw its monopoly on the country's politics and economy.
In the discussions, those in favor of Bush's policy raised Cambodia (my motherland) as an example of how the United States drove the country into the extreme atrocities by Khmer Rouge during the cold war.
To learn of how heavily the US bombed Cambodia then and how this led to the Khmer Rouge taking over in Cambodia, read Bombs over Cambodia, or excerpts from Lying for Empire.
Well, to you would you prefer the US government to keep fighting or withdraw from Iraq? Why? Why not?
In the discussions, those in favor of Bush's policy raised Cambodia (my motherland) as an example of how the United States drove the country into the extreme atrocities by Khmer Rouge during the cold war.
To learn of how heavily the US bombed Cambodia then and how this led to the Khmer Rouge taking over in Cambodia, read Bombs over Cambodia, or excerpts from Lying for Empire.
Well, to you would you prefer the US government to keep fighting or withdraw from Iraq? Why? Why not?
I'll make it clear. No, the United States cannot pull out of Iraq yet. The answer is very simple. Yes, the jump into Iraq was a mistake. It never should've happened. However, now that we've claimed responsibility of "purging the Middle East of terrorists", we'd be really irresponsible to just pull out now and leave things on their own. Yes, Saddam is dead. However, that doesn't stop hundreds of other warlords all over the Middle East from jumping back in and becoming the next Saddam. Until a more definite and secure form of order and government is set up there, the United States will have to stay in there and keep the peace, lest it wants to be known as an irresponsible big brother.
US is not goin to withdraw so soon... It'll be there till it establishes control over the oil reserves there..
| ashok wrote: |
| US is not goin to withdraw so soon... It'll be there till it establishes control over the oil reserves there.. |
yip, which unfortunately will probably be a long, long time
| dray101 wrote: | ||
yip, which unfortunately will probably be a long, long time |
there are long , long wars at the last time of each super power.
I'd say they should withdraw, but it's obvious that this can't be done quickly. Personally I can't see any reason why US started all this. What aim could be worth such losses in money and people? Or maybe the Vietnam experience was not enough?
Yes, I agree. But I think whatever it takes, the United States should remain there until Iraq becomes stable and secure enough and the new government becomes strong enough to fight against Saddam's extremist supporters.
The United States started this, it should not leave the country alone while it still needs support to change its regime and ideology.
Cambodia fell victim to a similar situation in the 60s-70s, so I hope Iraq will not be so unlucky as Cambodia and that the United States will not make the same mistakes it made in Cambodia.
For more reading on how Cambodia fell victim to the US withdrawal of support, follow the links below:
1) Bombs over Cambodia; and
2) Lying for Empire.
The United States started this, it should not leave the country alone while it still needs support to change its regime and ideology.
Cambodia fell victim to a similar situation in the 60s-70s, so I hope Iraq will not be so unlucky as Cambodia and that the United States will not make the same mistakes it made in Cambodia.
For more reading on how Cambodia fell victim to the US withdrawal of support, follow the links below:
1) Bombs over Cambodia; and
2) Lying for Empire.
| Annush_K wrote: |
| I'd say they should withdraw, but it's obvious that this can't be done quickly. Personally I can't see any reason why US started all this. What aim could be worth such losses in money and people? Or maybe the Vietnam experience was not enough? |
| Quote: |
| US is not goin to withdraw so soon... It'll be there till it establishes control over the oil reserves there.. |
Please... I'm so tired of unsourced conspiracy theories. It is theories like these that keep millions of people chained by leftist regimes. Because of our succesful capitalistic government and economy, nothing can just be done because it is the right thing. We are so stuck in the mentality of "letting others be" and "respecting their beliefs" that we let thousands die under these murderous regimes. But at the end of the day, we can wash our hands clean of any involvement, and the suffering continues.
| Quote: |
| I'd say they should withdraw, but it's obvious that this can't be done quickly. Personally I can't see any reason why US started all this. What aim could be worth such losses in money and people? Or maybe the Vietnam experience was not enough? |
Obviously you haven't watched the news the last 20 years while Saddam, as dictator, killed thousands of innocent people. What aim? Whatever happened to liberation? It is really easy to ask these questions from the comfort of your home in a free society where you are able to express concern and disapproval of an other's actions. And Vietnam is in no way similar to this situation, only in that the battle is hard.
