Should America Stop Iraq War?

[Neoteny]

I wonder what the possibilities of working with more regional interests might be out there. The key for the US and West in general to work to build back that trust that we lost during the world wars, and, though I have no idea how to go about doing that (I'm no politician), but it seems that we need to try something other than "stick it out; stay the course." If we're going to be there, we need to make it clear that we are making an internationalized effort to reconstruct, or construct, depending on your perspective, some sort of forum for cooperation.

I don't know if I'm making any sense as far as this goes, but the current efforts for Middle Eastern stability have proven useless. Something a bit more farsighted needs to happen.

[InkL0sed]

I think the idea that we should be worried about what will happen in Iraq is ludicrous. First of all -- we are doing a horrible job at creating stability in any case. Second of all, if we're really so worried about genocide and the like happening after we leave, why don't we invade Darfur? Why don't we stand up to China's persecution of Falung Gong and the like? These people have been fighting each other for centuries. There is no reasoning with them.

On a more practical level, nobody seems to connect our failing economy with the war. It seems so painfully obvious, when we pay something like 8 million dollars an hour for the war. You could argue that China is funding the war in Iraq, in fact. We should deal with our own problems, which are plentiful, before we try to police the world. Unfortunately, we have a "city on a hill," police-the-world mentality in this country.

[LYR]

Vote: No

I had a project in school about current events, and the teacher told the class that we were going to do it on the Iraq war. I cannot remember all of the reasons, but I searched up many sources on the internet, and the one that I remember clearly is that emptying Iraq of U.S. troops is that it will give Al Qaeda an safe haven. From there, they will expand and cause even more casualties in America and Israel. That is all

[got tonkaed]

Guis i almost half replied earlier...without getting into it too much, i think the jury should still be out a little bit on the political situation in Iran to dictate that we should be operating our foreign policy under the need to safeguard against iran.

[comic boy]

We are there now, if we pull out while there is still so much instability, it will end up like Vietnam did after we pulled out of there. Millions of innocent people slaughtered for nothing more then being there. It would most likely create a war between the surrounding countries, and well, a centralized problem would only rapidly increase. So, we get the country stabilized and able to defend itself, then we pull out.

I agree whole heartedly. This is an issue on which I generally disagree with the majority on the 'left'. Whatever the benefits of pulling out, we have a duty to stabilise the country and leave it in a fit state for the so called 'freedom' and 'democracy' we are so enthusiastic to spread to flourish. Neocon, I know...

Guiscard can you elaborate on MTGs claim that millions died in Vietnam after the US pulled out and another posters claim that there was some degree of genocide. I would certainly make the counter claim that if the US had not carpet bombed Cambodia then the ensuing genocide in that country may well have been avoided, an action incidently that was illegal in every respect. Getting back to the original point I tend to agree that having created such a mess the US is obliged to try and create a degree of stability before pulling out, its a shame the lessons of history were not learnt earlier though.

[dewey316]

I would certainly make the counter claim that if the US had not carpet bombed Cambodia then the ensuing genocide in that country may well have been avoided

That is a very valid point, the big point there is, that we caused the mess, and us pulling out, gave it the ability to happen. If we are going to go in to a country with military force, to liberate them from a "violent dictator", I think we have an obligation, to not just leave them high and dry, and pull out leaving a situation that is ripe for another one to come in. You also have a situation that is ripe for religous and racial based killing. The Sunni areas in Iraq have almost zero oil, and the Shia area does have the oil, and they now have the political power also. Couple that with the fact that neither of them like the Kurds, and you end up with a 3 way power strugle for oil money, and political power.

I don't think the cause of the problem being us or not, can change the idea, that since we went in, and removed the governing body that was there, that we NEED to stay there and stabalize it.

I have always wondered this, I would like to get feedback from the non-US people on this. If the US pulled every troop out of Iraq tomorrow, and the country exploided into a civil war, would the rest of the world feel the US needs to go back to Iraq to stop that war? Would the rest of the world get involved? Or would the rest of the world, say the US did the right thing by pulling out, and say the Iraqi's should just fight it out and settle it themselfs?

[DaGip]

dewey, some would say there is a civil war there already, and we are just caught in between it.

Another point from the Muslim perspective, Americans are considered the infidel or transgressors. It is Muslim law that they shall fight us until we either leave their land or we don't exist or all of us revert to Islam. We are facing an all out Jihad the longer we stay there.

We gave them weapons and we gave them training, it's time to start coming home soon. We have already hit 4,000 dead. If we stay, I am telling you, the whole Muslim world will crash down on us and that 4,000 will seem like only 40.

I found this article that is a glimmer of hope in defense of the Surge:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/ts_ ... ility_dc_1

[comic boy]

I would certainly make the counter claim that if the US had not carpet bombed Cambodia then the ensuing genocide in that country may well have been avoided

That is a very valid point, the big point there is, that we caused the mess, and us pulling out, gave it the ability to happen. If we are going to go in to a country with military force, to liberate them from a "violent dictator", I think we have an obligation, to not just leave them high and dry, and pull out leaving a situation that is ripe for another one to come in. You also have a situation that is ripe for religous and racial based killing. The Sunni areas in Iraq have almost zero oil, and the Shia area does have the oil, and they now have the political power also. Couple that with the fact that neither of them like the Kurds, and you end up with a 3 way power strugle for oil money, and political power.

I don't think the cause of the problem being us or not, can change the idea, that since we went in, and removed the governing body that was there, that we NEED to stay there and stabalize it.

I have always wondered this, I would like to get feedback from the non-US people on this. If the US pulled every troop out of Iraq tomorrow, and the country exploided into a civil war, would the rest of the world feel the US needs to go back to Iraq to stop that war? Would the rest of the world get involved? Or would the rest of the world, say the US did the right thing by pulling out, and say the Iraqi's should just fight it out and settle it themselfs?

Agree with you that however started the mess in Iraq the reality is that it happened and needs now to be sorted out. The problem is that Iraq was artificially created and has always had the potential for civil war,even 20 years of US occupation wont change that. Eventually it will be the Iraqi people who will have to sort it out,peaceably or otherwise, and as long as the Americans remain the common foe then real progress will never happen.

[brooksieb]

Well the UK should definately move out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. I can understand the US pulling out but i think the Americans should stay there until peace is secured and keep it a moderate muslim country so we can invade Iran if need be.

No, sorting Iraq out would mean we don't have to invade Iran (or at least it takes away a major casus belli).

Well if we ever needed to we can because we have bases in Iraq and in the process of building one in Afghanistan. It'll scare them to know they're sandwiched. I say we should be flying plains over there so they know their' place in the world.

[DaGip]

I would certainly make the counter claim that if the US had not carpet bombed Cambodia then the ensuing genocide in that country may well have been avoided

That is a very valid point, the big point there is, that we caused the mess, and us pulling out, gave it the ability to happen. If we are going to go in to a country with military force, to liberate them from a "violent dictator", I think we have an obligation, to not just leave them high and dry, and pull out leaving a situation that is ripe for another one to come in. You also have a situation that is ripe for religous and racial based killing. The Sunni areas in Iraq have almost zero oil, and the Shia area does have the oil, and they now have the political power also. Couple that with the fact that neither of them like the Kurds, and you end up with a 3 way power strugle for oil money, and political power.

I don't think the cause of the problem being us or not, can change the idea, that since we went in, and removed the governing body that was there, that we NEED to stay there and stabalize it.

I have always wondered this, I would like to get feedback from the non-US people on this. If the US pulled every troop out of Iraq tomorrow, and the country exploided into a civil war, would the rest of the world feel the US needs to go back to Iraq to stop that war? Would the rest of the world get involved? Or would the rest of the world, say the US did the right thing by pulling out, and say the Iraqi's should just fight it out and settle it themselfs?

Agree with you that however started the mess in Iraq the reality is that it happened and needs now to be sorted out. The problem is that Iraq was artificially created and has always had the potential for civil war,even 20 years of US occupation wont change that. Eventually it will be the Iraqi people who will have to sort it out,peaceably or otherwise, and as long as the Americans remain the common foe then real progress will never happen.

Via the Kurds were always trying to revolt, but were being stopped my American provided mustard gas. Why didn't we go in then if that was such a big fucking deal? We didn't go in then, because Saddam was selling his oil in Dollar Bills, Green Backs, American Pie....

[Snorri1234]

dewey, some would say there is a civil war there already, and we are just caught in between it.

Only some people?

[Hologram]

Well the first mistake was going in at all.

But now we're in so we need to get the job done and not make it another post-soviet-invasion Afghanistan.

How? Well, I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable on the matter, but I'll give it a shot.

First, we'll need to pacify the entirety of Iraq. This is going on quite well, at least in Western Iraq (according to Michael J. Totten, the only reporter in the Fallujah area. I like to think that he can be trusted to some degree)

Then when an area's been pacified to the point where Iraqi army/police forces can handle it on their own, begin withdrawing troops from the area. If it flares up again and the Iraqis can't handle it, resend the troops and try the previous steps again.

