NationStates Jolt Archive

We've all heard the "stay the course" argument from people who are for continuting our prescense in Iraq, and the "redeploy" alternative from those who wish to leave. I think that this war isn't essential to American security, however, it is essential for American interests. Iraq has become the center of the global struggle against jihad, for better or for worse.

What I think we should do is seperate Kurdistan and maintain bases there. The Kurds are as pro-American as you can get in the mid east, and there is virtually no violence there. Also, the have significant oil assets. As for the rest of Iraq, we should let them vote on whether they want American soldiers in their country. Recent polls indicate that only 29% want us there, and if this is true, our effort is unappreciated. Therefore, if these people don't want to be helped, it's not worth our time and money.

We've all seen how brave they were when it came to voting for politicians, now let's see how brave they will be when it comes to voting on something that they will have to be accountable for-their own future. It's easy to blame Bush or Rumsfeld for tactical mistakes, but like I've said before, it will be up to the Iraqis in the end no matter what we do or don't do. So let's see where they stand-do they want to go back to the Saddam era, or worse, or do they truly want democracy and freedom.

Do you have any idea how unrepresentative that vote would be? Can you even comprehend how much influence insurgents would have on that vote. There would be so much intimidating it wouldn't even be funny.

Do you have any idea how unrepresentative that vote would be? Can you even comprehend how much influence insurgents would have on that vote. There would be so much intimidating it wouldn't even be funny.

The insurgents had influence on them when they voted back in 2005. We could double our troop numbers in order to bolster security for the referendum. I fear our efforts aren't being appreciated, and if that is indeed the case, there's no point in being there.

Do you have any idea how unrepresentative that vote would be? Can you even comprehend how much influence insurgents would have on that vote. There would be so much intimidating it wouldn't even be funny.
Ah yeah... "don't give them the opportunity to vote, we might not like the result!".

Classic US foreign policy.

Who would hold the vote? The US? And wouldn't the people who didn't want the US in there, not go to the polling places held by US troops, exactly for the reason that they don't want to deal with the US and won't trust the US to give a fair vote?

The insurgents had influence on them when they voted back in 2005. We could double our troop numbers in order to bolster security for the referendum. I fear our efforts aren't being appreciated, and if that is indeed the case, there's no point in being there.

They actually didn't really make a big effort in that election. The primary reason for that was that none of the politicians were really that for pro-U.S.. If they wanted to mobilize for one huge day of killing they could. Its nice to think of a nice clean solution like that but there is none.

Ah yeah... "don't give them the opportunity to vote, we might not like the result!".

Classic US foreign policy.

More like, "Don't needlessly risk their lives for a false result"

I bet the folks here posting "Let the people decide" were real fucking happy when Hamas got elected.

:D

I bet the folks here posting "Let the people decide" were real fucking happy when Hamas got elected.

:D

If the Iraqis elect a group like Hamas, they're not worth the effort.

They actually didn't really make a big effort in that election. The primary reason for that was that none of the politicians were really that for pro-U.S.. If they wanted to mobilize for one huge day of killing they could. Its nice to think of a nice clean solution like that but there is none.

So what makes you think that they will make a big effort during a referendum. If they think that there is a serious chance we'll get voted out, wouldn't they want the people to vote?

And if they don't, we could always use that as an excuse to stay longer because the Iraqis didn't get a chance to have their say.

I bet the folks here posting "Let the people decide" were real fucking happy when Hamas got elected.

No. But it was their choice to make.

So what makes you think that they will make a big effort during a referendum. If they think that there is a serious chance we'll get voted out, wouldn't they want the people to vote?

And if they don't, we could always use that as an excuse to stay longer because the Iraqis didn't get a chance to have their say.

I really do not think that they'd leave it up to chance. This would be their chance for victory and we'd be handing it to them. Any military mind would know to exploit the oppurtunity for all it's worth ensuring victory. Again, this would essentially give the war to the insurgents b/c all the civilians will vote w/ their clerics and those who won't will be intimidated or killed. It is not a true democracy and it loses us the war. That's about as lose-lose as it gets.

