NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this isn't a thjread about the validity of the Iraq War, who lied to whom, who had what etc. this is just to point out the one thing that remains true about the war. We. Must. Stay. Like it or not.

Now many people want us to leave Iraq and leave quickly/ While this may be appealing in the short run, beyond that it will be a catastrophy.

First off, if we leave the government will be overthrown. It would not be a matter of if, but when. When this happens, the remnants of the Saddam reigme, and Saddam himself would retake power. I will ellaborate more on this in a moment.

Secondly, the terrorist cells all across the world will be emboldend. They will percieve America as a paper tiger, who will run if hit a few times, just as it was said after Somolia with Clinton. Emboldend terrorist equls things such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings.

Thirdly, we would lose the valuible oil fields. Like it or not, unless you want to pay 10 dollars per gallon (grossly exagerated) for gasolin, then we have little choice besides depending on Saudi Arabia.

And lastly, I fear the following would happen if Saddam's regime retakes power.

1. The execution of many mebers of the current goverment.
2. The execution and surpession of supportes of said govermnet.
3. the Kidnapping of Aid workers who would be left beheind
4. Further stains upon the US reputaion (we may be considered warmongerers and idiots by the rest of the world, but it is far worse to be percieved as a idiotic coward whos bark is worse than his bite)


but finaly, nothing can be gained by argueing about the past. Democrats, Bush is the only President we got. He may not be smart, or make the best decisions, but occasionaly he does something good. Republicans, learn to cope with Democrat leaders. Some of the things they propose can end up being good. And to both parties, no half of the country is moranic. They just have differant needs and experiences. Do not look down upon them. We must learn to debate rationaly if we are to continue being the best d*** country in the world.

Now this isn't a thjread about the validity of the Iraq War, who lied to whom, who had what etc. this is just to point out the one thing that remains true about the war. We. Must. Stay. Like it or not.

Now many people want us to leave Iraq and leave quickly/ While this may be appealing in the short run, beyond that it will be a catastrophy.

First off, if we leave the government will be overthrown. It would not be a matter of if, but when. When this happens, the remnants of the Saddam reigme, and Saddam himself would retake power. I will ellaborate more on this in a moment.

Secondly, the terrorist cells all across the world will be emboldend. They will percieve America as a paper tiger, who will run if hit a few times, just as it was said after Somolia with Clinton. Emboldend terrorist equls things such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings.

Thirdly, we would lose the valuible oil fields. Like it or not, unless you want to pay 10 dollars per gallon (grossly exagerated) for gasoline, then we have little choice besides depending on Saudi Arabia.

And lastly, I fear the following would happen if Saddam's regime retakes power.

1. The execution of many mebers of the current goverment.
2. The execution and surpession of supportes of said govermnet.
3. the Kidnapping of Aid workers who would be left beheind
4. Further stains upon the US reputaion (we may be considered warmongerers and idiots by the rest of the world, but it is far worse to be percieved as a idiotic coward whos bark is worse than his bite)


but finaly, nothing can be gained by argueing about the past. Democrats, Bush is the only President we got. He may not be smart, or make the best decisions, but occasionaly he does something good. Republicans, learn to cope with Democrat leaders. Some of the things they propose can end up being good. And to both parties, no half of the country is moranic. They just have differant needs and experiences. Do not look down upon them. We must learn to debate rationaly if we are to continue being the best d*** country in the world.
Excellent post. Very well thought out and clearly written. Unfortunately, the tendency toward knee-jerk liberalism on here will insure that very frew will be able to read it with anything remotely approaching a rational mind.

Now this isn't a thjread about the validity of the Iraq War, who lied to whom, who had what etc. this is just to point out the one thing that remains true about the war. We. Must. Stay. Like it or not.

Now many people want us to leave Iraq and leave quickly/ While this may be appealing in the short run, beyond that it will be a catastrophy.

First off, if we leave the government will be overthrown. It would not be a matter of if, but when. When this happens, the remnants of the Saddam reigme, and Saddam himself would retake power. I will ellaborate more on this in a moment.