If that doesn't work after a few tries, it might be time to rethink the strategy.

[DaGip]

Well the first mistake was going in at all.

But now we're in so we need to get the job done and not make it another post-soviet-invasion Afghanistan.

How? Well, I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable on the matter, but I'll give it a shot.

First, we'll need to pacify the entirety of Iraq. This is going on quite well, at least in Western Iraq (according to Michael J. Totten, the only reporter in the Fallujah area. I like to think that he can be trusted to some degree)

Then when an area's been pacified to the point where Iraqi army/police forces can handle it on their own, begin withdrawing troops from the area. If it flares up again and the Iraqis can't handle it, resend the troops and try the previous steps again.

If that doesn't work after a few tries, it might be time to rethink the strategy.

<<<CLICK ON MICHAEL J. TOTTEN

(I fixed it for you, Holoman)

[Hologram]

Well the first mistake was going in at all.

But now we're in so we need to get the job done and not make it another post-soviet-invasion Afghanistan.

How? Well, I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable on the matter, but I'll give it a shot.

First, we'll need to pacify the entirety of Iraq. This is going on quite well, at least in Western Iraq (according to Michael J. Totten, the only reporter in the Fallujah area. I like to think that he can be trusted to some degree)

Then when an area's been pacified to the point where Iraqi army/police forces can handle it on their own, begin withdrawing troops from the area. If it flares up again and the Iraqis can't handle it, resend the troops and try the previous steps again.

If that doesn't work after a few tries, it might be time to rethink the strategy.

<<<CLICK ON MICHAEL J. TOTTEN

(I fixed it for you, Holoman)

Sorry, I forgot to preview it to see if it was right. I'm obviously a bit rusty with my html.

[morph]

just because i thought it was amusing to post..

[muy_thaiguy]

just because i thought it was amusing to post..

I like it.

[Neoteny]

just because i thought it was amusing to post..

[morph]

[morph]

are you sure that all the troops wanna come home??




some might like the job..

[morph]

then again there are those..




that might need help..

[DaGip]

The first one was the best.

[brooksieb]

dewey, some would say there is a civil war there already, and we are just caught in between it.

Another point from the Muslim perspective, Americans are considered the infidel or transgressors. It is Muslim law that they shall fight us until we either leave their land or we don't exist or all of us revert to Islam. We are facing an all out Jihad the longer we stay there.

We gave them weapons and we gave them training, it's time to start coming home soon. We have already hit 4,000 dead. If we stay, I am telling you, the whole Muslim world will crash down on us and that 4,000 will seem like only 40.

I found this article that is a glimmer of hope in defense of the Surge:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/ts_ ... ility_dc_1

Well look at the christian world, much bigger and populated than the islamic world, we have the power lets use it while it lasts, we should not fear them. That's what they want, us to fear them and alot of them will get it whatever way possible whether it's by force or mentality.

[got tonkaed]

I dont think the "christian world" and the "islamic world" are as different in size as you think.

[DaGip]

dewey, some would say there is a civil war there already, and we are just caught in between it.

Another point from the Muslim perspective, Americans are considered the infidel or transgressors. It is Muslim law that they shall fight us until we either leave their land or we don't exist or all of us revert to Islam. We are facing an all out Jihad the longer we stay there.

We gave them weapons and we gave them training, it's time to start coming home soon. We have already hit 4,000 dead. If we stay, I am telling you, the whole Muslim world will crash down on us and that 4,000 will seem like only 40.

I found this article that is a glimmer of hope in defense of the Surge:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/ts_ ... ility_dc_1

Well look at the christian world, much bigger and populated than the islamic world, we have the power lets use it while it lasts, we should not fear them. That's what they want, us to fear them and alot of them will get it whatever way possible whether it's by force or mentality.

We can use top secret nanobots to control them if need be, but in relation to the surge, I recently read that the success of the surge was mainly do to Sadr's ceasefire, which is now starting to dwindle in Basra since Easter.

[muy_thaiguy]

I dont think the "christian world" and the "islamic world" are as different in size as you think.

Christian populations are estimated to be around 2 Billion or so. About half of them are Catholics alone. Islam has about 1 billion, half that of the entire Christian population, or about the same as Catholics. However, that is putting both Sunnis and Shias together, so you can divide that up to about 1/4 for Shia and 3/4 for Sunni (unless it's vice versa of course).