If we separate Kurdistan, we have war with Turkey. That is a fact.

I really do not think that they'd leave it up to chance. This would be their chance for victory and we'd be handing it to them. Any military mind would know to exploit the oppurtunity for all it's worth ensuring victory. Again, this would essentially give the war to the insurgents b/c all the civilians will vote w/ their clerics and those who won't will be intimidated or killed. It is not a true democracy and it loses us the war. That's about as lose-lose as it gets.

So, how does clinging yo a sinking ship win us anything? The country is all but embroiled in outright civil war. The people, when actually asked, don't want us there. And even the military brass of both countries with major military comitments are in agreement about the lack of ability to "win" anything. Give it a rest, and just stop to consider the input of the actual people you're trying to "save".

“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you might be mistaken.”

--Oliver Cromwell

I really do not think that they'd leave it up to chance. This would be their chance for victory and we'd be handing it to them. Any military mind would know to exploit the oppurtunity for all it's worth ensuring victory. Again, this would essentially give the war to the insurgents b/c all the civilians will vote w/ their clerics and those who won't will be intimidated or killed. It is not a true democracy and it loses us the war. That's about as lose-lose as it gets.

What exactly would "win" this war in your opinion ?

What I think we should do is seperate Kurdistan and maintain bases there. The Kurds are as pro-American as you can get in the mid east, and there is virtually no violence there. Also, the have significant oil assets. As for the rest of Iraq, we should let them vote on whether they want American soldiers in their country. Recent polls indicate that only 29% want us there, and if this is true, our effort is unappreciated. Therefore, if these people don't want to be helped, it's not worth our time and money.


You know, drawing lines on a map is what made this problem in the first place.

You think it's as easy as "Ok, we'll divide it into 3 parts: Kurdish North, Sunni Middle and Shia South."? What about the major cities? What about Baghdad which has millions of all three intermingled?

You realise that type of splitting results in ethnic cleansing, like in Kosovo for example? You think it's going to be a clean split?

Think again.

If the Iraqis elect a group like Hamas, they're not worth the effort..

Good of you. I'm sure some of them said the same when Bush got in the second time.

... said the same when Bush got in the second time.

I know I did.

What exactly would "win" this war in your opinion ?

Having a gov't that can protect it's people from terrorists but more importantly wants to fight terrorists and having a gov't that doesn't oppress it's people. I think that this is a readily attainable goal. When you read that iraqis hate americans x amount you need to realize that they hate jihadists 50x. We just need to get the leaders to do something about this. With out gov't corruption and with a stronger economy, things can get much much better in iraq.

Having a gov't that can protect it's people from terrorists but more importantly wants to fight terrorists and having a gov't that doesn't oppress it's people. I think that this is a readily attainable goal. When you read that iraqis hate americans x amount you need to realize that they hate jihadists 50x. We just need to get the leaders to do something about this. With out gov't corruption and with a stronger economy, things can get much much better in iraq.

...when the Americans go.....

Classic US foreign policy.[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yootopia
Ah yeah... "don't give them the opportunity to vote, we might not like the result!".

Classic US foreign policy.

More like, "Don't needlessly risk their lives for a false result

What's with the probelm with false results - how do think the US 2004 was won. Three cheers for Diebold and rigged voter lists - that's how.

Meanwhile back at the ranch another half billion dollars has gone walkies
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/19/60minutes/main2109200.shtml
Doncha just the generosity of american taxpayers giving money away in that fashion rofl.

Having a gov't that can protect it's people from terrorists but more importantly wants to fight terrorists and having a gov't that doesn't oppress it's people.
*smacks head into desk*

For fuck's sake, you can't end terrorism by killing people. Are you just to thick to realise this?