Secondly, the terrorist cells all across the world will be emboldend. They will percieve America as a paper tiger, who will run if hit a few times, just as it was said after Somolia with Clinton. Emboldend terrorist equls things such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings.

Thirdly, we would lose the valuible oil fields. Like it or not, unless you want to pay 10 dollars per gallon (grossly exagerated) for gasolin, then we have little choice besides depending on Saudi Arabia.

And lastly, I fear the following would happen if Saddam's regime retakes power.

1. The execution of many mebers of the current goverment.
2. The execution and surpession of supportes of said govermnet.
3. the Kidnapping of Aid workers who would be left beheind
4. Further stains upon the US reputaion (we may be considered warmongerers and idiots by the rest of the world, but it is far worse to be percieved as a idiotic coward whos bark is worse than his bite)


but finaly, nothing can be gained by argueing about the past. Democrats, Bush is the only President we got. He may not be smart, or make the best decisions, but occasionaly he does something good. Republicans, learn to cope with Democrat leaders. Some of the things they propose can end up being good. And to both parties, no half of the country is moranic. They just have differant needs and experiences. Do not look down upon them. We must learn to debate rationaly if we are to continue being the best d*** country in the world.

First, Saddam can't reclaim leadership since he is in jail. So leaving won't automatically make him ruler. Most of the insurgents just don't like America or is it Bush? They care little for Saddam.

Second:
Secondly, the terrorist cells all across the world will be emboldend. They will percieve America as a paper tiger, who will run if hit a few times, just as it was said after Somolia with Clinton. Emboldend terrorist equls things such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings.

Emboldend terrorist didn't result in 9/11. Weak information services like FBI and CIA did. They knew of the terorist and did not stop them or at least half of them known(which was in their power. Would have saved a few planes)

No, we aren't percieved as paper tigers for leacving a nation after freeing it. We are percieved as tigers back when we left Fallujah alone for months (what as Bush doing?)

third:
Thirdly, we would lose the valuible oil fields. Like it or not, unless you want to pay 10 dollars per gallon (grossly exagerated) for gasolin, then we have little choice besides depending on Saudi Arabia.
Iraqi oils fields do not fund our trooops only help Haliburton through profits.
We get most of gas from Venuzuela and to a lesser extent Suadi. How does Iraq fit into this? Saudi Arabia is a terrorist country. Most of the terorist in 9/11 were Suadis. Iraq is not Saudi Arabia.

And lastly, I fear the following would happen if Saddam's regime retakes power.

1. The execution of many mebers of the current goverment.
2. The execution and surpession of supportes of said govermnet.
3. the Kidnapping of Aid workers who would be left beheind
4. Further stains upon the US reputaion (we may be considered warmongerers and idiots by the rest of the world, but it is far worse to be percieved as a idiotic coward whos bark is worse than his bite)


Actually being warmongerers and idiots is worse than an idiotic coward.
Second the kidnappings will not occur if we leave Iraq. They didn't do this till Iraq...
So false premise.

but finaly, nothing can be gained by argueing about the past. Democrats, Bush is the only President we got. He may not be smart, or make the best decisions, but occasionaly he does something good. Republicans, learn to cope with Democrat leaders. Some of the things they propose can end up being good. And to both parties, no half of the country is moranic. They just have differant needs and experiences. Do not look down upon them. We must learn to debate rationaly if we are to continue being the best d*** country in the world.
Actually arguing about the past helps one learn for the future. I agree with most of what you said, but Bush is not only President we got. If he is killed we got Cheney :P (Vice-Presidents are next in line)

The "We must stay" argument leaves no get-out clause for any future war. If Bush or any future president screws up and does something that on reflection they really shouldn't have, you'll have to stay the distance...there is something called learning from one's mistakes, you know. Being purposely stubborn is pretty stupid.

Of course the US should stay. You break it, you damn well pay to fix it.

