Iraq: How do we get out?

[Danoff]

Exactly. It's extremely arrogant of us to assume we have the right to invade a country, get rid of its leader (as reprehensible as he was), then tell them how to run their country.

Actually, since Iraq violated the terms of the gulf war cease fire, we have every right.

Nope,they sure weren't, at least not to the scale that they are now.

Again, there is more at stake here than human lives.

 

[Sureboss]

What's worth more than human lives? I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

 

[Danoff]

What's worth more than human lives? I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Holy crap. I'm completely stunned that anyone anywhere can say that.

 

[Touring Mars]

Not sure I get much more serious than that.

Last I checked Iraq violated the cease fire terms of the first gulf war. By violating that agreement they forfeit the cease fire - they effectively started a war, a war that they lost.

As the victors of that war, we get to tell them exactly what to do with their (our) country. They gambled their sovereignty by attacking Kuwait. They lost the gamble, but we gave them an out because we didn't want to collect. They didn't comply with the requirements of the "out" we gave them, so we collected.

You're trying to tell me that Saddam Hussein's ill-considered attempt to take Kuwait in 1991 gave the US a mandate to invade Iraq in 2003?? George H. W. Bush allowed Hussein to go free, but (quelle surprise) Hussein doesn't play ball with America when Bush Jnr. is in the driver's seat, so that gives George W. Bush a mandate and a legal right to invade? That's news to me.

Couldn't care less whether or not France, Germany, etc. thinks we should have done it. Last I checked we're a sovereign nation. We gambled that sovereignty when we defended Kuwait and later invaded Iraq. But it wasn't much of a gamble.

If international backing doesn't bother the US, then why didn't they go in to Iraq alone? And by 'wasn't much of a gamble', are you insinuating that the war is in some way won already? Again, that's news to me...

If you count Saddam's genocidal tendencies then yes. If not, then no, they were not in an anarchistic state before we toppled their government. That doesn't mean that they deserved to be in a dictatorship (let's face it, that's what it was).

It's highly ironic that, in reality, Iraq posed a far lesser threat to the stability of the region, aswell as to our own security whilst it was under Saddam's dictatorship than it currently does. Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991 and got his ass kicked so hard that his military threat was all but destroyed and (even in the analysis of the neo-cons previously), still posed no threat - until (miraculously) approximately September, 2001...

I think what'll work in Iraq (the only thing that'll work) is someone who grips down with an iron fist. Not necessarily another Saddam, but someone else in that vein.

That's a key point in what was/is lacking in the Bush administration - a desire or even a comprehension to think about what will work in Iraq as opposed to what they want in Iraq. Trying to force Iraq into a US-style 'democracy' is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Swift]

What's worth more than human lives? I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

Do you have anything you'd die for? If you do, then THAT is more important then your life, hence more important than human lives.

Danoff is not advocating genocide or anything like that. So take a second, maybe 5 seconds and think about what he said. Almost all countries had to fight for something they valued more then their lives.

 

[Danoff]

You're trying to tell me that Saddam Hussein's ill-considered attempt to take Kuwait in 1991 gave the US a mandate to invade Iraq in 2003?? George H. W. Bush allowed Hussein to go free, but (quelle surprise) Hussein doesn't play ball with America when Bush Jnr. is in the driver's seat, so that gives George W. Bush a mandate and a legal right to invade? That's news to me.

Who is president is irrelevant. Hussein's ill-considered attempt to take Kuwait in '91 is not what gave Bush Jr. a mandate to invade, and Bush Sr. did not let him go free. Conditions for America to call off their dogs involved compliance with regulations regarding the development of rocketry, biological and chemical weapons, maintaining no-fly zones, and opening the country to inspections to verify that those conditions were being met.

We know they violated those terms of several accounts (rocketry, no-fly zones, and inspections). Those violations broke the cease fire treaty which, by default, puts America and Iraq back at war.

If international backing doesn't bother the US, then why didn't they go in to Iraq alone?

Because we didn't have to.

And by 'wasn't much of a gamble', are you insinuating that the war is in some way won already? Again, that's news to me...

I meant that our sovereignty wasn't at great risk. Even if Iraq wasn't able to defend itself we were never really at risk of being attacked in retaliation.

It's highly ironic that, in reality, Iraq posed a far lesser threat to the stability of the region, aswell as to our own security whilst it was under Saddam's dictatorship than it currently does.

