NationStates Jolt Archive

I want your opinions on whether the US should pull out this year.

The US should stay until an Iraqi government strong and stable enough to keep order is in place. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorists. Iraq can't be allowed to become a failed state like Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

We should certainly pull out, but in an organized way. Gradually hand over control to the locals, but yes, this can be done this year. I can't remember which city it was, but last year when security was handed over to the Iraqi police force, terrorist attacks in that city completely stopped.

The US should stay until an Iraqi government strong and stable enough to keep order is in place. Failed states are breeding grounds for terrorists. Iraq can't be allowed to become a failed state like Afghanistan after the Soviets left.

Seconded. For once, please clean up your mess before you leave and don't let the international community deal with the consequences for years to come...

Seconded. For once, please clean up your mess before you leave and don't let the international community deal with the consequences for years to come...
Awww, but cleaning up is hard. Can't somebody else do it?

Awww, but cleaning up is hard. Can't somebody else do it?

You mean like troops of the German Bundeswehr, who are now desperatley trying to stabilise Afghanistan, after the US troops left in a hurry for Iraq?

You mean like troops of the German Bundeswehr, who are now desperatley trying to stabilise Afghanistan, after the US troops left in a hurry for Iraq?

Ah heres another issue, why the hell did we rush out of Afghanistan to pursue an enemy that wasn`t bothering us in our little "Quest" for osama. As a free-thinker and a kinda consperitor I belive the attack on Iraq was out of one of those like father like son things. Its almost as if George Bush Jr. was trying to best his father by overthrowing saddam.

I want your opinions on whether the US should pull out this year.
Only when the new Iraqi government is stabilized and able to handle any insurgent activity. To do otherwise will mean that all the cost and sacrifice has been in vain.

We should certainly pull out, but in an organized way. Gradually hand over control to the locals, but yes, this can be done this year. I can't remember which city it was, but last year when security was handed over to the Iraqi police force, terrorist attacks in that city completely stopped.

If this is true then there's no reason why the coalition shouldn't pull out of Iraq.

You mean like troops of the German Bundeswehr, who are now desperatley trying to stabilise Afghanistan, after the US troops left in a hurry for Iraq?
Oh yes. They're all alone now. Not a US soldier in sight. :rolleyes:

We should certainly pull out, but in an organized way. Gradually hand over control to the locals, but yes, this can be done this year. I can't remember which city it was, but last year when security was handed over to the Iraqi police force, terrorist attacks in that city completely stopped.
Probably somewhere in the Kurdish region. Those fuckers don't play. Most of the indigenous Iraqi forces aren't that effective yet.

The US should stay until an Iraqi government strong and stable enough to keep order is in place.

But what if that implies staying forever? The only possible "strong and stable" government that would hold the Kurds, the Shiites & the Sunni Iraqis together would be a ruthless dictatorship, and the U.S. SAID it didn't want that. (Was that the reason for invading in the first place? I forget)

How about staying until Iraq fissures into three parts: a Shiiite theocratic Iranian-style dictatorship, a Sunni Hussein-style dictatorship, and a Kurdish military dictatorship - and THEN leave?

The U.S. would be leaving a dangerous mess behind but not one much worse than what the British left when they carved out "Iraq" in the first place.

But what if that implies staying forever? The only possible "strong and stable" government that would hold the Kurds, the Shiites & the Sunni Iraqis together would be a ruthless dictatorship, and the U.S. SAID it didn't want that. (Was that the reason for invading in the first place? I forget)

How about staying until Iraq fissures into three parts: a Shiiite theocratic Iranian-style dictatorship, a Sunni Hussein-style dictatorship, and a Kurdish military dictatorship - and THEN leave?

The U.S. would be leaving a dangerous mess behind but not one much worse than what the British left when they carved out "Iraq" in the first place.
That's one of the reasons that I thought the invasion was stupid, but now that we've done it, we have to make sure that it doesn't come back to bite us in the ass. Whether Iraq splits into three parts or remains unified under an authoritarian government at least it won't be a lawless wasteland where terrorists can build training camps like Afghanistan was.

We should stay there until the defense industry gets tired of fleecing our tax money for a worthless cause.