And that doesnt exclude me from the right to bitch that you (and we) shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

Of course the US should stay. You break it, you damn well pay to fix it.
Hehe, its attempts at fixing it are painful to watch. :D

Hehe, its attempts at fixing it are painful to watch. :D

Though at the cost of so many lives :(

First off, if we leave the government will be overthrown. It would not be a matter of if, but when. When this happens, the remnants of the Saddam reigme, and Saddam himself would retake power. I will ellaborate more on this in a moment.

No, it'd be replaced by an Islamic Fundamentalist regime, which would behead Saddam. That's what the people want. We don't want to give it to them, since they regard the west as imperialist nonces. For some reason.

Secondly, the terrorist cells all across the world will be emboldend. They will percieve America as a paper tiger, who will run if hit a few times, just as it was said after Somolia with Clinton. Emboldend terrorist equls things such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings.

Not really. The Madrid bombings happened BECAUSE of the Iraq and Afghan wars. We didn't deter them with invasions. Spain sent troops, so Spain was attacked. Ca va?

Thirdly, we would lose the valuible oil fields. Like it or not, unless you want to pay 10 dollars per gallon (grossly exagerated) for gasolin, then we have little choice besides depending on Saudi Arabia.

This is the real heart of it, isn't it? Pure greed? Just admit it, it's not that bad. If you'd just say "Yeah, we want the oil", rather than going ON and ON about how you wanted to 'free the Iraqi people' by blowing up their houses, then you may at least earn a small degree of respect.

And lastly, I fear the following would happen if Saddam's regime retakes power.

To hell with that. What do you know about the 'interrim' president, Allawi? I can tell you all about him if you like. He was a leading Ba'athist, just like Saddam. And he's already executed insurgents without trial to show the Iraq police force 'how it's done'.

1. The execution of many mebers of the current goverment.
2. The execution and surpession of supportes of said govermnet.
3. the Kidnapping of Aid workers who would be left beheind
4. Further stains upon the US reputaion (we may be considered warmongerers and idiots by the rest of the world, but it is far worse to be percieved as a idiotic coward whos bark is worse than his bite)

1. Will probably happen to members of Saddam's ex-regime under Allawi.
2.Will probably happen to members of Saddam's ex-regime under Allawi, as it already is.
3.No. Terrorists do that as they have little choice. Nations generally don't bother, as there is a threat of invasion and regime change. The worker's would just be very firmly shown the door.
4. Is going to happen for as long as you have a total moron in charge.


but finaly, nothing can be gained by argueing about the past. Democrats, Bush is the only President we got. He may not be smart, or make the best decisions, but occasionaly he does something good. Republicans, learn to cope with Democrat leaders. Some of the things they propose can end up being good. And to both parties, no half of the country is moranic. They just have differant needs and experiences. Do not look down upon them. We must learn to debate rationaly if we are to continue being the best d*** country in the world.

This is actually a nice piece to end it with, even if most of your post was wrong. It would be nice if partisan politics would just end. Never mind.

Excellent post. Very well thought out and clearly written. Unfortunately, the tendency toward knee-jerk liberalism on here will insure that very frew will be able to read it with anything remotely approaching a rational mind.

And the tendencies of selfish half-witted right-wingers to blabber bullshit will tend to get in the way of sensible debate.

Excellent post. Very well thought out and clearly written. Unfortunately, the tendency toward knee-jerk liberalism on here will insure that very frew will be able to read it with anything remotely approaching a rational mind.

You're perfectly right.

I started to read it. My knee jerked. I didn't finish. I just wrote you off as a gun-totting american.

What can I say? I listen to my knee.

What do you know about the 'interrim' president, Allawi? I can tell you all about him if you like. He was a leading Ba'athist, just like Saddam. And he's already executed insurgents without trial to show the Iraq police force 'how it's done'.

Allawi is wanted for 6 charges of murder at the moment. Like Saddam, he's a jumped up little thug with no popular support. Also, like Saddam, he's our kind of jumped up little thug.

BastardSword made some very good points. I believe stay or go we're screwed. Though it would be fun to screw Halliburton. :gundge:

It's me, the liberal Bush-hater...