"Hmm yes, let's send out the death squads on this district, shooting anyone looking suspicious and hence sorting the problem out"
*gunfire ensues*
"Oh no, the surrounding districts have noticed that the government is using collective punishment and now they're really pissed off - we'll have to shoot them too"
*repeat until basically the whole country is pissed off enough to kill everyone at the top*
I think that this is a readily attainable goal
That's because you're a foolish optimist, though.

You can't end sectarian violence in Iraq, it's just a part of the "nation". And thinking that the Iraqi government will ever have any power is a false hope.

What's it done since its election?

Urmm... I can't really see anything... people
When you read that iraqis hate americans x amount you need to realize that they hate jihadists 50x
You read that in Soldier of Fortune or something?

If the freedom fighters weren't supported, then how are they getting new members?

And if the US is really so very supported, why aren't the Iraqi people happy to have them around enough to stop people attacking them?
We just need to get the leaders to do something about this.
Which won't happen at all. The government is very weak, and due to there being several ethnicities in the country, someone will always be against something or other.
With out gov't corruption and with a stronger economy, things can get much much better in iraq.
Oh yes. Because money = success and happiness.

*smacks head into desk*

For fuck's sake, you can't end terrorism by killing people. Are you just to thick to realise this?



1) The main problem is the insurgents, not the terrorists. Almost nobody in iraq supports the terrorists.

2) Since when has fighting always meant killing. The national gov't can fight insurgents just like we fought organized crime in the U.S.. They are essentially the same things w/ slightly different goals and different in size. You are right that a foreign military cant win by killing but it can be used and to much greater effect by the national military.
That's because you're a foolish optimist, though.

You can't end sectarian violence in Iraq, it's just a part of the "nation". And thinking that the Iraqi government will ever have any power is a false hope.

What's it done since its election?

Urmm... I can't really see anything... people

I would argue that it is not an ingrained part of the country. A very small amount of people are commiting the sectarian violence. The majority are sick of it and want it to stop.

You read that in Soldier of Fortune or something?
No, i learned it on the streets.
If the freedom fighters weren't supported, then how are they getting new members?
As i already said, the economy is not providing iraqis w/ a way to provide for their families so they turn to the insurgency.
And if the US is really so very supported, why aren't the Iraqi people happy to have them around enough to stop people attacking them?
1) the iraqi people aren't attacking us, it's a very small population of iraqis that is

2) I never said that we were supported, iraqis don't want to have to rely on a foreign power for security b/c they are a proud people. I just said that we were less hated than the insurgents and terrorists.
Which won't happen at all. The government is very weak, and due to there being several ethnicities in the country, someone will always be against something or other.

Oh yes. Because money = success and happiness.
As i have laid out for you, a stong iraqi economy would solve most of our problems.

You know, drawing lines on a map is what made this problem in the first place.

You think it's as easy as "Ok, we'll divide it into 3 parts: Kurdish North, Sunni Middle and Shia South."? What about the major cities? What about Baghdad which has millions of all three intermingled?

You realise that type of splitting results in ethnic cleansing, like in Kosovo for example? You think it's going to be a clean split?

Think again.
Uh...Baghdad is not in Kurdistan. Nor do I suggest splitting up Iraq into three sections or whatever. Although the Iraqis are moving to areas where they won't be the minority, so this ethnic cleansing you speak of is already happening.

I really do not think that they'd leave it up to chance. This would be their chance for victory and we'd be handing it to them. Any military mind would know to exploit the oppurtunity for all it's worth ensuring victory. Again, this would essentially give the war to the insurgents b/c all the civilians will vote w/ their clerics and those who won't will be intimidated or killed. It is not a true democracy and it loses us the war. That's about as lose-lose as it gets.

If large numbers of Iraqis are killed at the polls or if we find evidence of widespread intimidation, we could just call the whole thing off, and say that they want us but are too intimidated to vote for us.

Or if the referendum is like the relatively peaceful 2005 elections, and they vote us out, we will know what their mindset is..."thanks for your time and money infidels, now get the hell out."

At least we'd know whether they're worth it. Otherwise, this war is a war of land, not hearts and minds.