For those who from the United States, our Congress backed this war. We are their constituients, which means we in effect voted for this war also. This is not Bush's war. We understood the price. We cannot abandon these poor people. We must help them rebuild and establish themselves as a democratically modeled government and example to the rest of the Middle East. Leaving them now would be a terrible crime and act of selfishness. If we didn't want to finish the work, we shouldn't have started it at all. Everything has a price, and for these poor Iraqis, it should and will be paid in full.
Remember...
Was that not a good enough indication these people were overjoyed?
| glenwood wrote: |
| Please... I'm so tired of unsourced conspiracy theories. It is theories like these that keep millions of people chained by leftist regimes. Because of our succesful capitalistic government and economy, nothing can just be done because it is the right thing. We are so stuck in the mentality of "letting others be" and "respecting their beliefs" that we let thousands die under these murderous regimes. But at the end of the day, we can wash our hands clean of any involvement, and the suffering continues. |
Firstly it's not a conspiracy theory. The US openly declares it's interest in the region and the obvious reasons for it. (I'm not going to give my usual exhaustive list of references and quotes because it has already been done many times...a simple search is enough for anyone wanting more details.
| Quote: |
| Obviously you haven't watched the news the last 20 years while Saddam, as dictator, killed thousands of innocent people. What aim? Whatever happened to liberation? It is really easy to ask these questions from the comfort of your home in a free society where you are able to express concern and disapproval of an other's actions. And Vietnam is in no way similar to this situation, only in that the battle is hard. |
During the worst of the atrocities the US, of course (in concert with the UK and others) was supporting Saddam to the hilt - providing chemical and biological weaponised material, financial and military support, satellite targeting information and, in the case of the US, vetoing 2 UN resolutions condemning the use of chemical and biological weapons. Again I can supply a long list of references and supporting info if you really want, but I thought this point was beyond doubt long ago when I last posted a list of the weapons, suppliers, times, dates etc....
I presume your point is that this was wrong-headed policy and should be condemned ? Or is it the commonly found 'pragmatic' solution that US interests at the time required the policy ? If it is the second then your appeal on grounds of humanitarianism would surely ring hollow.
| Quote: |
|
For those who from the United States, our Congress backed this war. We are their constituients, which means we in effect voted for this war also. This is not Bush's war. We understood the price. We cannot abandon these poor people. We must help them rebuild and establish themselves as a democratically modeled government and example to the rest of the Middle East. Leaving them now would be a terrible crime and act of selfishness. If we didn't want to finish the work, we shouldn't have started it at all. Everything has a price, and for these poor Iraqis, it should and will be paid in full. |
As to the substantive point about what to do. Why is it that those of us who yelled and screamed that EXACTLY this outcome would result from invasion are now barracked unless we propose a solution to an intractable problem which we identified and warned of before the action ? (This is not directed at you, but is a general point).
I appreciate that the well-being and welfare of the Iraqi people should be the focus of any future action but if you think that the US is driven by that imperative then I think you are being either naive or choosing to ignore the lessons of history, the stated policy of the US with regard to 'other powers', the stated policy of the US guard by any and all means it's pre-eminent position in the world, and the comments and statements of various US members of the administration about the strategic and tactical US aims in the region.
| Quote: |
|
Remember...
Was that not a good enough indication these people were overjoyed? |
Interestingly enough that exact image gave Rumsfeld his first serious doubts about the conflict - particularly when the troops were wrapping the Stars and Stripes around the head of the statue...very very very poor move. British troops would never have done that. That's not because they are better, nore humane, or any other such guff. It's simply because we have been exploiting countries by force for much longer than the US and have a whole library full of precedents, examples, mistakes etc to call upon.
The US administration predicted that US troops would be greeted by ecstatic crowds of grateful Iraqis. It never happened. Sure, there were scenes of rejoicing like the one in the picture you reference. If you take a more cool look at the picture you referenced you will see propoganda and media distortion in full swing.
Here, for example, is a wide-angle view of the events which shows just how many people were (or more interestingly WERE NOT) in the crowd during the toppling.
It gives a completely different picture of events in my view...there are about 200 people involved in total. Of those, at least 60% were US troops.
The BBC had to later admit that talk of 'large crowds' was an exaggeration and that the real number involved was a few dozen.
Here is an example of the narrow angle shots selected by world media..
There seems little doubt that this was deliberate deception - the image presented here is completely misleading and chosen to deceive...
Chris.
What Chris said, Everything!
I can't be bothered explaining because to anyone who has a free and open mind it is so obvious if they just look at some UNBIASED sources ie. not the corporate media
I can't be bothered explaining because to anyone who has a free and open mind it is so obvious if they just look at some UNBIASED sources ie. not the corporate media
| http://www.prwatch.org/node/5404 wrote: |
| Who Owns the Airwaves Here: A Brief Look at NBC
A quick look at Stop Big Media's website reveals that General Electric (GE) owns NBC and, interestingly enough, GE also has business interests in military production, including building engines for * F-16 fighter jets * Abrams tanks * Apache helicopters * U2 Bombers * Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAV) * A-10 aircraft * Other planes, helicopters and tanks |
| dray101 wrote: | ||
| What Chris said, Everything!
I can't be bothered explaining because to anyone who has a free and open mind it is so obvious if they just look at some UNBIASED sources ie. not the corporate media
|
And ironically enough, a significant number of people, including myself, (certainly everyone who considers themselves a "conservative" in the United States), believes NBC News is biased to the left of political thought, is whole heartedly against the Iraq War, and is biased against the Bush administration and thus skew their reporting accordingly. Liberals in the U.S. might consider NBC News unbiased but not biased to the right (unless they are far left). So, from the perspective of U.S. citizens, your argument rings hollow.
I think the more appropriate reason for the differences in say camera angles chosen was the spirit of the country at the time. In the U.S., people supported the war by large margins in the beginning and media outlets tend to reflect the pulse of the country.
Speaking to glenwood's comments, he is right in that this is not just "Bush's war" as even people in the United States would have others believe. Presidents can't start wars. They can ask permission from congress (and personally I believe congress has given away too much power to the presidency since World War II, but that's another discussion
), but congress must grant the authority to wage war. Starting a war or entering a war is their sole responsibility and no other branch of governments per our constitution.
I find it sad that when things turn south in the war, members of congress want to wash their hands of it and blame the president even though they approved it. But now they want to use the power they seem to have forgotten that they had to remove U.S. forces as soon as possible. Convenient.
I personally think we should stay until it is stabilized. I did a tour in the war (2003-2004) as part of waterborne security forces along the Kuwait coast. Many of the men who served under me are on their fourth tours now. My father is currently in Iraq and will probably go to Afghanistan at some point after his Iraq tour. Yes we want secure oil supplies for both ourselves and our allies. Yes we want global hegemony. And yes we want the U.S. to remain the most powerful country in the world. I'm not denying that.
But the main issue is regional stability. If we pull out too early, I fear sectarian violence will just worsen and the government will have little ability to stop it. Of course, the government has its own problems with which it must deal, including some of the people with whom they are in bed (Sadr, who needs to be disarmed and sidelined if possible. Defeated in battle if he so chooses.) But a chaotic Iraq plays into the hands of radical elements, will further disenfranchise the Iraqi Sunnis (which might invite intervention by other Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia) and empower Iran with no viable enemy on its border.
Already Saudis are speaking of intervening on behalf of Sunnis in such a case. (I wish the article was still available on the Arab News website so I could reference it.) And Sunni nations, including the KSA, are planning a joint "peaceful" nuclear program. The latter would be nothing more than a disguised weapons program in response to the international community's inability to handle (Shia) Iran. An arms race. The Saudis after all have already partially funded two nuclear weapons programs (Iraq and Pakistan).
Furthermore, a U.S. withdrawal that led to an unstable Iraq would be seen as a U.S. defeat. Al Queda and other organizations, and countries like Iran, would shout from the mountain tops about the U.S. paper tiger and how terrorism claimed victory over U.S. forces and sent them home bleeding and weeping to distraught mothers. In the Global War on Terror, we cannot afford such an emboldened enemy, IMHO.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Liberals in the U.S. might consider NBC News unbiased but not biased to the right (unless they are far left). So, from the perspective of U.S. citizens, your argument rings hollow. |
Lol, thats funny! The whole point is the the people who control NBC (and other big media cooperations) have other, and their minds, more important motives than just to provide bias free news, namely money!
and supporting their own companies and a government that lets get way with lots, leads to more.... wait for it.... money!
why would they want to encourage the end of they war when they are making SO much money off it?
| Moonspider wrote: |
|
And ironically enough, a significant number of people, including myself, (certainly everyone who considers themselves a "conservative" in the United States), believes NBC News is biased to the left of political thought, is whole heartedly against the Iraq War, and is biased against the Bush administration and thus skew their reporting accordingly. Liberals in the U.S. might consider NBC News unbiased but not biased to the right (unless they are far left). So, from the perspective of U.S. citizens, your argument rings hollow. |
No serious case can be made that the media corporations are left wing. The very idea is laughable. (I'll put some links at the end to further reading on this, but the idea is hardly worth considering seriously. Part of the problem is due to the fact that the word Liberal has a different meaning in the US to Europe. I would classify myself as a left-winger but not many liberals would share my politics. The US seems to define left wing largely in social terms - more specifically the attitude of a person to a range of social policy issues. Thus a liberal (indeed about 80% of graduate educated adults of all persuasions) would probably agree on a range of social issues with someone of a genuinely left-wing politics. These would be things like gay rights, women's rights, civil liberties and the like. The fact is, though, that politically and economically there is little common ground between a US liberal (normally a classical liberal according to the strict terminology) and someone, like me, who bases their political philosophy in communist/anarchist theory.
| Quote: |
|
I think the more appropriate reason for the differences in say camera angles chosen was the spirit of the country at the time. In the U.S., people supported the war by large margins in the beginning and media outlets tend to reflect the pulse of the country. |
But this is challenged by the fact that the media in the UK also equally distorted the images and here in the UK the consensus was against the war. If the media represented the pulse of the country then the media would have been far more anti-war here than we saw. The same applies in other European countries which were even more opposed to the war.
| Quote: |
|
Speaking to glenwood's comments, he is right in that this is not just "Bush's war" as even people in the United States would have others believe. Presidents can't start wars. They can ask permission from congress (and personally I believe congress has given away too much power to the presidency since World War II, but that's another discussion ), but congress must grant the authority to wage war. Starting a war or entering a war is their sole responsibility and no other branch of governments per our constitution. |
I recently read Bob Woodwards book on this matter - 'State of Denial'. I regard Woodward as a sycophant to the republicans in general and Bush snr. in particular. His book praising Bush snr on the 1st gulf war was, to me, nauseating. In no sense can this man said to be a left-wing commentator. His book, however, is damning on the Bush jnr.. invasion. More to the point it makes it plain that Woodward believes that the driving force behind the invasion was Rumsfeld and Bush and that Congress were seen as simply a rubber stamp. This was, of course, prepared carefully by repeatedly trying to link Iraq to Al Qaeda and terrorism. It worked spectaculr4aly - at one point nearly 80% of US adults in one poll had bought into the lie and believed that Saddam was directly or indirectly responsible for 9/11.
The idea that the population are the deciding factor in decisions like this is simply not the case. The whole 'democratic' system is set up to prevent the population controlling decisions like this (in the UK as well) since the early statesmen (Liberals and Conservatives alike) acknowledged that the primary duty of the administration of the state is to protect the wealth and influence of the powerful minority against the depredations and ignorant grasping of the common herd. Churchill put it like this :
| Quote: |
| “democracy” is successfully achieved when the government is safely in the hands of the rich men dwelling at peace within their habitations” |
The average citizen is expected to turn up every few years, endorse one of the 2 or 3 candidates from the establishment that he/she is presented with and then go home and not interfere with the running of things for a few more years.
I don't disagree too much with the thrust of the rest of your posting - namely that the US has a moral obligation to try and sort the mess out. I disagree completely with the idea that the aim was humanitarian and that humanitarian motives have ever or will ever feature as an important influence in this invasion in particular and US foreign policy in general - it's simply not the case and I have posted many time to refute this myth with no serious rebuttal.
We have debated previously on similar lines and whilst I respect your opinions and recognise that you have some first hand experience in this which I lack, I think that your analysis is flawed in that it is based on an entirely manufactured picture of democracy, the media and the real exercise of power in western 'democratic' states.
Chomsky - Necessary Illusions Chapter 1
Liberal Bias in the Media - the monthly review
Liberal Bias - Eric Alterman
Real left wing politics
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Well returning back to the main issue here: Should the US withdraw from Iraq? I agree with many posters here about the responsibilty of the United States of maintaining order and stability in Iraq and the region. Withrawing simply and leaving Iraq in a mess is an irresponsible act by the major super power. The justification, however, for starting this war is a totally different issue.
We need a plan is what we need, the gradual removal of troops. Simply withdrawing completely so fast would be irresponsible, but to continue increasing troops is idiotic.
Chris, we will often have fundamental differences due to our political views, but I always enjoy our debates.
I won't dispute the fact that President Bush and his cabinet sold the war to congress and the people. However the legal responsibility of starting (but not the subsequent prosecution) rests with the legislative branch of the U.S. government.
As I said, I disagree with the path congress has taken since World War II in the United States, giving "war powers" to the Executive branch. I feel that whenever we enter a war, we should do so in exact accordance with the U.S. constitution, a declaration. (Furthermore, being old-fashioned and believing in such odd ideas as honor, I would declare war and provide a copy of that declaration to my enemy before actually commencing hostilities.) I think we'd be less likely to start a war if congressmen and women actually had to declare it, rather than passing the buck to the President.
I won't get into a debate over democracy, capitalism, socialism, parecon, parpolity, etc. since I am debating that in the philosophy forum already. (And I don't want to digress too far off the topic here.)
Thanks for the links, as always.
Respectfully,
M
I won't dispute the fact that President Bush and his cabinet sold the war to congress and the people. However the legal responsibility of starting (but not the subsequent prosecution) rests with the legislative branch of the U.S. government.
As I said, I disagree with the path congress has taken since World War II in the United States, giving "war powers" to the Executive branch. I feel that whenever we enter a war, we should do so in exact accordance with the U.S. constitution, a declaration. (Furthermore, being old-fashioned and believing in such odd ideas as honor, I would declare war and provide a copy of that declaration to my enemy before actually commencing hostilities.
) I think we'd be less likely to start a war if congressmen and women actually had to declare it, rather than passing the buck to the President.
I won't get into a debate over democracy, capitalism, socialism, parecon, parpolity, etc. since I am debating that in the philosophy forum already. (And I don't want to digress too far off the topic here.
)
Thanks for the links, as always.
Respectfully,
M
| Moonspider wrote: |
| Chris, we will often have fundamental differences due to our political views, but I always enjoy our debates. |
As do I - I wish all debates between widely differing political standpoints could be conducted in the same civilised and polite manner.
| Quote: |
| I won't dispute the fact that President Bush and his cabinet sold the war to congress and the people. However the legal responsibility of starting (but not the subsequent prosecution) rests with the legislative branch of the U.S. government. |
| Quote: |
|
As I said, I disagree with the path congress has taken since World War II in the United States, giving "war powers" to the Executive branch. I feel that whenever we enter a war, we should do so in exact accordance with the U.S. constitution, a declaration. (Furthermore, being old-fashioned and believing in such odd ideas as honor, I would declare war and provide a copy of that declaration to my enemy before actually commencing hostilities. ) I think we'd be less likely to start a war if congressmen and women actually had to declare it, rather than passing the buck to the President. |
I suppose my rejoinder would have to be that the problem comes with the new state department definitions of pre-emptive war - a concept not recognised by any other major body that I can think of, certainly not the UN...
| Quote: |
|
I won't get into a debate over democracy, capitalism, socialism, parecon, parpolity, etc. since I am debating that in the philosophy forum already. (And I don't want to digress too far off the topic here. ) |
Fair point - I did move away from the central point of the thread in my posting, I admit.
| Quote: |
| Thanks for the links, as always. |
Regards
Chris.
NO NO NO.
We cannot just leave Iraq. We began this war and we will not end it until the job is done. Ask any soldier in Iraq, and I bet those who understand their mission would ALL SAY WE SHOULD STAY UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE.
Yes Baghdad and other parts of Iraq have major problems and the Iraqi's should learn how to deal with them, without the USA doing everything, but we have a lot of good going on over there, which the media will never portray for whatever reason or another.
They have new schools, they have DEMOCRATIC elections, they have their own military. Yes mistakes have been made, but things are bound to get better, and I truly believe that!
STAY THE COURSE UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE.
We cannot just leave Iraq. We began this war and we will not end it until the job is done. Ask any soldier in Iraq, and I bet those who understand their mission would ALL SAY WE SHOULD STAY UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE.
Yes Baghdad and other parts of Iraq have major problems and the Iraqi's should learn how to deal with them, without the USA doing everything, but we have a lot of good going on over there, which the media will never portray for whatever reason or another.
They have new schools, they have DEMOCRATIC elections, they have their own military. Yes mistakes have been made, but things are bound to get better, and I truly believe that!
STAY THE COURSE UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE.
| tribe wrote: |
| NO NO NO.
We cannot just leave Iraq. We began this war and we will not end it until the job is done. Ask any soldier in Iraq, and I bet those who understand their mission would ALL SAY WE SHOULD STAY UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE. Yes Baghdad and other parts of Iraq have major problems and the Iraqi's should learn how to deal with them, without the USA doing everything, but we have a lot of good going on over there, which the media will never portray for whatever reason or another. They have new schools, they have DEMOCRATIC elections, they have their own military. Yes mistakes have been made, but things are bound to get better, and I truly believe that! STAY THE COURSE UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE. |
JOB=OIL
It has been such a hot discussion! The poll current result also is hot, with seven to seven (January 15).
From my point of view, the United States should stay until the US-backed new government is strong enough to protect itself against possible attacks by Saddam supporters. Or it would be seen by the outside world as a state irresponsible for its own action.
I hope the US congress will not cut funding for the war and rebuilding of Iraq should the latter be to be turned into a democracy, an ideology which has gained a lot of popularity among ordinary people around the globe.
From my point of view, the United States should stay until the US-backed new government is strong enough to protect itself against possible attacks by Saddam supporters. Or it would be seen by the outside world as a state irresponsible for its own action.
I hope the US congress will not cut funding for the war and rebuilding of Iraq should the latter be to be turned into a democracy, an ideology which has gained a lot of popularity among ordinary people around the globe.
The war is started when USA and partners came in Iraq, IMHO it would last for many years, whatever USA decide to do with their forces. The situation is extremely complex, even if they decide to split Iraq on two or three countries, there would be war at borders or even war with some forces for united Iraq against national/religion forces.
USA acted foolish and irresponsible few years ago and that is the only fact in this topic.
USA acted foolish and irresponsible few years ago and that is the only fact in this topic.
i've read yesterday in an editorial that it's called "Texas Strategy", where oil companies sponsored by him are in dire need of a miracle from iraq to save their ass from bankruptcy. I don't know how long can America tolerate his excuses that they are winning in iraq.
USA should never have attacked Iraq. That's what I thought then and what I still think now. It was a total fiasco. But what had you really expected? But now, to leave or not to leave, that's the question. I don't think it will be better if they leave, nor bader. They can't control it and they will never get the control.
Now it is too late to withdraw from Iraq, and in my opinion US should increase its contigent in Iraq to ensure more or less stable situation. Of course there is oil, there is war profit, but at the same time world terrorism continues to exist, and Iraq is the last country for which you can say there aren't any terrorists within it.
It is a DO or DIE situation in Iraq for the visitors.
They might have money and power to invade independently. But the Hide and seek game in Iraq is not over and claiming innocent lives is on the increase day by day.
This Incident has made an History in the States History book and this will be hummed in the years to come.
There is no point in withdrawing the troops now and is too late too. Nothing is really going to change unless and untill a good strategy is implemented.
You are in the Middle of Fire. It is better to cross it rather than returning back to starting point.
They might have money and power to invade independently. But the Hide and seek game in Iraq is not over and claiming innocent lives is on the increase day by day.
This Incident has made an History in the States History book and this will be hummed in the years to come.
There is no point in withdrawing the troops now and is too late too. Nothing is really going to change unless and untill a good strategy is implemented.
You are in the Middle of Fire. It is better to cross it rather than returning back to starting point.
I think the best thing the US can do for itself is withdraw! Yeah, its image across the world will be tarnished even more than it already is, but it will be for the better. Iraq is on the verge of civil war, or already there are many people believe.
Civil wars usually end when the two sides fighting resolve their issues. Very rarely does a third party quell a civil war in its infancy. And some of these Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites seem pretty determined to have it all out! And what can the US do about it? Not much, IMO.
Most don't want the US in there anyway. So why not just leave. Their presence certainly isn't reducing the violence. Anyone who thinks the US presence there is making things better is need of some serious drug rehabilitation.
Civil wars usually end when the two sides fighting resolve their issues. Very rarely does a third party quell a civil war in its infancy. And some of these Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites seem pretty determined to have it all out! And what can the US do about it? Not much, IMO.
Most don't want the US in there anyway. So why not just leave. Their presence certainly isn't reducing the violence. Anyone who thinks the US presence there is making things better is need of some serious drug rehabilitation.
STAY.
Many Iraqis say that life was better with Saddam around. Now the country is a tangled mess of violence and civil war. It is now the role of the US to clean it up and restore order which is a major task.
Many Iraqis say that life was better with Saddam around. Now the country is a tangled mess of violence and civil war. It is now the role of the US to clean it up and restore order which is a major task.
| X3 Talk wrote: |
|
Many Iraqis say that life was better with Saddam around. Now the country is a tangled mess of violence and civil war. It is now the role of the US to clean it up and restore order which is a major task. |
really ??? ... of-course, get's better day by day ... b'coz now a days, non of iraqi has his life gurranty. This is better life, as ur point of view. Well said mate.
Warning to USA:
"KEEP AWAY FROM IRAN", last time you attacked IRAQ also didn't completely finish yet, now going for IRAN? (I'll boom the White House if you try attack other country again.)
DO you know how suffered we are? (Whole worlds because of oils price increased over $80+, now dropped back $50.)
STOP WAR; NO MORE WAR (We want peace forever, you stupid USA Goverment.)
"KEEP AWAY FROM IRAN", last time you attacked IRAQ also didn't completely finish yet, now going for IRAN? (I'll boom the White House if you try attack other country again.)
DO you know how suffered we are? (Whole worlds because of oils price increased over $80+, now dropped back $50.)
STOP WAR; NO MORE WAR (We want peace forever, you stupid USA Goverment.)
i think it is time tht the US left iraq. haven't they screwed iraq enough? i mean bush is the biggest hypocrite in the 21st century. when will he give up? doesn't he get satisfaction by running his own country and not rule other countries as well?
I am a bit mixed about this, on one side i think the should leave and let it all be in the hand of the people that live their, its their land. on the other side i believe america should try and fix the mess they created, for in my oppinion they shouln't have started that war in the first place. (at least not at the time they did, it might have come to it eventually anyway but thats just a guess)
| vynes18 wrote: |
| Warning to USA:
"KEEP AWAY FROM IRAN", last time you attacked IRAQ also didn't completely finish yet, now going for IRAN? (I'll boom the White House if you try attack other country again.) DO you know how suffered we are? (Whole worlds because of oils price increased over $80+, now dropped back $50.) STOP WAR; NO MORE WAR (We want peace forever, you stupid USA Goverment.) |
Yeah. The world was in perfect peace (no war, no conflict, no killing) before the United States became a superpower in the late 1940s.
The U.S. just ruined everything!
Respectfully,
M
I don't think it'd be a good idea to pull out now, but it was definitely a stupid idea to go in in the first place.
| missdixy wrote: |
| I don't think it'd be a good idea to pull out now, but it was definitely a stupid idea to go in in the first place. |
Exactly, well put.
I saw on the news today that the American public are beginning to demonstrate to bring the troops home. One of them was shouting something about "no more American soldiers should have to die"
Fair enough, but how many Iraqi civiliens have died in a war they didn't ask for? And how many more would die if the Foriegn troops pulled out now?
Another interesting thing is that these American protesters seem to forget that their government has dragged other foreign troops into this war also, it is not only American troops dying, although they are the majority.
It was a stupid mistake to start this war with no idea of how to finish it. But now that it has been started it is the responsibility of the American government to ensure that they see it through to a satisfactory outcome.
 |