I think we need to stay in Iraq too. We've made a commitment to "freedom" and it must be pursued, even if there are sections of their society that will contionue to fight vehemently against "American intervention". I have friends out there. I have customers out there. So far none have died, and I pray none do. But I'd like to think that something good will come of the sacrifice the troops out there are making.

Whether you like it or not they're our fathers and mothers, sons and daughters. We have to support the person, even if we abhor the politics.

The Iraq conflict isn't and never was going to go away even if America didn't go in, in the first place. The simple fact is that for good (removing a murderous tyrant) or bad (cornering an oil reserve) Saddam is no longer in power. It's a shame that so many innocent civilians have had to suffer such torment and heartbreak under the current guerilla warfare taking place, and the mistrust and nervousness on all sides is just mind-boggling. But I hope that in 40 or 50 years we can look back and say that this was an action that stabilized a region for the benefit of the World, not America, Iraq, the UN or whoever.

Allawi is wanted for 6 charges of murder at the moment. Like Saddam, he's a jumped up little thug with no popular support. Also, like Saddam, he's our kind of jumped up little thug.

Good start, but shall we tell 'em the lot?

Iyad Allawi, far from being a new beginning for Iraq away from the horrors of the Ba'ath Party, was, as a teenager, one of the highest profile members of its underground terror movement in the 1960's, the National Guard of the Ba'athists. He was born to great privilege in Iraq, with his family influential in the dominant Sai'di Party, but he grew up wanting more than just a comfortable life.

Intellectually he was always unremarkable - he was a mediocre student both at School and at Medical College - but he has always been very ambitious. He was one of the Ba'athist agitators during a grand student strike held in 1962, a forerunner for an eventual anti-government coup. During his time as a National Guardsman, Allawi was a key player in various special missions such as assassinations of key figures in the then-Qasem regime, and senior military officers, paving the way for the upcoming coup. (Saddam Hussein himself, it is often forgotten, was in the same division of the party and was wounded in a failed assassination attempt on Qasem.)

Allawi was known as an inadequate student, guilty of frequent sexual harassment against female students, and various thuggish outbursts, including threatening anyone who dared disagree with him with a handgun that never left his side.

The coup of 1963 saw Allawi, still only 19, begin elevation to one of the leaders of the Ba'athist National Guard, and head of Central Security. He was also in charge of interrogation, which amounted to inhuman torture of literally thousands of suspected dissidents, including pro-Qasems, Nationalists, Communists and Democrats.

Allawi stands accused of having personally and publically tortured to death three politically active figures of the time: Mohammed Al Wardi, Faisal Al Hajaj and Sabah Al Mirza, a girl student at the time in the Medical College. All three were then trade unionists and political leaders in the Iraqi Communist Party. They were rival students of Allawi's at the University College of Medicine, and had out-performed him in their studies as well as differed hugely from him in their political ideals.

Allawi was later appointed by Saddam Hussein as a deputy of the new State Security Bureau, the Hanin (which was essentially the Iraqi arm of the KGB, responsible for intimidating or assassinating dissidents). General Ahmed Hassan Al Bakr, Saddam Hussain, Iyad Allawi, and their Ba'athist subordinates worked together to destabilise the remaining vestiges of democracy in Iraq, until in 1968, a new singly-Ba'athist coup toppled the political fabric of the nation, and left all opposition groups completely separated from power, and facing annihilation.

Al Bakr became undisputed President, and it was he, not the University College, who had Allawi's medical doctorate approved. Saddam, AL Bakr's deputy, then assigned Allawi to London, officially to resume medical studies, but really to have him act as an espionage agent against the British Government.

Al Bakr was eventually overthrown by Saddam, and so Allawi, seen as a potential rival for power, was made a permanent exile in the UK. In 1978, Saddam even tried to have Allawi assassinated, since when the two former allies became implacable foes.

Allawi's opposition to Saddam thus is entirely personal and has nothing to do with political ideals, as in truth their ideologies are almost identical. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that he will be any less brutal a leader than Saddam, and all available evidence we have at the moment in fact suggests he may be slightly worse.