At least we'd know whether they're worth it.

You really can't say that. We morally can't just abandon all the people who are trying to make something of their country. They really do not have the strategic know-how to make the kind of decision that his referendum would ask. And if we stay, they won't really care b/c afterall, inshallah.

although I rarely do, I agree with you hear. Let the iraqi people have a say in their own destiny, and if it is their opinion that they do not want US in THEIR country, then we should leave.

The whole theory, the fundamental principle behind this war has been said to be about freeing the Iraqi people, but without knowing that this is really what THEY want, then we can not truly in any way justify our actions.

If this war is for the iraqi people then let us give the iraqi people a chance to voice what they want.

You really can't say that. We morally can't just abandon all the people who are trying to make something of their country. They really do not have the strategic know-how to make the kind of decision that his referendum would ask. And if we stay, they won't really care b/c afterall, inshallah.

I understand that it would be immoral to leave Iraq if there were Iraqis standing up to make a better life for themselves, and there are.

However, the question is, are enough of them standing up?

Moreover, are enough of them willing to tolerate a high level of violence for a better future, or would they rather live like sheep under a dictator, with no sectarian violence?

Those are very serious questions, and unless they are answered in a satisfactory way, we have no idea what we're doing over there.

And I'm saying this as someone who's probably going to be in Iraq one year from now.

We morally can't just abandon all the people who are trying to make something of their country.

the only moral thing, the ONLY moral thing to do in a country that doesn't want you there is to leave. Period.

If the iraqi people think they would be better off without American presence then america should have no presence, otherwise we're put in a position of acting like we know what is better for the iraqi people than they do.

the only moral thing, the ONLY moral thing to do in a country that doesn't want you there is to leave. Period.

If the iraqi people think they would be better off without American presence then america should have no presence, otherwise we're put in a position of acting like we know what is better for the iraqi people than they do.

so you are against intervention in the sudan then?

the only moral thing, the ONLY moral thing to do in a country that doesn't want you there is to leave. Period.

If the iraqi people think they would be better off without American presence then america should have no presence, otherwise we're put in a position of acting like we know what is better for the iraqi people than they do.

So all I need to do to convince the international community that some Army isn't wanted is to wage an insurgency that isn't composed of a majority of people in the country.

A few car bombs a day should do it.

Let me know when the UK grants independence to Northern Ireland.

so you are against intervention in the sudan then?

Even I'm against intervention in Sudan-if it means sending Americans in. We've got more than enough on our hands right now.

Arming the rebels would be much more cost-efficient.

So all I need to do to convince the international community that some Army isn't wanted is to wage an insurgency that isn't composed of a majority of people in the country.


Methinks you missed the point of this thread.

LET

THEM

VOTE

If a MAJORITY wants us to stay, the majority wants us to stay. If the majority wants us to go, then we should pack our bags and get the hell out. That is democracy...ya know...the thing we're supposedly trying to spred over there.

arming the rebels is any less of a violation of that nations sovereignty how?

Methinks you missed the point of this thread.

LET

THEM

VOTE

If a MAJORITY wants us to stay, the majority wants us to stay. If the majority wants us to go, then we should pack our bags and get the hell out. That is democracy...ya know...the thing we're supposedly trying to spred over there.

Why vote? I think we should just leave.

Then, when the place goes to hell in a handbasket, and there's genocidal reprisals amongst the ethnic groups there, we can say to the Europeans, "well, you told us to leave, so we did".

Why vote? I think we should just leave.

Then, when the place goes to hell in a handbasket, and there's genocidal reprisals amongst the ethnic groups there, we can say to the Europeans, "well, you told us to leave, so we did".

It doesn't matter what the Europeans want.

It doesn't matter what the US wants.

What matters is what the people of Iraq want. Their dictator has been overthrown and the government handed to the hands of the people, now let them decide as they will. It is THEIR country, it is THEIR sovereignty, and it is THEIR choice.

Even I'm against intervention in Sudan-if it means sending Americans in. We've got more than enough on our hands right now.

Arming the rebels would be much more cost-efficient.

Yeah thats worked fucking great in the past:rolleyes:

Yeah thats worked fucking great in the past:rolleyes:

Yeah it really has. In afghanistan the rebels that we funded fought off our greatest threat. The threat that they fought off is 1000x more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden ever has been and ever will be.

Uh...Baghdad is not in Kurdistan.

Hey, you can check an atlas! Have a medal.

Why vote? I think we should just leave.

Then, when the place goes to hell in a handbasket, and there's genocidal reprisals amongst the ethnic groups there, we can say to the Europeans, "well, you told us to leave, so we did".

Obviously the Iraqis are among those "primitives" who can not make decisions for themselves. They need "guidence" by their "betters" who know what is best for them. Obviously if the Iraqis want us to leave, they are not rational and need us to show them the true way they should behave. :rolleyes:

Obviously the Iraqis are among those "primitives" who can not make decisions for themselves. They need "guidence" by their "betters" who know what is best for them. Obviously if the Iraqis want us to leave, they are not rational and need us to show them the true way they should behave. :rolleyes:

The problem with your statement was the use of "us." It's not the iraqis that are can't make military decisions, it's most civilians, you included. Nobody needs you to make a decisions b/c you don't understand all the implications from first hand experience. Now if we took a poll of iraqi military officers and they wanted us to leave then we should reevaluate our position.

Obviously the Iraqis are among those "primitives" who can not make decisions for themselves. They need "guidance" by their "betters" who know what is best for them. Obviously if the Iraqis want us to leave, they are not rational and need us to show them the true way they should behave. :rolleyes:


WAY TO MAKE POINT !!


But they want us to stay ...so is that a good thing ?

See they are afraid the place Will ACTUALLY get worse and explode into a total civil war...not the slow simmering low level crap going on now ..

MORE LIKE KOSOVO and SERBIA and ethnic cleansing etc...

Surely you cant be for that ?


Sunni's WERE the power and did some bad things to the majority of Iraqi's...ummm now the people they FUCKED are trying to get payback ...along with the Iranians who ..REALLY REALLY have a few MILLION reasons to get some....

Get realistic ...please ?

We cant leave. We have to help . I know genocide is a European national sport or something...but all out civil wars among be headers is really a fucking drag.

The baddest dudes in Iraq are the US and Coalition forces...the EU should supplement their effort and CLAMP down hard on the hot heads and give fucking peace a chance...


Instead you have idiots calling for the exact OPPOSITE .

Its no wonder your not allowed to own guns in Europe your all nuts .

The problem with your statement was the use of "us." It's not the iraqis that are can't make military decisions, it's most civilians, you included. Nobody needs you to make a decisions b/c you don't understand all the implications from first hand experience. Now if we took a poll of iraqi military officers and they wanted us to leave then we should reevaluate our position.

Supposively we are giving the Iraqis democracy. Should the people vote for us to leave then we must obey their wishes...

snip

...despite what the consequences may be. Other First World powers have left their colonies and they often turned upon themselves but Iraqis must forge their own destiny. Besides, us being there sure doesn't seem to be doing much for the violence now.

Supposively we are giving the Iraqis democracy. Should the people vote for us to leave then we must obey their wishes...

A democracy needs its people to be educated in the decisions that it is making. For that reason, in America there are no referendums on military strategy. It makes no sense for somebody w/o education on a subject to make a decision on that subject. That is not democracy, it is idiocy.

A democracy needs its people to be educated in the decisions that it is making. For that reason, in America there are no referendums on military strategy. It makes no sense for somebody w/o education on a subject to make a decision on that subject. That is not democracy, it is idiocy.

American voters are asked to make other decisions they have no knowledge of. That is a flaw in democracy but you just have to accept it. Iraq is under occupation by a foreign power and it is quite understandable that they might want the occupier to leave. We are supposively there to protect them but that isn't really going to well. We can not stay there to babysit them forever, especially if they don't want us to anyway. There has to be a point where it is no longer in our interest to remain there while the country explodes around us. Eventually someone will get in office who will have the moral courage to admit we fucked up in Iraq and will get us out at some point. If six months, a year from now Iraq remains unchanged, I don't see how we would be helping at all. It would simply be throwing American lives and treasure into a war that no one wants.

Supposively we are giving the Iraqis democracy. Should the people vote for us to leave then we must obey their wishes...



...despite what the consequences may be. Other First World powers have left their colonies and they often turned upon themselves but Iraqis must forge their own destiny. Besides, us being there sure doesn't seem to be doing much for the violence now.


Sure it is thats what you are missing.


If we LEAVE the violence as you call it increases a hundred fold or more...


Not only that little tid bit but it gets to spread because in the chaos the radical Islamist get to train and multiply like they did when AFGHANISTAN was the base of operations ...who knows what they can cook up under these new conditions you are proposing...

Leaving things as they are is NOT an option ...unless you have a terminal illness and dont give a shit .

Sure it is thats what you are missing.


If we LEAVE the violence as you call it increases a hundred fold or more...


Not only that little tid bit but it gets to spread because in the chaos the radical Islamist get to train and multiply like they did when AFGHANISTAN was the base of operations ...who knows what they can cook up under these new conditions you are proposing...

Leaving things as they are is NOT an option ...unless you have a terminal illness and dont give a shit .

Well, if the new Iraqi army can not protect its own nation then I suppose a permanant presense will be neccessary there. Seeing as how we've done such a great job holding back the violence now. Besides slowly but surely Americans are getting sick of this stupid war that has no end in sight. All Bush and his buddies can do is parrot "stay the course". The fact is that it is more and more looking like that neither Americans nor Iraqis want us there. And no amount of Bush's scare tactics is going to change peoples minds.

Then again maybe Bush and Co. are right when they say that the level of violence going on now in Iraq is only to influence the election. Vote for a Democrat and the terrorists win!!!!! :rolleyes:

Yeah thats worked fucking great in the past:rolleyes:

Better than just letting them get slaughtered.

Hey, you can check an atlas! Have a medal.

Why don't you read the previous posts, instead of failing at attempts of humor.

We've all heard the "stay the course" argument from people who are for continuting our prescense in Iraq, and the "redeploy" alternative from those who wish to leave. I think that this war isn't essential to American security, however, it is essential for American interests. Iraq has become the center of the global struggle against jihad, for better or for worse.

What I think we should do is seperate Kurdistan and maintain bases there. The Kurds are as pro-American as you can get in the mid east, and there is virtually no violence there. Also, the have significant oil assets. As for the rest of Iraq, we should let them vote on whether they want American soldiers in their country. Recent polls indicate that only 29% want us there, and if this is true, our effort is unappreciated. Therefore, if these people don't want to be helped, it's not worth our time and money.

We've all seen how brave they were when it came to voting for politicians, now let's see how brave they will be when it comes to voting on something that they will have to be accountable for-their own future. It's easy to blame Bush or Rumsfeld for tactical mistakes, but like I've said before, it will be up to the Iraqis in the end no matter what we do or don't do. So let's see where they stand-do they want to go back to the Saddam era, or worse, or do they truly want democracy and freedom.

They already have. Most actually want us there.

They already have. Most actually want us there.

I wish for the world it were so, but how do you know this?

I wish for the world it were so, but how do you know this?

A) I have contacts

B) They hold polls periodically. Not actual votes, but they give a damn good idea of the peoples desire.

A) I have contacts

B) They hold polls periodically. Not actual votes, but they give a damn good idea of the peoples desire.

Can you give me any links?

Can you give me any links?

I prefer the polls that say that Americans do not support the war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/dailyUpdate.html

I prefer the polls that say that Americans do not support the war.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0901/dailyUpdate.html

That doesn't mean that Americans support abandoning Iraq to the jihadists, either.