Short term stability or security isn't the goal here.

...until (miraculously) approximately September, 2001...

We re-evaluated our options in the region.

That's a key point in what was/is lacking in the Bush administration - a desire or even a comprehension to think about what will work in Iraq as opposed to what they want in Iraq. Trying to force Iraq into a US-style 'democracy' is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Granted it's not easy. But it's fairly important that governments with any hope of success develop in that region.

 

[Touring Mars]

Do you have anything you'd die for? If you do, then THAT is more important then your life, hence more important than human lives.

Danoff is not advocating genocide or anything like that. So take a second, maybe 5 seconds and think about what he said. Almost all countries had to fight for something they valued more then their lives.

There are plenty of things any one of us would say 'we'd die for'... our children, our brothers, our countries - but saying that you'd die for something doesn't make that something more important than a human life. Some people would die for the thrill of riding on the roof of a train, but it doesn't make train-surfing more important than their life - it just makes them very misguided.

The vast majority of people who die in conflicts do not choose to do so. Most soldiers don't choose to die - arguably, that's not the point of the fight! As I read in someone's signature here on GTPlanet, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his." Civilians who die as a result of conflicts do not choose to die either. Most people would probably say that they were willing to lay down their life for their country if it were invaded, and that you had no choice but to fight or die - but that's not what we're dealing with with regard to the US invasion of Iraq. As Danoff has stressed, US sovereignty was never the issue, so then what do you think that US soldiers are thinking about when their government asks them to lay down their lives for another country?

We know they violated those terms of several accounts (rocketry, no-fly zones, and inspections). Those violations broke the cease fire treaty which, by default, puts America and Iraq back at war.

Well, the international community in the form of the UN did not agree that America had the right to act unilaterally.

Because we didn't have to.

That is a trueism - but it's missing the point just a tad. Ironically, by seeking a coalition, the US made it painfully obvious that a) they knew they couldn't do the job themselves and b) they didn't want to appear to be acting unilaterally, even though they were...

I meant that our sovereignty wasn't at great risk. Even if Iraq wasn't able to defend itself we were never really at risk of being attacked in retaliation.

Now that's a good point. Iraq posed no risk to the US.

Short term stability or security isn't the goal here.

True, but long term stability and security most certainly is.

 

[Danoff]

What's worth more than human lives? I can't think of anything off the top of my head.

he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay."

There are plenty of things any one of us would say 'we'd die for'... our children, our brothers, our countries - but saying that you'd die for something doesn't make that something more important than a human life. Some people would die for the thrill of riding on the roof of a train, but it doesn't make train-surfing more important than their life - it just makes them very misguided.

The vast majority of people who die in conflicts do not choose to do so. Most soldiers don't choose to die - arguably, that's not the point of the fight! As I read in someone's signature here on GTPlanet, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other guy die for his." Civilians who die as a result of conflicts do not choose to die either. Most people would probably say that they were willing to lay down their life for their country if it were invaded, and that you had no choice but to fight or die - but that's not what we're dealing with with regard to the US invasion of Iraq. As Danoff has stressed, US sovereignty was never the issue, so then what do you think that US soldiers are thinking about when their government asks them to lay down their lives for another country?

To say that you would die for it means that it is more important than you life. And yes, people are currently dieing in the hopes that some other than their countrymen can be free.

 

[Touring Mars]

As in Vietnam, however, it's the bitterest of pills to swallow when this most honourable and noble gesture is squandered for little apparent reason.

To say that you would die for it means that it is more important than you life. And yes, people are currently dieing in the hopes that some other than their countrymen can be free.

Indeed... but surely there comes a point where the value of trying to force our values onto others must be quantified. It begs the question, why should our soldiers be expected to lay down their lives to temporarily impose our values onto a people that may be entirely unwilling to accept them? That doesn't sound like 'liberation', it sounds like imperialism.

I do not doubt the courage, bravery and nobility of our troops one bit, but I do question when and if their sacrifice should be used.

 

[///M-Spec]

You'll never get out then.

What is your alternative?

You would prefer Iraqi government be left to implode? For the country's rampant sectarian violence to escalate even further? For warlords and militias to tear the country apart trying to seize power? Will this save lives in the long run and make things better for Iraqis and the rest of the world?

I don't like the occupation either, but leaving does... what, exactly?


M

 

[Swift]

As in Vietnam, however, it's the bitterest of pills to swallow when this most honourable and noble gesture is squandered for little apparent reason.

I won't argue with the history of that. But the fact of that matter is that we're there now and we should learn from history. Not to repeat the mistakes from history.

If we cut and run, Iraqis will be slaughtered by the ten's of thousands. It will happen. Iran has SAID they will move into the "vacuum". And we know what his agenda is.

I despise the fact that anyone, especially American soldiers are being killed for pure hatred and stupidity. But the penalty for just leaving will be WORSE then the American soldiers in harms way right now.

 

[Touring Mars]

I won't argue with the history of that. But the fact of that matter is that we're there now and we should learn from history. Not to repeat the mistakes from history.

If we cut and run, Iraqis will be slaughtered by the ten's of thousands. It will happen. Iran has SAID they will move into the "vacuum". And we know what his agenda is.

I despise the fact that anyone, especially American soldiers are being killed for pure hatred and stupidity. But the penalty for just leaving will be WORSE then the American soldiers in harms way right now.

Totally agree, hence why I was so dismayed by the incompetency behind every aspect of the war so far - how it was considered, discussed, planned and executed. Even the justifications turned out to be phoney - especially the 9/11 link. If the leadership hadn't made such a botch-job of it, they wouldn't be in this mess, but they are, and they have to deal with the consequences of their lack of foresight and patience.

You and Mike are dead right - cutting and running is not an option, but as Sureshot also rightly points out, it's got to end sometime - not least because the US electorate simply won't have it (for reasons I allude to in my previous post).

I am not as convinced about the threat faced from Iran filling the vacuum, but I would ask this... who can blame Iran for filling the vacuum, and who else is likely, or even remotely able to fill the vacuum if not Iran? I wouldn't be quick to blame Iran to attempt to stabilise a country that we destabilised.

Again, it is the Bush administration's failure to see or even anticipate what will work or even what might work that is blinkering them... all you ever hear from them is what they want to happen, what's best 'for democracy' (i.e. read US interests in the Middle East). So long as that remains the case, the quagmire will deepen... the problem of how to get the US soldiers out and leave Iraq in a reasonable state can only really be addressed if the US government is willing to accept that it will have to make some concessions about just how 'democratic' they insist Iraq to be... address that issue and you can maybe even begin to start pulling out the soldiers.

For me, I guess the future for Iraq is bleak - indeed, if Iraq doesn't split into several countries with decades of fighting between those countries, I'll be amazed. Arguably, this may well have happened anyway - US invasion or not. But sadly, since it was this invasion that precipitated it, the US are now inextricably involved in the aftermath, which promises to be long and bloody. Either way, Iran will always have had a part to play...

 

[FoolKiller]

Indeed... but surely there comes a point where the value of trying to force our values onto others must be quantified.

At what point did freedom suddenly become our value?

 

[Swift]

For me, I guess the future for Iraq is bleak - indeed, if Iraq doesn't split into several countries with decades of fighting between those countries, I'll be amazed. Arguably, this may well have happened anyway - US invasion or not. But sadly, since it was this invasion that precipitated it, the US are now inextricably involved in the aftermath, which promises to be long and bloody. Either way, Iran will always have had a part to play...

If I had my way, I'd be knocking out terrorist munitions depots in Iran. But we're not doing that for some reason.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Actually, since Iraq violated the terms of the gulf war cease fire, we have every right.

Yeah but that happened so far back, it's not an excuse for massive retaliation years later. It's simply another one of Cheney & Bush's excuses to justify going in Iraq (but not the real reason they decided to go in--which is mostly for oil).

I say we should have dropped the issue. Too late now, of course. But really, in your opinion has it really been worth it? A playground bully throws a rock in 3rd grade, so we have every right to kill him in 12th? Why didn't we go after the real threats to the United States instead?

You're trying to tell me that Saddam Hussein's ill-considered attempt to take Kuwait in 1991 gave the US a mandate to invade Iraq in 2003?? George H. W. Bush allowed Hussein to go free, but (quelle surprise) Hussein doesn't play ball with America when Bush Jnr. is in the driver's seat, so that gives George W. Bush a mandate and a legal right to invade? That's news to me.

I know. It's a ridiculous argument.

That's a key point in what was/is lacking in the Bush administration - a desire or even a comprehension to think about what will work in Iraq as opposed to what they want in Iraq. Trying to force Iraq into a US-style 'democracy' is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Bingo.

Again, it is the Bush administration's failure to see or even anticipate what will work or even what might work that is blinkering them... all you ever hear from them is what they want to happen, what's best 'for democracy' (i.e. read US interests in the Middle East). So long as that remains the case, the quagmire will deepen...

For me, I guess the future for Iraq is bleak - indeed, if Iraq doesn't split into several countries with decades of fighting between those countries, I'll be amazed. Arguably, this may well have happened anyway - US invasion or not. But sadly, since it was this invasion that precipitated it, the US are now inextricably involved in the aftermath, which promises to be long and bloody. Either way, Iran will always have had a part to play...

Yeah, it's a mess. I hope whoever takes over in 2008 can do better.

 

[///M-Spec]

To say that you would die for it means that it is more important than you life. And yes, people are currently dieing in the hopes that some other than their countrymen can be free.

Dan, you know I think this is all well and good. But what about those who would NOT choose that path?

Our soldiers, sure. The people who take up arms against our troops or their own countrymen (or fellow Muslims), sure. But what about the rank and file Iraqi who had no say in what would happen?

We have THRUST a war upon these people. We didn't take polls. We didn't call around and get their opinions:

<recorded woman's voice>"Hello,

*STATIC*'Aseem'

Please listen to the following important message from--

*STATIC*'Donald Rumsfeld'

..There may be a civil war next Tuesday at will throw your country into turmoil and threaten the very survival of you and your family. The good news is if you survive the daily bombings, kidnappings, torture and drive by shootings, you have the chance to live in a country torn by ethnic strife and is occupied by foreigners that are allowed to shoot you if you look at them funny.

If you wish to sacrifice your life on the altar of freedom, press one now.

If you DO NOT regret that you have but only one life to lose for your country and are happy living under the heel of a brutal dictator, press two now.

Para continuar en Español, ahora presione 3

Please note that if you press two, option one will be chosen for you anyway. Thank you and happy Ramadan."

So what about them? How do you justify making the choice for them?


M

 

[Danoff]

Well, the international community in the form of the UN did not agree that America had the right to act unilaterally.

Again, I that doesn't bother or surprise me one bit. America is a sovereign nation is it not?

That is a trueism - but it's missing the point just a tad. Ironically, by seeking a coalition, the US made it painfully obvious that a) they knew they couldn't do the job themselves and b) they didn't want to appear to be acting unilaterally, even though they were...

We expected to do the job ourselves, but we knew it would be easier with help, and yes, we probably didn't want to appear to be acting unilaterally.

Now that's a good point. Iraq posed no risk to the US.

Never said it did. At one point it posed a risk to Kuwait, but Iraq never tried to attack the US. Allowing countries to blatantly defy our treaties, on the otherhand, is of great risk to US interests all over the globe.

True, but long term stability and security most certainly is.

Yup.

As in Vietnam, however, it's the bitterest of pills to swallow when this most honourable and noble gesture is squandered for little apparent reason.

Yup.

Indeed... but surely there comes a point where the value of trying to force our values onto others must be quantified. It begs the question, why should our soldiers be expected to lay down their lives to temporarily impose our values onto a people that may be entirely unwilling to accept them? That doesn't sound like 'liberation', it sounds like imperialism.

Our soldiers voluntarily fight for US interests. And freedom is not a cultural phenomenon. Representative government is not simply a flavor of existence - it's something all people deserve. Put simply, there is no other form of government that doesn't violate human rights.

I do not doubt the courage, bravery and nobility of our troops one bit, but I do question when and if their sacrifice should be used.

When talking about US troops, I think enforcing our treaties is a valid use for military force.

Totally agree, hence why I was so dismayed by the incompetency behind every aspect of the war so far - how it was considered, discussed, planned and executed. Even the justifications turned out to be phoney - especially the 9/11 link. If the leadership hadn't made such a botch-job of it, they wouldn't be in this mess, but they are, and they have to deal with the consequences of their lack of foresight and patience.

I'm not going to argue the details of the management of the war other than to say that I don't think anyone could have done it flawlessly. I also don't think that it has been done particularly well.

Yeah but that happened so far back, it's not an excuse for massive retaliation years later. It's simply another one of Cheney & Bush's excuses to justify going in Iraq (but not the real reason they decided to go in--which is mostly for oil).

That's one of the silliest accusations thrown at this whole discussion. The notion that we did this for oil is so far beyond reason that I'm not even going to try to convince you. I'll comment on the justification for war though.

The timescale is so long because, quite honestly, for a while there we were content to not enforce our treaties. We were pretty happy doing our own thing. The terrorist attacks that followed reminded us that we need to be diligent about our interests in the middle east. To that end we re-evaluated the situation.

The timescale is also long because we gave Saddam too many opportunities to comply before attacking. We should have done it earlier - much earlier. But it's hard to convince the American people that treaty enforcement is a good reason for war.

And that is why it is not Bush or Cheny's explanation given. It's mine. They would prefer to tell you that we are there looking for WMDs or because of 9/11 because they think it's an easy case to make. I have never heard a politician explain it the way I have just explained it to you - but it is the truth. If you examine the events that transpired it's very difficult to reach any other conclusion.

Dan, you know I think this is all well and good. But what about those who would NOT choose that path?

They're the civilians of a nation that has aggressively attacked another nation, and which then violated its treaty with us. What are we supposed to do? In any situation like this there will be civilians that want no part of it. We have gone out of our way to attempt to minimize collateral damage, but it is far more difficult when you're attempting to control forces that are seeking to cause it.

To involve these people is what I would describe as a necessary evil. We did not jump to war with Iraq. They had years to comply and were told many times to get their act together. I see little alternative other than to have left them in the hands of Saddam and allowed him to announce to the world that the US will not enforce its agreements.

What would you do about them?

 

[Sureboss]

To say that you would die for it means that it is more important than you life. And yes, people are currently dieing in the hopes that some other than their countrymen can be free.

I was thinking, from a different POV, and thus missed that - rather obvious - point.

What is your alternative?

You would prefer Iraqi government be left to implode? For the country's rampant sectarian violence to escalate even further? For warlords and militias to tear the country apart trying to seize power? Will this save lives in the long run and make things better for Iraqis and the rest of the world?

I don't like the occupation either, but leaving does... what, exactly?

I don't think there is an alternative, M. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Either way I think Iraq is doomed to the cauldrons of never being able to be stable. Such a horrible situation.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

So has anybody seen the news lately? Bush just ordered gradual troop withdrawls...go figure!

 

[Danoff]

So has anybody seen the news lately? Bush just ordered gradual troop withdrawls...go figure!

That's pretty much been the plan all along, except that it was contingent on seeing some progress over there. I think the general's report recently has encouraged the president (not me though) and so he's ready to call back the "surge" he sent recently.

I'm more convinced than ever that some number of American troops will be there forever. We have troops in South Korea, we have troops in Germany, and I think we'll have troops in Iraq. Probably nowhere near what we have now, but to some degree they'll be there.

But, we'll see what he has to say shortly I guess.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

That's pretty much been the plan all along, except that it was contingent on seeing some progress over there. I think the general's report recently has encouraged the president (not me though) and so he's ready to call back the "surge" he sent recently.

I'm more convinced than ever that some number of American troops will be there forever. We have troops in South Korea, we have troops in Germany, and I think we'll have troops in Iraq. Probably nowhere near what we have now, but to some degree they'll be there.

But, we'll see what he has to say shortly I guess.

Oh i believe so, too. We're stuck with Iraq, for better or worse. But at least it seems Bush is finally admitting things aren't all rosy over there. I mean, i guess he kinda has to if he wants his party back.

 

[Danoff]

Oh i believe so, too. We're stuck with Iraq, for better or worse. But at least it seems Bush is finally admitting things aren't all rosy over there. I mean, i guess he kinda has to if he wants his party back.

I think it's the exact opposite. He's reacting to what he sees as encouraging news. I seriously doubt he cares about whether current republicans like him. I'm not convinced that the situation has improved much, but I think he may be.

 

[Tornado]

Oh i believe so, too. We're stuck with Iraq, for better or worse. But at least it seems Bush is finally admitting things aren't all rosy over there. I mean, i guess he kinda has to if he wants his party back.

As Danoff said, I seriously doubt he really cares about his approval ratings from either party at the moment. He has a year left in office. The amount of enemies he may have is irrelevant, because they can't do anything about him. He's doing this based on his own goals, not for a popularity contest.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think the facts might disagree with you.

Not to drag this on further, but how many of those people in those country have the money? Like I had stated, it largely depends on how you or "X" IGO decides to classify what is developed and what is not, but its not purely a dollars and cents issue. You also have to take into consideration things like heathcare, basic services, human rights, political and social development, etc.

Sure, standing in the developed West makes it easier to criticize these nations, and by many standards they are far, far ahead of most nations in Africa, at the very least in terms of political and social developments, they are some of the worst in the world.

Like I said, it depends on how you like to measure it.

===

EDIT:

Dick Cheney is coming to Grand Rapids (where I live) tomorrow to talk about Iraq, and I pretty much gave it a "Whoopty doo!" in front of my fellow Poli Sci students. I've stopped caring, I remain indifferent for the most part. I'm sick of having to fight them and defend our actions in Iraq, and at the same time, I'm rather upset with the way it has been handled up to this point... But things are looking better, so I can't complain too much.

Apparently kids from Aquinas College (where I attend) and Grand Valley State are organizing this big rally tomorrow downtown for Cheney. I'm not going. I've got better things to waste my time on...

 

[niky]

So has anybody seen the news lately? Bush just ordered gradual troop withdrawls...go figure!

I kind of agree with the others on this one... Bush isn't doing this for popularity... he's going by what the generals are telling him. He also has to contend with Congress over the funding issue, so he has to show them that he isn't committed to staying there in perpetuity.

Anyone else feel like those are all places that seem less hostile to the U.S.?
Coincidence I suppose.
By the way, from what I understand, Iraq before Saddam was very similar to the countries above regarding the statistics provided.

Simply... well-fed, prosperous citizens = peaceful citizens.

Poor, abused, mistreated citizens = potential terrorists.

It doesn't matter that the US or Israel may not be the direct cause of their poverty, they still see it as such, and retaliate in ways they see fit.

It's happened recently in LA (well, recently in historical terms). In Australia. In France. If you have a group of testosterone-fueled males with no jobs, no future, and something worth getting angry about... they'll retaliate.

Now take that, apply it to entire countries, and the fact that there are big targets to retaliate against, and fundamentalist preachers pushing them on, and you have the Middle East Crisis. And that's been going on for decades.

@YSSMAN: neat point... averages do tend to cover up inequity. But there are a lot of people in those countries who are well off. In fact, a large part of the underclass in some of those countries is made up of migrant workers brought in to do chores to menial for local labor.

What is your alternative?

You would prefer Iraqi government be left to implode? For the country's rampant sectarian violence to escalate even further? For warlords and militias to tear the country apart trying to seize power? Will this save lives in the long run and make things better for Iraqis and the rest of the world?

I don't like the occupation either, but leaving does... what, exactly?


M

I was completely against the war from the beginning. But I dislike seeing an end to the occupation without a clear sign of stability in Iraq. Unfortunately, the US is a Democracy... politicians are often pushed to do what's popular (and "pulling out" is a mighty popular idea), instead of what's right.

At what point did freedom suddenly become our value?

Not freedom. Western Democracy. Everybody wants freedom... well, actually, most people want security more than freedom. But the problem in Iraq is we're trying to force our way of thinking on how freedom is achieved and how government is run on a country that's not ready for it.

It's silly to sit mortal enemies down at one table, hand them white gloves and foam bats and tell them "this is how we settle arguments now...". Hatred and mistrust takes time to fade... and it sometimes never does (look at the Balkans... some of those issues happened generations ago).

Sometimes, these things work themselves out without outside influence. You let things die down, you let people change, you let power change hands internally.

In the Philippines, as long as there is the perception of outside influence in politics, the issues can't die down. We've been a minor pawn in the cold war for so long that the players are deeply entrenched. The communist movement is losing power, thankfully, but this new muslim unrest is bad for us, too.

Vietnam seems to be making progress, of late... thanks to internal reforms of the communist party. It's not as radical as China's progress, but it's progress.

While China's government is still a cold, autocratic regime that couldn't give a rat's behind about the value of human life and freedom, the need to compete economically is changing them from the inside out. By trying to compete in western markets, they're open to the viral influence of western culture. They may be trying their best to keep it out, but I think the way the IT companies have accepted Chinese censorship is a good way forward. Let them think they can forestall the cultural infusion... all the while giving the tools to unlock the world to their citizens...

When you try to shove reforms down people's throats, it just doesn't work. People have to want it. As much distaste as we have for strict Muslim laws, strictures in some Muslim cultures are starting to relax. I have female friends who come from very traditional Muslim families, and they're not as uptight and closeted as you may think.

Cultural shifts take time, people. And suasion. Not force. And where force is used, the new wounds that this causes take time to heal, too...

It's time that politicians don't often have. The unending grind of democracy removes leaders after merely four, six or eight years. Programs change, policies shift. Maybe Bush was desperate to get this one thing done before he left office... Afghanistan, check, Iraq, check, etcetera... so he goes off.

What will his successor do? Just pull out completely, simply because that's his mandate? Or go off and invade another country, because he feels that we need to democratize North Korea (who've been violating treaties and agreements since... like... forever?... shouldn't we finish what we started in South Korea? ).

And TM has a point... Democracy sometimes works, sometimes it doesn't. A successful democracy depends on a well-educated, progressive citizenry, with the best interests of the country in mind. Sometimes that doesn't work... sometimes we elect actors and newspeople to office, not for any political or organizational skills, but simply because they're visible. Vote-buying still works pretty well, and cheating is still ridiculously easy, even with modern technology. The one decisive advantage that a democracy has over other forms of government is that anyone, technically, can become king... and the public has a chance of electing someone who's fit for the job... not someone who is merely born to it or who's got the most armed followers... even though it's usually someone rich, moneyed, well-connected or famous (all four is best) who ends up with the job... not necessarily someone fit for the job.

Sometimes dictatorships work, too... (look at Singapore). Sometimes they don't. Sometimes socialism works. Sometimes a monarchy does pretty well. Note that except for Israel, none of the countries on ///M-Spec's list are democracies, most are monarchies.

It's all dependent on the situation and the people involved. There's no one-size-fits-all solution to all of mankind's problems.

Unfortunately.

 

[Touring Mars]

If I had my way, I'd be knocking out terrorist munitions depots in Iran. But we're not doing that for some reason.

I think the reason is pretty obvious. Pure mathematics shows that the US has pretty much no choice but to start winding things up in Iraq - there just aren't enough replacements to sustain current troop levels. An attack on Iran right now would be disasterous - indeed, a war with Iran at all would be a monumental mistake. Iran may well be implicated in supporting Shia groups within Iraq, but again I ask, what's so wrong with that? America and her allies support their 'interests' all over the shop, but as soon as Iran props up it's interests right on it's own doorstep, suddenly they become terrorists.

At what point did freedom suddenly become our value?

That's an excellent question. Maybe someone should ask GWB that...

I think it's the exact opposite. He's reacting to what he sees as encouraging news. I seriously doubt he cares about whether current republicans like him. I'm not convinced that the situation has improved much, but I think he may be.

I agree, I reckon Bush really doesn't care about US opinion of him any more - but atleast he now seems to be listening to people who actually know what's going on (Gen Petreaus) rather than his neo-conservative think-tank (if it can be called that) who seemingly haven't a clue.

So has anybody seen the news lately? Bush just ordered gradual troop withdrawls...go figure!

It has to happen, even out of sheer necessity/reality - regardless of public opinion back home, regardless of what happens in Iraq when the troops are gone. And Bush doesn't need to care about putting a positive spin on it - what is he going to do, sack himself? (if only...)

 

[Alfaholic]

We'd be the biggest baddest bully on the block, but then everyone would hate us. We'd be forced into a sort of "do this or else" sort of mentality, even with countries that currently are our ally. It doesn't solve any problems.

Sorry to dig up an old post, but I think that this has pretty much already happened.....

 

[///M-Spec]

To involve these people is what I would describe as a necessary evil.

I would have less trouble accepting that if the legal grounds for the war were stronger, our assumptions about the level of danger Iraq posed have been proven correct AND the country is more stable and stronger than it currently is.

Not to drag this on further,

This is Opinions. We out-drag geological time.

Besides, you brought it up

..but how many of those people in those country have the money? Like I had stated, it largely depends on how you or "X" IGO decides to classify what is developed and what is not, but its not purely a dollars and cents issue. You also have to take into consideration things like heathcare, basic services, human rights, political and social development, etc.

Sure, standing in the developed West makes it easier to criticize these nations, and by many standards they are far, far ahead of most nations in Africa, at the very least in terms of political and social developments, they are some of the worst in the world.

Like I said, it depends on how you like to measure it.

Well, since you were the one correcting philly cheese, why don't you show some data to support your side of the argument?

If took me less than 5 seconds to find a wiki article on the Human Development Index.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. It is used to distinguish whether the country is a developed, a developing, or an under-developed country, and also to measure the impact of economic policies on quality of life. The index was developed in 1990 by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq.

To corroborate the data, here is the United Nation's HDI index for 2006. Wiki's is the same data, just prettier.

And while Israel does indeed score high on the list (0.927), so does

the UAE (0.839),
Qatar (0.844)
...and Kuwait (0.871).

Which scores them comfortably higher than these countries.

China (0.768)
Russia (0.797)
India (0.611)
Brazil (0.792)
Turkey (0.757), a full fledge EU member, btw
South Africa (0.653), formerly part of the nuclear club

You said there were NO developed nations in the Middle East. Not in the slightest, aside from Israel. So what does that make the above countries?? A bunch of people living in caves who eat berries and burn animal feces for warmth?


M

 

[FoolKiller]

Not freedom. Western Democracy. Everybody wants freedom... well, actually, most people want security more than freedom. But the problem in Iraq is we're trying to force our way of thinking on how freedom is achieved and how government is run on a country that's not ready for it.

It's silly to sit mortal enemies down at one table, hand them white gloves and foam bats and tell them "this is how we settle arguments now...". Hatred and mistrust takes time to fade... and it sometimes never does (look at the Balkans... some of those issues happened generations ago).It's all dependent on the situation and the people involved. There's no one-size-fits-all solution to all of mankind's problems.

How do you get freedom without everyone being equal? The fighting has to stop before they can have freedom from any form of government or the winners of the fighting will inevitably control the government and create inequality. You have to sit mortal enemies down at a table and tell them they have to stop fighting to be free. We aren't telling them to actually liek each other, but we are telling them to learn to get along, otherwise someoen more powerful and better at this fighting thing will take them all over. They can choose to get along while we are there and we can then leave or we can just all get out now and let all groups involved deal with Iran or al Qaeda. It is better for us and them to stay until they can get along, even if begrudgingly.

We aren't foolish enough to believe that they will get along 100% but they have to do it enough to move forward. 100 years after the American Civil War and emancipation we still deal with racism regularly. We know they will still have issues, but telling them they have to be on equal legal grounds is not too much to ask. The best and easiest way to assure that is a democracy.

That's an excellent question. Maybe someone should ask GWB that...

You missed my point. Actually, I think you purposely ran around it to make a GWB comment.

We are trying to get them to accept equal freedom. That is not an American or even Western only value. Everyone wants freedom. We are instructing them on what we see as the best form of government to achieve that goal, but if they found a different way to go about it and can prove it will work I bet we would be just as happy. They have yet to offer up an alternative to achieve equality and freedom. And committing genocide to remove the people you don't like so that everyone you do like is free does not count.

 

[Danoff]

Simply... well-fed, prosperous citizens = peaceful citizens.

I don't think that short-term stability is a good goal here. What we were attempting to do in Iraq was to create a center for long term stability and economic prosperity in the region. I'm not sure anyone properly estimated how many groups in the middle east understand nothing but force.

I'll never rank stability or peace above human rights.

Sometimes, these things work themselves out without outside influence. You let things die down, you let people change, you let power change hands internally.

History shows us that legitimate governments tend to have fragile beginnings.

I think the reason is pretty obvious. Pure mathematics shows that the US has pretty much no choice but to start winding things up in Iraq - there just aren't enough replacements to sustain current troop levels.

I think Swift was referring to more of a surgical strike than anything. It would be easy to inflict massive damage on Iran. Occupying it is something that I think we'd have no interest in doing and would indeed be disastrous.

I would have less trouble accepting that if the legal grounds for the war were stronger, our assumptions about the level of danger Iraq posed have been proven correct AND the country is more stable and stronger than it currently is.

Well, it would be nice to have some good results at this point - that's for sure. The legal grounds were substantial, the danger posed was minimal, but I still get behind the goal.

The terrorist attacks of '01 made us realize that we needed to do something drastic to create long term stability in the middle east, and it was worth a major US investment. Attempting to set up a government that had some chance of real, substantial prosperity was really the only option for major, lasting change.