Like Saddam, Allawi has a long history of intolerance towards schools of thought that differ from his own, and an unimaginative, brutal approach to settling disagreements. And the only reason he has been appointed the new ruler of Iraq is that after the assassination attempt on him, he became an ally of MI6 and the CIA in providing intelligence against the Ba'ath Party. It has nothing to do with any latent belief he has in justice or democracy - because he hasn't - and everything to do with being a well-connected ally of the West.

Certainly one of the goodies, then. He's in the CIA too, like most of the US-installed dictators are. He certainly ran the Iraqi National Accord, funded by the CIA and MI6 for general acts of terrorism in Saddam's regime. Not that we'd ever negotiate with or fund terrorism. Oh, no, we're the good guys.

You should probably also know that the INA provided a great deal of intelligence about the WMDs that were found in Iraq. Those new, super-powerful invisible ones.

And of course, he was in the Iraqi murder-group, Mukhabarat,that hunted down exiles living in Europe, too. And he was a consultant to US oil companies. No link between that and his sudden appointment as 'interim' prime minister. Oh, yes, interim. what an odd word for 'permanent'.

Allawi is also alleged to have personally executed six Iraqi prisoners in June 2004 to "send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents". Top first minister material there, then.

In short, he's an amoral, evil little man, who's tried to sieze power on several occasions, who's philosophy only differed from Saddam's in who should be ruler, and he's the head of a terrorist group.


Just the man to usher in the age of Democracy.

You must stay only because all modes of transport have been blown up by insurgents. Enjoy the walk and look out for sharks!

You can stay as long as you want in Iraq. But didn't you guys said you were going to leave in January 2005 ?

Anyhow, the longer you stay, more troops will die. You wanted to go in without UN support, so don't come whining about the fact that the european communities don't send troops to help.

you tell him mate !

why dont you all go for a 2 week break, then return in early Feb...it might all just be a dream ?

Btw america was demanding for the european union to let Turkey in. It is none of america's business. We can decide ourselves and the only part of turkey which might be allowed is european turkey. not the rest.

Of course the US should stay. You break it, you damn well pay to fix it.

If for no other reason (and there are a few others, but this one is the most important in my book), this is why I think we need to stay there...

We went over and wrecked everything... It is our duty to clean it up and get that country running again... It's just common decency (well, one can almost taste the irony in coupling "invasion and war" with "decency"...lol)

It's our fault that everything was blown up, so it's our responsibility to fix it...

Besides, what good is it to say "There, we liberated you from your horrible dictator... Now, we're going to leave you to die in this non-working mess, without any government, any stable economy, any security, and hardly any working utilities... Good luck and You're Welcome! Buh-bye!"

No, that's just plain wrong... So, we need to stay over there until we've got it all back into proper working order (or at least, in working order enough that they can handle tidying up the rest)

And what bothers me so much now is that we hardly hear of any progress to this end... Good news doesn't sell papers, so the media doesn't really tell us things like "American troops in Iraq helped a the people of a small village set their telephone system back up" (or whatever)... It only tells us when our soldiers get killed...

In fact, if they'd open up a bit more about actual progress over there, it might be a bit easier to swallow all of the casualties...

As it is, it comes across to the average American citizen as "they're just standing around getting shot and blown up"... We don't get to hear about what good they were trying to accomplish when they were killed...

What our government needs to do to boost support for this occupation (for lack of a better word), is to make some public announcements of our actual accomplishments over there, rather than leaving the reporting solely up to the media, which only report the bad news, or the "exciting" developments...

But oh well, I trust we are actually getting things done, even if we're never told about them...

I wish I could agree with the original post here. The problem is that we can never win this war. The Iraqi insurgents are already home, they have nowhere else to go, nothing else to do. They are willing to fight for the rest of their lives. Meanwhile, we need to pump lots of money into keeping troops there, and our troops arent very well motivated to be there. The Iraqi insurgents will never tire of fighting because the stakes for them are too high, it is their home they are fighting for, they will gladly fight for the rest of their lives for their home. In fact, the longer we stay, the more people are motivated to join the insurgency because we look more and more like occupiers.