We should stay there until the defense industry gets tired of fleecing our tax money for a worthless cause.
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2355/smileytroutsmack3ja.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Well, we've gotten ourselves into a sort of dilemma here. We really shouldn't leave Iraq until things have stabilized, because if we pull out now, then things would be just as bad as before for them, if not worse.

Of course, since we have gone in there in the first place we've pissed off a whole lot of people who won't settle down until we leave. So you can see the problem.

Such are the dangers of colonialism or imperialism, call it what you will...

Nope. Stay until the country is stabilized. I reckon a mere 10 years and you may start pulling off men :)

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2355/smileytroutsmack3ja.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Whaaaat? You think the arms industries aren't making oodles of money off this?

But what if that implies staying forever? The only possible "strong and stable" government that would hold the Kurds, the Shiites & the Sunni Iraqis together would be a ruthless dictatorship, and the U.S. SAID it didn't want that. (Was that the reason for invading in the first place? I forget)

How about staying until Iraq fissures into three parts: a Shiiite theocratic Iranian-style dictatorship, a Sunni Hussein-style dictatorship, and a Kurdish military dictatorship - and THEN leave?

The U.S. would be leaving a dangerous mess behind but not one much worse than what the British left when they carved out "Iraq" in the first place.

The main purpose of the invasion was to aquire (steal) oil IMHO!

The main purpose of the invasion was to aquire (steal) oil IMHO!
Yeah, right. Look at all the free oil we're getting from Iraq now. Plus we haven't spent a dime on the invasion. :rolleyes:

Yeah, right. Look at all the free oil we're getting from Iraq now. Plus we haven't spent a dime on the invasion. :rolleyes:

Well, whatever the intentions behind the invasion were, it's all gone quite wrong.

I think oil was part of the reason, but I think Bush's ego (and that of his cronies) is more to blame, not to mention his whole Christian fundamentalist thing. We're staying there and screwing up so badly for the same reasons we did in Vietnam decades ago - pride and imperialism.

Personally, I think that a pullout is going to be inevitable, but it needs to be done under controlled circumstances or the fecal matter is going to hit the fan. If we just all of a sudden yank our forces out and leave the Iraqis to their own devices, we might well end up with another hostile government to contend with.

Steph :sniper:

Probably somewhere in the Kurdish region. Those fuckers don't play. Most of the indigenous Iraqi forces aren't that effective yet.

True, but how are they becoming more effective if we're not handing control over to them. That's why I think a slow and controlled withdrawal of troops, combined with a shift of responsibility to the Iraqi police force is the best way to handle things.

http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2355/smileytroutsmack3ja.gif (http://imageshack.us)

A fish? You cruel, heartless bastard!

Well, whatever the intentions behind the invasion were, it's all gone quite wrong.

I think oil was part of the reason, but I think Bush's ego (and that of his cronies) is more to blame, not to mention his whole Christian fundamentalist thing. We're staying there and screwing up so badly for the same reasons we did in Vietnam decades ago - pride and imperialism.

The issue here isn't why we invaded, any arguements on that are pointless because it already happened. No more useful to argue that than arguing whether or not we should have dropped the bomb on Japan after WWII.

Yes, we should stay in Iraq until stability can be assured from the Iraqi government and police forces. Just because elections take place and a government and constitution are in place doesn't mean we've won, just because terrorist activity in zones the US leaves to the Iraqis slows doesn't mean they aren't keeping under the radar to plan a more damaging campaign. And I'm sorry to say it, but pulling out this year would be psychotic at best. I'm willing to bet we have troops, even at a minimum, in Iraq until well into the next decade. Democracy and stability in a country don't happen within a few years. America wasn't stable when we formed under the Articles of Confederation, which caused us to move onto re-think them, and eventually led to an entirely new document to follow. Even then stability in our country to last on its own as an independent nation took decades. The civil war didn't break out for almost a century into our experiment in democracy, and luckily ended well for us.

Point is, this year? absolutely not.

Well, whatever the intentions behind the invasion were, it's all gone quite wrong.

I think oil was part of the reason, but I think Bush's ego (and that of his cronies) is more to blame, not to mention his whole Christian fundamentalist thing. We're staying there and screwing up so badly for the same reasons we did in Vietnam decades ago - pride and imperialism.
I think the pull-out movement stems from two things-egoes and political imperialism over issues. Well, I think that's where most of it came from. Plus, we didn't "lose" Vietnam because the commies were kicking our asses. We "lost"(technicly, it was a draw. The North didn't truly successfully invade until after we pulled out after a truce was made) it because the protestors were kicking Nixon's political ass. Bush is doing pretty well in the political arena(at least when it comes to Iraq.) and there were relatively few cassualties, considering how long we have been there and taking into account the higher cassualty rate of Vietnam, which was during the hippy era.

The issue here isn't why we invaded, any arguements on that are pointless because it already happened. No more useful to argue that than arguing whether or not we should have dropped the bomb on Japan after WWII.

Yes, we should stay in Iraq until stability can be assured from the Iraqi government and police forces. Just because elections take place and a government and constitution are in place doesn't mean we've won, just because terrorist activity in zones the US leaves to the Iraqis slows doesn't mean they aren't keeping under the radar to plan a more damaging campaign. And I'm sorry to say it, but pulling out this year would be psychotic at best. I'm will to bet we have troops, even at a minimum, in Iraq until well into the next decade. Democracy and stability in a country doesn't happen within a few years, America wasn't stable when we formed under the Articles of Confederation, which caused us to move onto re-think them, and eventually led to an entirely new document to follow. Even then stability in our country to last on its own as an independent nation took decades. The civil war didn't break out for almost a century into our experiment in democracy, and luckily ended well for us.

Point is, this year? absolutely not.

Yes, I hate to admit it, but you're probably right. We've already screwed up and the only thing we can do now is fix it.

There has to be a way to handle it better than we are, though. I'm not an expert in political science, but I think that instead of trying to keep all of Iraq in one piece (it was made that way by colonial powers anyway), it might be better to break it up into seperate Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states - although that would present other problems, because those groups are not mutually exclusive and each would probably want the whole pie for themselves.

Our policies should also be more informed by an understanding of Muslim and Iraqi culture. The occupation of Japan after WW2 worked in part because the government commissioned and paid attention to anthropological studies of the Japanese. I don't think we're doing that in Iraq, and if we really want to stabilize the country, we have to do at least some of it on their terms and not ours.

Yes, I hate to admit it, but you're probably right. We've already screwed up and the only thing we can do now is fix it.

There has to be a way to handle it better than we are, though. I'm not an expert in political science, but I think that instead of trying to keep all of Iraq in one piece (it was made that way by colonial powers anyway), it might be better to break it up into seperate Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states - although that would present other problems, because those groups are not mutually exclusive and each would probably want the whole pie for themselves.

Our policies should also be more informed by an understanding of Muslim and Iraqi culture. The occupation of Japan after WW2 worked in part because the government commissioned and paid attention to anthropological studies of the Japanese. I don't think we're doing that in Iraq, and if we really want to stabilize the country, we have to do at least some of it on their terms and not ours.

And I agree there, we can't expect them to make it by cradling them forever, but they need to be gradually weened off.

And it's true that studying their cultures and allowing that to improve our image and help us help them would be ideal as well, but you have to understand that with Japan it was cultural, their extremist beliefs in the emperor as a god were shattered at the end of the war by his public speeches. We can't expect a man to suddenly appear claiming to be Muhammad and confess his falsehood as a holy man. When religion gets involved, it gets very touchy, especially with our troops primarily being christian, it's much harder to except and acknowledge the muslim and arabic culture, even to the basic degree of simply co-existing with it.

As for the idea of splitting Iraq into factions, that would open a Pandora's Box of problems for not only Iraq, but the entire middle east, they're divided enough as it is without being forced to split and told which land to take, just ask the Palestinians and Israelis how that's working out so far.

I want your opinions on whether the US should pull out this year.
Only if they follow my ideas:

We should pull out. So all the terrorist are killing innocents and no US soldiers making them lose all support from Islamic world.

Than when Iraqi Govt calls us back for help: we are no logner invaders/occupiers: we are saviors kinda like the French in American Revolution (though they did'nt help as much).

We can than since the terrorist lost support and we aren't occupiers anymore: rebuild a stable Iraq.

Otherwise we can't leave for a while.

The plan focuses on three key elements:
1) Status as Occupiers/inavaders needs to be removed.
2) We need to be looked on as helpers in building there country.
3) If the terrorist don't lose support we are in for a long stretch.

So it should work.

An country that starts war with another never does it to help people or because of humanitarian issues or political ideals. Countries start wars to avoid disaster or because it somehow benefitial to them. And i guess that very few people would want a foreign country to invade them even to remove their dictator.

Would any american accept an invasion by India , Russia or Mexico if the purpose of the invasion was to remove a corrupt US goverment?

That's one of the reasons that I thought the invasion was stupid, but now that we've done it, we have to make sure that it doesn't come back to bite us in the ass. Whether Iraq splits into three parts or remains unified under an authoritarian government at least it won't be a lawless wasteland where terrorists can build training camps like Afghanistan was.

Now I'm trying to remember why the U.S. decided not to stay in Somalia but rather to cut its losses & let Somalia become a lawless wasteland/failed state. (And never even tried to prevent Sudan from becoming a lawless wasteland/failed state, etc.)
But maybe the USA does have a special responsibility in Iraq, after having destroyed any real possibility of a stable government, to stay there forever.

Now I'm trying to remember why the U.S. decided not to stay in Somalia but rather to cut its losses & let Somalia become a lawless wasteland/failed state. (And never even tried to prevent Sudan from becoming a lawless wasteland/failed state, etc.)
But maybe the USA does have a special responsibility in Iraq, after having destroyed any real possibility of a stable government, to stay there forever.
Clinton was unable to use real military force for prolonged periods of time because of constant accusations from Republicans that he was "Wagging the dog". Using military conflict to deflect media criticism of the Lewinsky and Whitewater affairs.

Also, I'm not sure that Clinton really wanted to get us embroiled in a long term occupation and nation building adventure in Somalia.

No.

You break it. You fix it.

I want your opinions on whether the US should pull out this year.
No. There's this little thing I learned when I got a dog at the age of five, "to be responsible." Too bad our politicians don't know what the word means.

time-frames are sofa king we todd it

a far better way to determine when we should leave is this:

When the IRaqis are able to somewhat adequately protect the peaceful iraqis from the terrorists/insurgents... when they have a somewhat adequate military/police force (very vaguely... i'm not a military/defense expert)

When the government is established

stuff like that

And I agree there, we can't expect them to make it by cradling them forever, but they need to be gradually weened off.

And it's true that studying their cultures and allowing that to improve our image and help us help them would be ideal as well, but you have to understand that with Japan it was cultural, their extremist beliefs in the emperor as a god were shattered at the end of the war by his public speeches. We can't expect a man to suddenly appear claiming to be Muhammad and confess his falsehood as a holy man. When religion gets involved, it gets very touchy, especially with our troops primarily being christian, it's much harder to except and acknowledge the muslim and arabic culture, even to the basic degree of simply co-existing with it.

As for the idea of splitting Iraq into factions, that would open a Pandora's Box of problems for not only Iraq, but the entire middle east, they're divided enough as it is without being forced to split and told which land to take, just ask the Palestinians and Israelis how that's working out so far.

Another good point. But, let me remind you, when we won the war there was talk of forcing the Emperor to abdicate, which would have been a disaster. Because the people directing the occupation realized that it would have been a really, really bad idea - not to mention that they knew the Emperor had been manipulated and used as a propaganda tool by a cabal of higher-echelon expansionists and militarists - they wisely got the Emperor on the side of peace instead, which wasn't too hard because he already saw the sense in it.

In this case, there is no "Emperor," but you could say that the heads of the Iraqi occupation are acting on a very imprudent (to say the least) "depose the Emperor" strategy.

On another point, I did say that trying to split Iraq along ethnic/religious lines would bring on its own problems, but trying to keep it in its current form may not be such a hot idea either.

About the views of our troops, I've actually met a solider who's been over in Iraq, and while he is Christian, he found an understanding of the Koran and Islam to be valuable, perhaps even vital, to his work there, and he urges that anyone concerned about the issue should learn more about Islam and Iraqi culture too. The soldiers may be more open-minded than you think. The issue is not their personal beliefs, but Washington's policies, and lest we forget, there's a fundamentalist Christian at the helm there.

No. There's this little thing I learned when I got a dog at the age of five, "to be responsible." Too bad our politicians don't know what the word means.

*sigh* I think they know what it means, they just don't care. There is such a thing as "enlightened self-interest," but most of them seem to leave "enlightened" out of it.