NationStates Jolt Archive

I have one simple question. If the United States were to pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, would we be viewed as a failure, or as a nation finally coming to our senses and doing the right thing?

Some people I talk to seem to think that we need to stay because we "need to win the war". Others think we should cut and run saying to hell with it. I'm curious as to what Europe and others think about it.

Even living in the US I know the answer.

"Ugh. Those Americans are doing something again. What's Sarkozy up to? Pass the mineral water."

I'm in america as well and to be honest I think we should stay in. If we pulled out completly now, Iraq would more than likely fall into chaos and then we'd be blamed for that and end up in even more trouble with the international community.

As the first person who actually does live outside the States to respond in this thread, I'm pretty sure that responses would be varied. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was based upon shameless lies, but it's not like you can do a cut & run and pretend you were victorious in the end. I'm afraid it's a matter of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

As the first person who actually does live outside the States

That's me, actually, but I accept your apology.

That's me, actually, but I accept your apology.

Can you blame him?

Location: Michigan

Can you blame him?

Hence the acceptation of apology. If I had actually been arsed to change that there would be no forgiveness.

Before I consider apologizing, I would like to know what part of the world you call home these days, Dinaverg.

I have one simple question. If the United States were to pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, would we be viewed as a failure, or as a nation finally coming to our senses and doing the right thing?
Right thing. Initially, my response would have been "Help them get themselves rebuilt first, since you're there now anyway", but by now that's been done to some extent and a continued US military presence is otherwise unhelpful.

Before I consider apologizing, I would like to know what part of the world you call home these days, Dinaverg.

Luxembourg. Like you guys, but the blue is lighter.

I have one simple question. If the United States were to pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, would we be viewed as a failure, or as a nation finally coming to our senses and doing the right thing?
More of the later.



"Ugh. Those Americans are doing something again. What's Sarkozy up to? Pass the mineral water."
"Jeeves, fetch the gun. I think I hear a Yank."

It'll be viewed as a failure no matter what. But this European turned Australian resident thinks that leaving without the basic structures of security having been established would be doing a disservice to the Iraqis and just prolong their suffering. The surge has demonstrated to me that with a bit of engagement with local community leaders, a bit of fighting where there's fighting to be done and making the necessary repairs afterwards, things can actually work out okay as they have in some parts of the country.

But since that ultimately implies the Americans staying in there longer, this view tends to make me unpopular with friends and colleagues, who usually just see it as an occupation/grab for oil and want the Americans gone.

"ha ha - look at those crazy US Americans. I don't envy the position the Republicans got them into. At least it looks like they are coming to their senses leadership wise. I'm glad they helped to secure and rebuild the country mostly. It's all up to the Iraqis now."

?

it doesn't matter, it's not the fact that you're in iraq still, it's the fact that you ever went in to begin with, no matter what action you take you'll still be damned, withdrawing is a start, but it's not your redemption

While people are allways quick to bash the war there main objection is always that the war was initially illegal. That is true. However -

1. Saddam was a brtual dictator
2. He had in the past used chemical weapons in war and had had a nuclear program
2b. There was Intel to say he still did have both. Bad Intel, but still Intel.
3. He had also used these against his own population during ethnic cleansing.
4. He had previosuly invaded two of his neighbors.

Yes the war was illegal. Yes there were no WMD's. Yes he was not arming terorists. But the wasr was just. Not legal, but just.

Posted as a proud Brit. I am not from the deep south. I would not vote Republican. Vote Obama 08

Nowhere in your post do you say why the war was just.

While people are allways quick to bash the war there main objection is always that the war was initially illegal. That is true. However -

1. Saddam was a brtual dictator
2. He had in the past used chemical weapons in war and had had a nuclear program
2b. There was Intel to say he still did have both. Bad Intel, but still Intel.
3. He had also used these against his own population during ethnic cleansing.
4. He had previosuly invaded two of his neighbors.

Yes the war was illegal. Yes there were no WMD's. Yes he was not arming terorists. But the wasr was just. Not legal, but just.

Posted as a proud Brit. I am not from the deep south. I would not vote Republican. Vote Obama 08

Problem is, human rights issues weren't the focus of the initial case, that being possessing WMD. Now, the issue is do you have enough trust in the people in charge to believe that it was an honest mistake, and that there weren't other factors at play (settling Daddy's old scores, oil etc)? I personally do not believe it was an honest error in intelligence, and many people both in Europe and the Middle East feel the same. Whether this is true or not the fact that people believe it will serve to harm America and its allies.

Now, if the coalition can stabilise the country in a democratic framework before withdrawing, that might be considered a good result in the short-term. However, the controversy over the reasons for invasion has only acted to inflame hostility in the Middle East to the countries in the coalition. I'm a big believer in the idea that intervention should only occur when there is clear evidence that genocide is occurring currently. Otherwise it will only act to increase hostility and increase the attraction and strength of radical Islam, inevitably leading to more terrorist atrocities and continuing high international tension. This can only serve to harm America and its few loyal allies (such as the UK) more than anyone else in the long-term, as old allies in Europe have been angered by the perceived deception, so America and its pals are likely to be fighting these wars in the Middle East largely on its own and thus become the focal point for almost all terrorist attacks.

Nowhere in your post do you say why the war was just.
I thought his "getting the bad guy" implication was what he was talking about as "justice", personally. 'cause, let's face it, that's what justice means for most people.

Its a matter of opinion, and we're not going to have a big "get together" and debate what is the most "right" answer are we?

"meh, what else is on."

I've always advocated the 'pull all US troops out of everywhere for a few years and see what happens' idea. I think it would be amusing, if you don't mind the hundreds of thousands of deaths and South Korea ceasing to exist.

You broke it (more). You mend it. Simple as that. You stay as long as it takes it to be on the fuckedness level it was before.

You broke it (more). You mend it. Simple as that. You stay as long as it takes it to be on the fuckedness level it was before.

Technically it was the British that broke it. We just stepped on the pieces. :p

Technically it was the British that broke it. We just stepped on the pieces. :p
Oh, agreed. It was well fucked to begin with, but you managed to fuck it up a bit more. Just tilt it back a few notches.

Technically it was the British that broke it. We just stepped on the pieces. :p

Actually, we British did not mess up, the faults we left behind were intentional. Each superpower, when declining, is obliged to set up a series of tests for those who are to lay claim to superpower status. As America has quite clearly failed those set in the Middle East, a new superpower must now take over. I'm afraid at the last meeting Belgium called shotgun on this. What a boring era we have ahead.

Actually, we British did not mess up, the faults we left behind were intentional. Each superpower, when declining, is obliged to set up a series of tests for those nations who are to later claim superpower status. As America has quite clearly failed those set in the Middle East, a new superpower must now take over. I'm afraid at the last meeting Belgium called shotgun on this. What a boring era we have ahead.

Ah, but you see, the American Empire is actually a continuation of the British Empire. You see, when the Lords of Zion figured out that the days of the UK as top-power were numbered, they moved to the USA and started setting IT up to take over. They weren't quite done with the Middle East yet, though, so they used the US to finish their plans.
And, I, personally, support Lichtenstein as the new world power. Far superior to those Andorran bastards.

Ah, but you see, the American Empire is actually a continuation of the British Empire. You see, when the Lords of Zion figured out that the days of the UK as top-power were numbered, they moved to the USA and started setting IT up to take over. They weren't quite done with the Middle East yet, though, so they used the US to finish their plans.
And, I, personally, support Lichtenstein as the new world power. Far superior to those Andorran bastards.

Nah, after Belgium, the next in line is the State of the Vatican City. I campaigned against it, after all wouldn't it be ludicrous to have a state full of religious fundamentalists as superpower?:p

Luxembourg. Like you guys, but the blue is lighter.

You don't say. Earlier this month I was in Luxembourg in the disguise of a tourist. Very well, I apologize. However, I also recommend you chance your location in your profile. It's the decent thing to do.

Ah, but you see, the American Empire is actually a continuation of the British Empire. You see, when the Lords of Zion figured out that the days of the UK as top-power were numbered, they moved to the USA and started setting IT up to take over. They weren't quite done with the Middle East yet, though, so they used the US to finish their plans.
And, I, personally, support Lichtenstein as the new world power. Far superior to those Andorran bastards.

No no, you have it all wrong. The next global power will be Georgia. Wait, do they still exist?

No no, you have it all wrong. The next global power will be Georgia.

The South will rise again?

Most people here, I think, would see a pullout as a failure, and staying the distance as the only kind of win that can be gained from this situation. The reasons for going in are now irrelevant.

The Europeans will see it as a victory. Here's why:
1. Europeans love Barack Obama.
2. Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim.
3. Many people in Iraq are Muslims.
4. Many Iraqis are terrorists.
5. Therefore, Europeans love all terrorists.
6. If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will win.
7. Therefore, Europe wants the US to pull out as soon as possible.

And there you have it. I think I included enough falsehoods and fallacies that if you actually go through, they cancel themselves out. Or, what's more likely, a working mind will explode before it gets to the end and not even know where to begin explaining why I'm wrong.

The Europeans will see it as a victory. Here's why:
1. Europeans love Barack Obama.
2. Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim.
3. Many people in Iraq are Muslims.
4. Many Iraqis are terrorists.
5. Therefore, Europeans love all terrorists.
6. If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will win.
7. Therefore, Europe wants the US to pull out as soon as possible.

And there you have it. I think I included enough falsehoods and fallacies that if you actually go through, they cancel themselves out. Or, what's more likely, a working mind will explode before it gets to the end and not even know where to begin explaining why I'm wrong.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6201/yourheadasplodefe0.jpg

Europe will always complain about America. They are jealous of Americas success. If the US follows Europes instructions on Iraq then a new topic will emegre

Europe will always complain about America. They are jealous of Americas success. If the US follows Europes instructions on Iraq then a new topic will emegre

Yes its clearly because we're jealous that we can't match the United States' "success". Because all of the individual states in Europe are unsuccessful. Right. If only we were successful, than it could be us (for we're obviously working on the basis that Europe is one big country with unified opinions) going around destabilising already tense regions by declaring war on false pretences, ultimately decreasing our own and the world's security. Thats it.

Why does it matter? Should we leave a country to cave in on it self so that France will like us more?

We should do what is right, not what is popular. While in some cases (maybe this one, I personally don't think so) they might be the same, popularity is not the judge of right.

Yes its clearly because we're jealous that we can't match the United States' "success". Because all of the individual states in Europe are unsuccessful. Right. If only we were successful, than it could be us (for we're obviously working on the basis that Europe is one big country with unified opinions) going around destabilising already tense regions by declaring war on false pretences, ultimately decreasing our own and the world's security. Thats it.
Nah. The only reason no European country is doing that is because they aren't the world's only *real* superpower right now.

Nah. The only reason no European country is doing that is because they aren't the world's only *real* superpower right now.

No, we aren't China. Oh, didn't you get that memo? There can only be one *real* superpower at a time, and its determined by whoever won the most golds at the previous Olympics.

Phelps?

I don't think it matters what they do people will still say the government is a disgrace.

Immediate pull-out, as in packing your bags and leaving the next day will always be bad. However, speaking as a Brit I personally feel that a realistically timetabled draw down and hand over of powers to the Iraqi security forces will be well supported. Within say a year, any troops that are still there should clearly be there in a supportive capacity to local troops (ie training, advice).

It's what the UK is doing is Basra and yes there has been violence because of it, but the local security forces have (for the most part) been dealing with it, and this is important as it allows them to assert the legitimacy of their government as opposed to be seeing as merely propped up by the power of invading forces.

I think a slow pullout is a good idea, as do most of my country. We never even wanted to invade anyway, but Blair did everything Bush told him to.

US citizen living abroad - from what I hear on the ground here in Japan, from multiple nationalities, it'd be a step in the right direction.

The latter, I suppose.

Most people here, I think, would see a pullout as a failure, and staying the distance as the only kind of win that can be gained from this situation. The reasons for going in are now irrelevant.

Where is "here", exactly?

In my opinion, anyone who equates pulling out with "failure" has some sort of small penis syndrome.

I'm all for the 2011 timetable myself

tbh I don't see many who oppose the US military presence and the most prevailing mood is not caring

In my opinion, anyone who equates pulling out with "failure" has some sort of small penis syndrome.

well it wouldn't be the first time a pull out has failed :wink:

Where is "here", exactly?

In my opinion, anyone who equates pulling out with "failure" has some sort of small penis syndrome.

Western Australia.

The South will rise again?

That just screams "Second Civil War".

Western Australia.

Well I live in Australia as well, and pretty much everyone I know thinks that the US should pull out. So your generalisation = fail.

Well, if you stay, it will collapse. If you leave, it will collapse sooner.


either, it will have failed, but getting out now would save American/British lives.

I have one simple question. If the United States were to pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, would we be viewed as a failure, or as a nation finally coming to our senses and doing the right thing?

Some people I talk to seem to think that we need to stay because we "need to win the war". Others think we should cut and run saying to hell with it. I'm curious as to what Europe and others think about it.

Personally, I think it was a very, very bad idea to invade in the first place.
But now you've got your troops there, you've removed the - admittedly tyrannical - government and replaced it with an inefficient one and at the mercy of non-governmental terrorism. You've got involved in a bad situation, you made it significantly worse for absolutely all involved (with the possible of arms manufacturers and Bush's PR), and the only responsible thing to do now is to stay and help sorting things out.

Since I was technically in Canada today:

If you invade a country, destroy its infrastructure, and kill its people, it's your responsibility to clean up the mess. If we don't like it, perhaps it's time to take that in to consideration the next time someone's trying to drum up support for the war. The very fact that people in the US could be so gung-ho about this invasion and then turn against it is rather disgusting, actually. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq would not only be an act of true cowardice but it would provide ample propaganda of US weakness as well as leave millions of innocent people to a fate they simply don't deserve.

The Iraq war was a mistake, but mistakes don't give you a free pass to retreat from your obligations and leave a country in ruins. That shows us to be immature children that immediately resort to violence at the drop of a hat and then don't clean up and atone for our mistakes. I think that is the worst thing of all because it shows us to be both reckless and weak, a dangerous combination that drives off our allies and strengthens our enemies.

Well, if we stay, it will collapse. If we leave, it will collapse sooner.


either, it will have failed, but getting out now would save Russian lives.


Yes, I think Russia should get out of Georgia asap.

I have one simple question. If the United States were to pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, would we be viewed as a failure, or as a nation finally coming to our senses and doing the right thing?

Some people I talk to seem to think that we need to stay because we "need to win the war". Others think we should cut and run saying to hell with it. I'm curious as to what Europe and others think about it.

America would be viewed as a failure by the people that we least want to have that opinion - terrorists. The American pull-out of Somalia was the proof that Osama bin Laden needed to prove his argument that Americans are fundamentally cowards. You guys need to stick the course, or else things will get worse; after all, look at what the Somalian pull-out resulted in.

Well I live in Australia as well, and pretty much everyone I know thinks that the US should pull out. So your generalisation = fail.

I could say the same for yours. Have you polled your area? Gone door to door?

Of course you haven't; neither have I. We can only speak for those we know. And from those I have spoken to, most people here seem to believe that staying the distance would be the better outcome.

Also, what part of Oz?

I could say the same for yours. Have you polled your area? Gone door to door?

Of course you haven't; neither have I. We can only speak for those we know. And from those I have spoken to, most people here seem to believe that staying the distance would be the better outcome.

Also, what part of Oz?

While this may not be from the most credible source:
An opinion poll commissioned by the public relations company that works for the Labor Party and released on Wednesday revealed that 59 percent of Australians oppose a unilateral attack on Iraq.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2003/0312oz.htm

Most of the people who opposed the war would probably want the American troops to pull out. And even those who agreeded in the begining are probably coming to their senses.

That being said, you probably live in conservative hick-ville.

I'm from Qld.

Most of the people who opposed the war would probably want the American troops to pull out.

I see no reason to take this as true.

Actually, we British did not mess up, the faults we left behind were intentional. Each superpower, when declining, is obliged to set up a series of tests for those who are to lay claim to superpower status. As America has quite clearly failed those set in the Middle East, a new superpower must now take over. I'm afraid at the last meeting Belgium called shotgun on this. What a boring era we have ahead.

Oh no, the Belgians have a very interesting colonial history, and an even more interesting present, they are just more subtle about it than America.

Immediate pull-out, as in packing your bags and leaving the next day will always be bad. However, speaking as a Brit I personally feel that a realistically timetabled draw down and hand over of powers to the Iraqi security forces will be well supported. Within say a year, any troops that are still there should clearly be there in a supportive capacity to local troops (ie training, advice).

It's what the UK is doing is Basra and yes there has been violence because of it, but the local security forces have (for the most part) been dealing with it, and this is important as it allows them to assert the legitimacy of their government as opposed to be seeing as merely propped up by the power of invading forces.

Agreed. A planned, staged, pull out is the only realistic solution, giving time and support to the local military to take over. Whatever the US does in Iraq however, it will gain zero respect anywhere in the MidEast except Israel. If they stay, they will be seen as failing occupiers. If they go, they will be seen as already failed occupiers now in hasty retreat, having realised what an immense fuck up the plan was from the outset.

Whilst I think it's more complicated than that, I wouldn't rush in to defend their reputation either. Whatever hatred the world feels, the US brought it upon itself.

In my view, the whole thing was an excuse to dish out some lucrative deals to some butt-buddies of the US administration. It wasn't a crusade against Islam, it wasn't about a Zionist plot, and it certainly wasn't about freedum. The sooner we get past this tragically pointless escapade, the better.

Europe will always complain about America. They are jealous of Americas success. If the US follows Europes instructions on Iraq then a new topic will emegre

Why do you assume the world has small penis syndrome?

While this may not be from the most credible source:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/advocacy/protest/iraq/2003/0312oz.htm

Most of the people who opposed the war would probably want the American troops to pull out. And even those who agreeded in the begining are probably coming to their senses.

That being said, you probably live in conservative hick-ville.

I'm from Qld.

What part of "Deep, Dark Perth" did you miss? :D

Why do you assume the world has small penis syndrome?

Some people make the mistake to think that the world pretty much functions according to the same principles as this forum.

I have one simple question. If the United States were to pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, would we be viewed as a failure, or as a nation finally coming to our senses and doing the right thing?

Well... since I see the invasion of Iraq as a big failure anyway, if the US were to retire I'd say "at least they've accepted reality: took them 5 years, lots of blood and lots of money, but at least they've understood that the cannot win there, and that it's better that the UN and the Arab League take charge".

I have one simple question. If the United States were to pull our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, would we be viewed as a failure, or as a nation finally coming to our senses and doing the right thing?
Tragically, we don't all have one viewpoint to go by.

In my opinion, we need to stay there to relieve pressure off the currently extremely shite Iraqi military, so that it can sort itself out. If we pulled out as quickly as possible, which would take, ooh, about a fortnight, things would get a lot worse again. Not summer of 06-07 bad, but significantly worse. Don't really want that to happen to the Iraqis, to be honest.

Lots of people disagree with me, which is fair enough.

I'm Spanish but, if the US were to pull out the troops from Iraq tomorrow, I would cheer them. It would be indeed viewed, in my opinion, by the international community, as a nation finally coming to it's sense and, for once, doing the right thing.