I wish you were right. But I dont believe it is possible to win in Iraq, so the real choice isnt between staying and finishing the job or leaving and leaving the job undone. The real choice is between leaving now and leaving the job undone, or leaving later and leaving the job undone.

It is essentially another Veitnam. But now you're lumbered with it. Isn't your president unbelievably stupid? Even his father knew better than to take out Saddam. The policy of containment was all that really worked. The only people who could be relied on to change Iraq were the people themselves, as any outside influence would be considered, well, as they have been really.

Ironic that many of the people we're currently fighting in Iraq should really be on our side against the Ba'athists, but since we ruined their country they're fighting us instead.

It is essentially another Veitnam. But now you're lumbered with it. Isn't your president unbelievably stupid? Even his father knew better than to take out Saddam. The policy of containment was all that really worked. The only people who could be relied on to change Iraq were the people themselves, as any outside influence would be considered, well, as they have been really.

Ironic that many of the people we're currently fighting in Iraq should really be on our side against the Ba'athists, but since we ruined their country they're fighting us instead.
Hey dudes..the British are with you!!,...i myself am joining the Army soon...might wait a bit thouhg!haha.....i can see the resembalance betwen this and nam olny thing is more people are involoved...Americans,British,Pakistani police/Army...government officials out in Iraq...and stuff....we got Hussain,but where's Bin Laden??

Hey dudes..the British are with you!!,...i myself am joining the Army soon...might wait a bit thouhg!haha.....i can see the resembalance betwen this and nam olny thing is more people are involoved...Americans,British,Pakistani police/Army...government officials out in Iraq...and stuff....we got Hussain,but where's Bin Laden??

The British most certainly AREN'T with you. 70% of our population are anti-war. It's just that Blair can't resist bending over so Bush can give him some Texan Lovin'.

And Bush doesn't care where bin Laden is; haven't you heard? He doesn't think about him any more. Which is odd, since he was the one that murdered 3,000 US citizens. Saddam never wanted to kill any. He LIKED us. And we liked him. That's why we helped him overthrow his old boss; and also why we were so good to him until he attacked Kuwait.

Don't join the military, kid. We're the BAD GUYS. Didn't you know?

Btw america was demanding for the european union to let Turkey in. It is none of america's business. We can decide ourselves and the only part of turkey which might be allowed is european turkey. not the rest.
I thought we were actually pushing for Turkey to be admitted?

Excellent post. Very well thought out and clearly written. Unfortunately, the tendency toward knee-jerk liberalism on here will insure that very frew will be able to read it with anything remotely approaching a rational mind.


Apparently you are correct. The really sad thing about it is that it seem a complete disavoument of many Democratic Party ideals, helping the oppressed and disenfranchised.

It seems their hatred of Bush (which is in some ways justified IMO) won't let them consider the potential losses of civil decency that would be necessary to leave this country unsupported in a chaos we caused.

Saddam never wanted to kill any. I will grant you that what he wanted to do, doesn't in anyway justify what we did, but it would be very niave of you to actually believe that statement, particularly after Desert Storm.

Now this isn't a thjread about the validity of the Iraq War, who lied to whom, who had what etc. this is just to point out the one thing that remains true about the war. We. Must. Stay. Like it or not.

Now many people want us to leave Iraq and leave quickly/ While this may be appealing in the short run, beyond that it will be a catastrophy.

First off, if we leave the government will be overthrown. It would not be a matter of if, but when. When this happens, the remnants of the Saddam reigme, and Saddam himself would retake power. I will ellaborate more on this in a moment.

Secondly, the terrorist cells all across the world will be emboldend. They will percieve America as a paper tiger, who will run if hit a few times, just as it was said after Somolia with Clinton. Emboldend terrorist equls things such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings.

Thirdly, we would lose the valuible oil fields. Like it or not, unless you want to pay 10 dollars per gallon (grossly exagerated) for gasolin, then we have little choice besides depending on Saudi Arabia.

And lastly, I fear the following would happen if Saddam's regime retakes power.

1. The execution of many mebers of the current goverment.
2. The execution and surpession of supportes of said govermnet.
3. the Kidnapping of Aid workers who would be left beheind
4. Further stains upon the US reputaion (we may be considered warmongerers and idiots by the rest of the world, but it is far worse to be percieved as a idiotic coward whos bark is worse than his bite)


but finaly, nothing can be gained by argueing about the past. Democrats, Bush is the only President we got. He may not be smart, or make the best decisions, but occasionaly he does something good. Republicans, learn to cope with Democrat leaders. Some of the things they propose can end up being good. And to both parties, no half of the country is moranic. They just have differant needs and experiences. Do not look down upon them. We must learn to debate rationaly if we are to continue being the best d*** country in the world.

Interesting... who told you that you were in "the best d*** country in the world"... do you have any evidence to back that up, I wonder?

But, that is a side-issue.. surely, much more importantly, why ARE troops still in Iraq?

Aside from a handful of US-sponsored vested interests, the majority of Iraqi power WANTS the US and it's friends out.

So - why not just up and leave?

Let them kill each other again for another six months, and then make a nominal reapparance half a year down the line, when the Iraqi regime BEGS for outside help?

Aside from a handful of US-sponsored vested interests, the majority of Iraqi power WANTS the US and it's friends out.

So - why not just up and leave?

Let them kill each other again for another six months, and then make a nominal reapparance half a year down the line, when the Iraqi regime BEGS for outside help?

That's not a bad point, but does that justify, allowing thousands of innocents to be murdered while waiting for them to ask for help? Particularly when we caused the circumstance under which they would be murdered...

That's not a bad point, but does that justify, allowing thousands of innocents to be murdered while waiting for them to ask for help? Particularly when we caused the circumstance under which they would be murdered...

And yet, we sit on the sidelines in Darfur (spelling)... just because they don't have oil, apparently.

Thousands of innocents dies in Iraq under Saddam... for two decades, while we gave Saddam weapons and technologies to fight OUR enemies.

He exceeded his political usefulness to Bush... Bush took him out, to further his own agenda.

So - now the US is left paying for Bush's war, and thousands of innocents are still dying... this time, though - we've legitimised it... we've divided the nations into collaborators and resistance - so, we are SPONSORING the killing.

We pull out... maybe they'll quiten down - and, if they don't they won't be dying any more than they have been... but, at least we won't be PAYING FOR IT.

And yet, we sit on the sidelines in Darfur (spelling)... just because they don't have oil, apparently.

Thousands of innocents dies in Iraq under Saddam... for two decades, while we gave Saddam weapons and technologies to fight OUR enemies.

He exceeded his political usefulness to Bush... Bush took him out, to further his own agenda.

So - now the US is left paying for Bush's war, and thousands of innocents are still dying... this time, though - we've legitimised it... we've divided the nations into collaborators and resistance - so, we are SPONSORING the killing.

We pull out... maybe they'll quiten down - and, if they don't they won't be dying any more than they have been... but, at least we won't be PAYING FOR IT.

I'll admit, this is an issue that has many facets and you make some valid points. However, those about the past or even what the motives for not stopping these things in other places don't determine whether or not it is "right" in this place, does it?

Believe me, I don't want to pay for it any more than you do. We never should have been there to begin with, but since we are there we have to be careful not to abdicate our responsibility, particularly since we created the current situation.

I'm glad the USA is in Iraq. It means more yankees are killed everyday in that mess. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

I'm glad the USA is in Iraq. It means more yankees are killed everyday in that mess. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

I don't care where you're from, I don't want you or your fellow country men killed and am saddend by your disregard for your fellow humans.

Of course the US should stay. You break it, you damn well pay to fix it.

And that doesnt exclude me from the right to bitch that you (and we) shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

Do you like Saddam Hussein?

If not... removing him was a good enough reason.

(here comes the "there are evil leaders elsewhere in the world" reflex argument from the Left...)

We have to pick our battles. We can't depose every nasty ruler.

I don't care where you're from, I don't want you or your fellow country men killed and am saddend by your disregard for your fellow humans.

*Sniff* and then he got all touchy feely!

Tell someone who cares.

Do you like Saddam Hussein?

If not... removing him was a good enough reason.

(here comes the "there are evil leaders elsewhere in the world" reflex argument from the Left...)

We have to pick our battles. We can't depose every nasty ruler.

It's about oil. If the USA could secure oil by keeping a dictator in power the would (and have). The USA has overthrown democratic gov'ts in the search for oil and anyone who dares to want anything else. Removing an evil leader is a coincidence.

Do you like Saddam Hussein?

If not... removing him was a good enough reason.

(here comes the "there are evil leaders elsewhere in the world" reflex argument from the Left...)

We have to pick our battles. We can't depose every nasty ruler.

So, you advocate the forecful removal of leaders we don't like?

Interesting... what do you feel about George Bush?

... I agree with most of what you said, but Bush is not only President we got. If he is killed we got Cheney :P (Vice-Presidents are next in line)

That may be true but it is the pinnacle of poor taste to make a comment like that. And you have to be an idiot not to know who is next in line in the event that the president is no longer able to serve.

I'll admit, this is an issue that has many facets and you make some valid points. However, those about the past or even what the motives for not stopping these things in other places don't determine whether or not it is "right" in this place, does it?

Believe me, I don't want to pay for it any more than you do. We never should have been there to begin with, but since we are there we have to be careful not to abdicate our responsibility, particularly since we created the current situation.

Well, how about we look at the flipside.

Every day that we spend in Iraq, we CAUSE the deaths of Iraqis.

Iraqi on Iraqi violence happens whether we are there or not, but it is being exacerbated by our presence, and by the divisions that makes politically and religiously, within Iraq.

The 'right' thing to do, would be to limit the suffering as much as possible.

Well, our presence is inciting suffering... so, we have to not be there, surely?

Good start, but shall we tell 'em the lot?

Hmm, how about some sources for that?

I think a lot of your claims are unsubstantiable.

We. Must. Stay. Like it or not.

Yes, you are absolutely right.

A lot of people here seem to have some serious misconceptions which I will try to correct.

* "Iraqis want a theocracy" - not true, in every poll less than 10-15% want that. The most respected cleric (Sistani) has specifically said that theocracy is wrong on religious grounds.

* "If we left the violence would stop" and/or "We are causing the violence by our presence" - not true, the violence has been going on for a long time, and it was done by the same people and aimed at the same victims: Sunni have been killing Shia and Kurds for decades. The *only* difference is that they may not do so with impunity, now. (You will note that the only mosques that have been bombed to date are Shia mosques... hmm, I wonder why).

* "The violence is aimed at US troops and those working with them" - not true, the violence is primarily aimed at Iraqis, in many/most cases without any connection to the US or to the new government. While about 600 US troops have been killed since the war, over 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. Most often, their only fault is belonging to the wrong ethnic group (Shia) or trying to make the country a decent place to live (doctors, teachers, utility workers) or disobeying certain ridiculous religious precepts (women going about without being escorted by men, etc).

* "There are a lot of terrorists" - not true, various official estimates range from 5,000 to 20,000. I would guess about 15,000 now that the Mahdi army is out of the picture. There are also maybe ten to twenty times as many civilian supporters who do not participate actively. In one sense this is a lot - the new government probably has fewer combat-ready troops than that. In another sense, it is miniscule - about one person in a thousand. There are probably a lot more people who would happily kill a terrorist if they had a chance, than there are terrorists, and when people catch terrorists you usually have an instant lynch mob. In yet another sense, it is quite sufficient - the IRA had a lot fewer people than that, as a percentage of the population, and they were damned hard to get rid of. However, this is not a *popular* movement in any sense of the word.

Well guys if you think we should stay you had better go. I'm not sacrificing my son in that cluster fuck.

-snip-
Excellent post - indeed, we (the US) must take responsibility for our actions, whether or not they are right.

It's not much about staying but more about bringing some stability... How is that going to happen, I really wonder ? [Hint: Burning Fallujha to the ground is not the way to go]
You can stay for years there if you don't afford the reflexion... hmmf.
:confused: