Iraq: How do we get out?

[Matt R]

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?

M

It's not my country. So be it I say.

The most important person in my life is me. It's not ruining my day to day life. I'm not harsh or inconsiderate either. I can't do anything to help. Our soldiers are being killed daily. Some being killed in extreme ways. We have no business there. That's how it is there. Not here. I wish the US would stop putting its nose in everyone's business.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

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

Yeah you're right. I was trying to outline the "patriotic American" mentality with my "biggest baddest bully" statement. You don't live in America Alfaholic, and (as a mechanic) i have to actually work with folks who carry this attitude.

It's like in Borat where he went to the rodeo...there are plenty of people in America still walking around with this blind attitude that Iraq=all terrorists, therfore we must go "kick their ass cuz they are the reason 9/11 happened"!

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.

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.

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...)

I'm just glad it's happening. Whether Bush implements it or someone else does....i just hope they do it right.

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.

Sorry i'm getting back to you on these comments a bit late, i saw what you've written here last nite, but got busy with some friends. I apologize. Anyways, i wanted to respond earlier but couldnt' get back on the home computer.

Not to bash, but you seem a bit blind to the truth (which doesn't surprise me) so i'll provide some reasons for what's really going on, in plain-speak without graphs and figures. And you'll attempt to tear my argument down and so on.

* Bush and some of his cohorts are oilmen from Texas. Which means to some extent they already control gas prices in America. It's a well-known fact that they had their own agenda to go into Iraq before 9/11 happened, and mostly it's because 1. Iraq has plenty of crude and 2. if we get our hands on our crude, "we" get richer. 9/11 just gave them a plausible excuse to get their foot in the door. It's been known for years Cheney personally used resources he was personally involved with (Halliburton etc). Why? Tell me why, can you guess?

It's funny, you sound just like me a few years back. When we originally invaded Iraq, some of my friends (the anarchistic ones, especially) were going around town putting fliers up that said "No Blood for Oil", and i laughed at them. "We're not going over there for oil" i said "we're going there because they have these massive weapons!" Which brings me to my next point.

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.

By attacking a country that wasn't a threat to us??? why not attack North Korea? Why not attack Vietnam? Why not finish Osama bin Laden and his gang once and for all? I'll tell you why...because if we do that, we have effectively eliminated the main fear people have about the Mid East. By keeping Osama alive (they know where he is, trust me) Bush & cohorts can keep us in fear. Of course, this is no doubt lost on you.

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.

This just sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. I say we shoulda let bygones be bygones, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, and nobody would have had to die. There's nothing wrong with defending an ally, but we've taken it many steps further than that, for reasons that are essentially greedy in the foremost.

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?

let it go.

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?

Look i appreciate your honesty, and i know where you're coming from--you sound alot like a couple of the guys in my shop, matter of fact. I started this thread, cuz i was watching some 9/11 footage, and then i've been watching/reading the news about the world and it got me feeling antsy, the way i did 4 to 5 years ago, and i wanted different people's opinions on what we should do about Iraq.

This is going to go over your head i'm sure (as well as some other people who've posted in this thread) and i'll no doubt get torn a new one, but let me make a couple things clear:

1. i could care less about "Quality Posts".

2. Kent mentioned earlier he wanted to give me negative rep, and i say "fine"! Go to it. The day i get a quality post badge is the day i know i'm not speaking my mind clearly enough--i'm pandering to the status quo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So i'm putting myself in the shoes of a poor peasant in Iraq. This is pre-war times. I realize i've never been to Iraq, and this seems silly, but bear with me.

So i'm poor but i've at least got a life i feel comfortable with. I have my wife. I have some kids. I have a house. I can go to market everyday, i can go to my place of worship. Yes, my leader is oppressive, but you know what? I'm not about to speak out against him anyways! For one thing, i know it's a bad idea and it'll without a doubt be me who loses the argmument, and for another--it's too freekin' hot out. I'm not out to make waves, i just want to be happy. Just give me my wife, give me some bread, give me some fruit, some quality times with my family, neighbors, and i'm happy. I'm essentially a civilian living day by day. I could be happy under these conditions, trust me.

Now everything has changed. There's a war going on, i can hear explosions right in my backyard. I can no longer go to market...most of the shopkeepers are too afraid to open on a regular basis....they're afraid (rightly so) of being targeted for their beliefs and blown up. I can no longer talk to my wife. She has been killed by an explosive. Half the people i grew up with seem to have vanished..i don't know the fate of all of them. I can no longer express my beliefs...my mosque has been blown to peices...

THIS is what you call democracy??? This is better than what my life was like before the war?? Hell no. I want Saddam back. I want my old life (as menial as it was) back. I miss my wife & kids. I hate seeing my neighbors (the ones that are left) sheltering up in a strange neighborhood. I hate seeing people i formerly knew--but are now they cannot walk. Or speak. Or survive.

Trust me, most of the civilians over there could care less about our agenda for how they should run their country! Understand? they're too PISSED OFF because they've had a limb torn off after stepping too close to a roadside bomb. Trust me, Iraqi citizens (and many others) will not forget this. This is 9/11 X thousands. And Hussein/Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!

that's it, i'm done talking politics. I'm getting an ulcer from thinking about it too much, but this is a good thing. I think i should be thinking about what's going on in the world...instead of taking so much for granted.

 

[FoolKiller]

* Bush and some of his cohorts are oilmen from Texas. Which means to some extent they already control gas prices in America.

Texas oilmen control gas prices? And here I was thinking that it was a combination of supply and demand with other market factors, almost soley affectd by OPEC (which has no Texans as memebers). There is a lot more to say here regarding economics and how the market works, but Danoff can, and probably will, explain it much better than I can.

It's a well-known fact that they had their own agenda to go into Iraq before 9/11 happened,

You do realize we also have constantly updated plans for invading Canada and England just in case, right? Iraq's was in the forefront because they were the most likely to come up.

It's been known for years Cheney personally used resources he was personally involved with (Halliburton etc). Why? Tell me why, can you guess?

Let me think, for a second. Could it possibly be that Halliburton is the largest and best company at what they do and have had government contracts going back as far back as the Carter administration, farther if you count units that formed to become Halliburton through a lot of M&A over the years? That's just a guess though.

It's funny, you sound just like me a few years back. When we originally invaded Iraq, some of my friends (the anarchistic ones, especially) were going around town putting fliers up that said "No Blood for Oil",

Funny, you now sound like my brother did when the war started and he was putting up stuff saying, "No blood for oil." Since he has said that he realizes that isn't the goal and that we are really just over there because Bush is an idiot. He realized that he cannot show any shred of evidence other than Bush used to be in the oil business and current actions by Bush have made it abundantly clear that we are not trying to get the oil or we would most likely already have it while the rest of the country really fell into turmoil. No, instead we send troops into urban areas with a high amount of violent activities. Why are we trying to save lives when we could just devote all of our resources to protecting the oil?

By attacking a country that wasn't a threat to us??? why not attack North Korea? Why not attack Vietnam?

This gets very, very tiresome. Different countries = different leaders, different governments, and different situations. North Korea will at least meet with us at a table every once and a while and at a minimum pretends to humor us. North Korea also has a much bigger backer in China and that is one country we don't want to become hostile with. What did Saddam do? He put on a big face, kicked out the inspectors, and told us he didn't have to prove anything. He let his pride get in the way and instead showing us that he mostly did what we asked he told us to go take a hike and shot at some planes to make his point.

Why not finish Osama bin Laden and his gang once and for all? I'll tell you why...because if we do that, we have effectively eliminated the main fear people have about the Mid East. By keeping Osama alive (they know where he is, trust me) Bush & cohorts can keep us in fear. Of course, this is no doubt lost on you.

Actually, I think it is what is lost on you. If you know that we know where he is, and you seem very sure, prove it. Tell me where he is or show me a source saying that they know where he is but haven't been given teh order to go after him. I bet a Google search will show you that another president did that, not this one.

Do we have a good idea of where he is? Yes, the mountains of Pakistan. Why don't we just sweep through and get him out? Because it is in Pakistan and they haven't yet given us a greenlight to send troops stomping through their country. Before you ask, why don't we just march in and get him because this doesn't seem to stop us? Because we invade countries where the leadership needs to be remove, not ones that say they don't want the bad guy either. Now, if Pakistan leaders started parading around with Osama at their side, then we would march in and do the job.


You know, I understand the why you can get the idea of us going there for oil. A lack of understanding compared with past oil connections for Bush and Cheney can do that. But what on Earth has you acting so supremely positive that we know where Osama is and are letting him live? Your reasoning is to keep up fear? What fear can be there that wasn't achieved in the years between his videos? We don't hear from him for years, think he may have died from kidney problems, but the fear never went away. If Osama were gone al Qaeda would still be there and terrorism would go on. If anything it would do all the Republicans better to capture Osama. They could prove that they aren't wasting time and money and show that the #1 most wanted man in the world has been captured by them and their actions, and not the Democrats. It would be a much needed boost to the Republican party.

This just sounds like a bunch of excuses to me. I say we shoulda let bygones be bygones, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, and nobody would have had to die.

And no one else would back down ever again. Didn't you mention North Korea earlier. Imagine what some trying to make nuclear weapons would do if they felt that not listening to the UN and the US would have no repercussions?

This is going to go over your head i'm sure (as well as some other people who've posted in this thread) and i'll no doubt get torn a new one, but let me make a couple things clear:

Not agreeing doesn't mean it goes over our heads. It means that we don't agree. And how do you know that it isn't you having things go over your head?

So i'm putting myself in the shoes of a poor peasant in Iraq.

Can you put yourself in the shoes of a Kurd breathing poisonous gas, or a man speaking his mind and being tortured by having his tongue cut out, assuming he is that lucky?

I know, put yousrelf in the shows of a Colonial American who just wants to farm, but his upstart neighbor wants to go fight the British. Every new government has those who want to fight and those who want to just go on minding their business and keeping their mouth shut. There seems to be a good number of Iraqis volunteering to join the military and security forces. What is their motivation?

THIS is what you call democracy??? This is better than what my life was like before the war??

You don't believe that we think the current state is what we call freedom and democracy do you? They still have a long road ahead of them, with or without us.

 

[Kent]

I'm getting an ulcer from thinking about it too much, but this is a good thing. I think i should be thinking about what's going on in the world...instead of taking so much for granted.

After that first post you made and your use of "questionable tactics" I am positively sure you will never appreciate what the people of Iraq had to endure during Saddam's reign.

Questionable tactics... That term alone makes me laugh about your understanding of world politics.

Oh, and ask any of the people who were constantly abused and exposed to genocide by Saddam and I'm sure they will say their life is better now than it was under Saddam's reign.

 

[Danoff]

Well, FK did a great job of fielding this post, but I'll add a few things here and there anyway.

Not to bash, but you seem a bit blind to the truth (which doesn't surprise me) so i'll provide some reasons for what's really going on, in plain-speak without graphs and figures. And you'll attempt to tear my argument down and so on.

Thanks for dumbing it down for me so that I might be able to understand these complex issues. My tiny brain can barely grasp these things... ow... my head hurts from trying to think. Gosh, you must be some sort of genius. Daarrpp!

* Bush and some of his cohorts are oilmen from Texas. Which means to some extent they already control gas prices in America.

Ok, seriously, that's just plain ignorance. I would suggest a course or two in economics. Did you know that oil publicly traded on the commodities market and that the price of oil is set by futures investors? Obviously you don't.

It's been known for years Cheney personally used resources he was personally involved with (Halliburton etc). Why? Tell me why, can you guess?

Probably because they were right for the job. Haliburton does a ton of work for the US military. I suppose we should prevent anyone who has worked for any US government contractor from taking public office? Or perhaps we should just prevent the government from using that contractor anymore.

It's nonsense.

By attacking a country that wasn't a threat to us??? why not attack North Korea?

Because they're not in the middle east surrounded by countries breeding terrorists to come here and kill us. No Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11. But we had legitimate reason to invade Iraq quite separately from 9/11, and we had ulterior motives for stopping terrorism in the region by setting up a government that had a chance to be legitimate and truly prosperous.

It's really not that complicated. Even my feeble mind can grasp it. Dhaaarp!!

I say we shoulda let bygones be bygones, it would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, and nobody would have had to die.

As FK pointed out, that would have HUGE implications with North Korea. If you're worried about them, you really shouldn't be suggesting that we ignore folks who violate treaties they've signed with us.

Just give me my wife, give me some bread, give me some fruit, some quality times with my family, neighbors, and i'm happy. I'm essentially a civilian living day by day. I could be happy under these conditions, trust me.

Pathetic. No principles. No care for human rights. No care for a just government. Just keep some food in your belly and a woman at your side and you'll be content. That's really sad. I can't imagine not being willing to stand up for principles. There are few things you could have said that would have made me respect you less.

 

[a6m5]

Nevermind "publicly traded" price of oil, how about gasoline prices? When Americans talk about oil prices, I think they mean gas prices most of the time.

Also, I was under the impression that oil prices are indeed affected by OPEC, but politics affect them as well. I'll be honest with you guys, it's not like I've done a research on this(I will), but I have very hard time believing that, the worlds largest political power have no influence on OPEC. All that Texan oil money and political muscle, but they don't work to make make their business tiny bit extra profitable? If that really were the case, they'd be model corporations. From what I've read in the past about these guys suggest exact opposite of that, however.

Lastly, while I do think Parnelli took this little too far, I do believe that if it wasn't for the oil, U.S. probably wouldn't be in Iraq, right now. I also doubt that Israel would be enjoying the kind of aid they receive from the United States, if Middle East were producing so much oil for the world.

And on North Korea, I know FK mentioned China, which is very valid. But how does that change anything? So if Iraq had China backing them, they are no longer a threat to the United States? And North Korea was no more game than Iraq, when it came to negotiating with the U.S. And North Korea would actually claim to be ready to attack U.S. and also South Korea, I believe, with WMDs. We didn't suspect it, they told us.

I wasn't a fan of Hussein either, but I don't think the invasion of Iraq was the answer(and yes, I've said that all along. ).

 

[KSaiyu]

But we had legitimate reason to invade Iraq quite separately from 9/11, and we had ulterior motives for stopping terrorism in the region by setting up a government that had a chance to be legitimate and truly prosperous.

This is what I don't get, surely people must have realised that for Iraq to become this beacon in the middle east it would have taken years, possibly decades to see any benefits to the region, if any at all. Your government must have envisaged such a scenario as this, especially given the added hatred of many arabs in the middle east towards America - I just don't understand why they were willing to take that risk and propable sacriface for a motive that probably wouldn't affect the short term stability of the region nor help the stability of the country.

As for pulling out, all I can say is we (Britain) are lucky to be in this situation relative to America. A pullout will be disastrous for the middle east and could even fuel more terrorism by future generations resenting America for the trouble they caused. At least there is some good news this week about reduced violence in some American controlled parts of the country, it's been pretty grim these past few months.

 

[YSSMAN]

This is Opinions. We out-drag geological time.

Besides, you brought it up

Quite true, and the whole thing is only slightly OT...

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

Like the Data you've shown, there are quite a few different organizations that attempt to quantify the quality of life in different countries using extremely different variables. The problem like is what they place the most value on;

- Economic Variables
- Social Variables

The argument I'm attempting to make is much the same as my Professor here at Aquinas College; Deciding what is developed and what isn't is far more difficult than saying this one is because of A, when clearly it is lacking in the field of B, by which another country may have more of than of A.

There was quite a debate in the class as to whether or not we can consider China to be a developed country. While it certainly is becoming economically developed, it is only to those who live in the major industrial cities of the East, and furthermore, not everyone in these cities automatically lives the standard "middle class" life we all imagine that people enjoy in these developed nations. There still is a HUGE pesant class in China, mainly in the west, and although it is decreasing, it does not detract from the fact that most of their citizens live in poverty.

Similarly, if we are to measure China on social issues, they would appear to lose-out as well. First and foremost, things such as free and fair elections are non-existent in China, having only a single political party to represent the people. Beyond that, some measure Government action or dis-action as a guideline for development, and it is quite obvious that China would fall short as well (see prisons, military abuses, other corruption, etc).

---

It depends. My estimation of the Middle-East is that the overwhelming majority of Middle-Eastern Nation Sates are not developed mainly because of the social measurements. I think it certainly could be argued that a Nation State like Saudi Arabia is developed based on oil incomes and Western influences, but when you've got shades of state-supported terrorism, the largest number of beheadings per capita in the world, and still on small centers of development about... It kinda makes in an un-developed nation. Its very much the same argument for Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, etc...

I'd summize that Turkey (if you call it part of the Mid-East) and Israel are the exceptions to that rule, particularly Turkey, but Israel is again straddling a thin red line based on their social issues again...

---

Interestingly enough, one of the Development Indexes I found placed Ireland at the top of the list, both the US and the UK quite far behind.

 

[Danoff]

And on North Korea, I know FK mentioned China, which is very valid. But how does that change anything?

It makes the issue a bit more delicate.

And North Korea was no more game than Iraq, when it came to negotiating with the U.S. And North Korea would actually claim to be ready to attack U.S. and also South Korea, I believe, with WMDs. We didn't suspect it, they told us.

We hope (still) to not actually have to fight NK. Such a thing can be avoided via diplomacy but only if we don't allow others to blatantly defy past diplomatic efforts. With NK, there are others in the region that have a stake in preventing them from having nuclear weapons, and a North Korean conflict has little benefit to the prospect of terrorism.

Finally, if a cease fire treaty from 10 years earlier is "water under the bridge", then we have even less of a leg to stand on with NK.

Diplomatically, strategically, and from a US interest point of view it's a completely different issue.

This is what I don't get, surely people must have realised that for Iraq to become this beacon in the middle east it would have taken years, possibly decades to see any benefits to the region, if any at all.

It was a long term solution. The idea was not to increase stability quickly, but to improve the situation permanently.

 

[Sage]

Dan – I know you’re a Libertarian (libertarian?), but obviously arguing the opposite position that the party is currently arguing for, so I want to pose the Libertarian question for you (mostly for my own edification, if anything): doesn’t it seem to you that at least one factor in all of this is America’s post-WWII interventionist policy in the Middle East? I mean, strictly speaking, Libertarians aim for zero military force unless someone has attacked our country. I don’t know much about the history of the Middle East (I’ve honestly tried to read up on it – my eyes glaze over after ten minutes), but I get the feeling that we’ve been involved in the Middle East in ways that don’t strictly conform to free-market principles or creating freedom.

Basically, my point is: what if our government never tried to meddle with the Middle East in the first place?

(You can even find a way to blame this on FDR if you want. )

 

[a6m5]

It makes the issue a bit more delicate.



We hope (still) to not actually have to fight NK. Such a thing can be avoided via diplomacy but only if we don't allow others to blatantly defy past diplomatic efforts. With NK, there are others in the region that have a stake in preventing them from having nuclear weapons, and a North Korean conflict has little benefit to the prospect of terrorism.

Finally, if a cease fire treaty from 10 years earlier is "water under the bridge", then we have even less of a leg to stand on with NK.

Diplomatically, strategically, and from a US interest point of view it's a completely different issue.

Different in small details. Hear me out. U.S. didn't invade another country because they had WMDs. They invaded, because Iraqi's WMDs were supposedly going to be used against the Americans. How does the backing of China matter, if another country is threatening an WMD attack at the United States? And do you think China will interfere, if U.S. should neutralize a threat like that?

 

[FoolKiller]

Different in small details. Hear me out. U.S. didn't invade another country because they had WMDs. They invaded, because Iraqi's WMDs were supposedly going to be used against the Americans. How does the backing of China matter, if another country is threatening an WMD attack at the United States? And do you think China will interfere, if U.S. should neutralize a threat like that?

Well, actually China's backing has a two-pronged effect. Like an older brother of a schoolyard bully he can jump in to fight against you, but he also can control his younger brother. North Lorea is still working through the diplomatic processes and the have yet to start firing shots at merican soldiers in the DMZ. That is two huge difference between NK and Iraq.

Now, if NK shut the door on the diplomatic process and said we have them and we will destroy Hawaii soon we would be in a difficult position. Do we go ahead an invade to save Hawaii, but risk China jumping in with their hundreds of nukes already pointing at places like New York and Washington DC, or do we go to big brother China and ask them to help talk some sense into them? To date, whenever NK gets to acting out China has helped keep them calm and bring them back to the table.

China is getting into the economical and diplomatic issues and has a lot to lose if they are forced to decide between protecting Communism in NK and losing their exports.

China's effect for us is as both ally and opponent. They are someone we don't want to end up fighting, but they are also able to keep NK in a position of willingness.

Iraq had no one telling us that if we invade we may find we are facing their troops and no one telling them they need to keep in line because they are screwing things up for everyone else.

As for how China gets involved, that may depend on how far we let NK go before we act. If they fire first, especially with a WMD then they will probably let us go, but if we go in first, even if it is to destroy the rocket on the platform, they may tell us in not so nice term to get out. And then I don't know how much pride may play into things.

 

[Alfaholic]

China's effect for us is as both ally and opponent.

Ally and opponent? Has WW3 started already? or are you referring to the USA's long standing war to rule the world diplomatically, in order to protect its own interests of course?

Personally I don't see why the answer to the "Iraq: how do we get out" question has to involve anything other than transport ships and aeroplanes.

 

[Danoff]

Dan – I know you’re a Libertarian (libertarian?), but obviously arguing the opposite position that the party is currently arguing for, so I want to pose the Libertarian question for you (mostly for my own edification, if anything): doesn’t it seem to you that at least one factor in all of this is America’s post-WWII interventionist policy in the Middle East? I mean, strictly speaking, Libertarians aim for zero military force unless someone has attacked our country. I don’t know much about the history of the Middle East (I’ve honestly tried to read up on it – my eyes glaze over after ten minutes), but I get the feeling that we’ve been involved in the Middle East in ways that don’t strictly conform to free-market principles or creating freedom.

Basically, my point is: what if our government never tried to meddle with the Middle East in the first place?

(You can even find a way to blame this on FDR if you want. )

This is where my main split with the Libertarian party is. They're incredibly weak and isolationist when it comes to foreign policy, a viewpoint that's pretty much out of date.

Do I think we should be world police? Definitely not. Do I think we owed it to the Iraqi people to save them from tyranny? No. But I have no problem with being forward thinking, even as severely forward thinking as the Iraq invasion, when it comes to US foreign policy.

I have no problem with protecting allies (Kuwait), and I have no problem with enforcing treaties. These things help protect us in the longrun. You could consider me a Hawkish Libertarian.

That being said, I can't necessarily get behind every historical US action in the middle east. But I'm not completely convinced that not "meddling" in the middle east would have us much better off. We are the "Great Satan" more due to our principles, government style, and religious demographics than anything else. To some, the US is a country full of Christians with a big "target us!" sign on it.

Personally I don't see why the answer to the "Iraq: how do we get out" question has to involve anything other than transport ships and aeroplanes.

Perhaps because we're trying to avoid the humanitarian disaster that would result.

 

[a6m5]

FoolKiller: Yes, you are absolutely right about China's influence on North Korea. But you are assuming that North Korea is the one who's going to use the WMDs. With Iraq, it wasn't necessarily going to be Iraq, that was going to do the attacking. It was feared that Iraq would serve as the supplier of the WMDs to the terrorists.

North Korea has ties to Middle East. They have shared technologies behind China's back before. How were North Koreans less of a WMD threat to the United States?

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy Bush's excuse. It's overwhelmingly fishy to me!

 

[KSaiyu]

It was a long term solution. The idea was not to increase stability quickly, but to improve the situation permanently.

Now if this is the case, and was always the goal then is it too early to have an answer to the topic starters question, or should it be reasonable for American's to want an answer as to how you are going to get out?

 

[Alfaholic]

Perhaps because we're trying to avoid the humanitarian disaster that would result.

.... by creating one?

 

[niky]

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.


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.

Freedom and equality are not equal. That's basically the fallacy of democracy.

Are you free to smoke in public? No. Are you free to have sex in the park? No.

None of us are truly "free" in the total sense of the word. When I was a kid, we lived in a dictatorship, with curfews, midnight arrests and "disappearances" and news blackouts. When we became a "democracy", the news blackouts and curfews were the only thing that changed... but now, in the name of progress, we've got curfews for kids, again... and news nowadays is more of hawking the controversial sound bite than reporting the actual, honest-to-god truth.

Democracy is freedom for the masses to pick what the individual is allowed or not allowed to do with his or her life.

Yes, it is better than what they had previously. But forcing the issue from the outside of the process is what's holding things up. Force a bunch of warlords to become parliamentarians? Riiight. Genuine change cannot be forced on a people... it has to come from within. They may be politicians now... but how many of them actually believe that inside?

I do agree, though, that we have to stay in... until the holdouts give up trying to exert their influences, or their followers get tired of the killing.

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.

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

Peace and stability are a human right. The right to life, and the right to prosperity. Once you take care of the basic human needs, the rest follow. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

Attempting to create a center of long-term stability... there's no way to force that to happen. A lot of us were of the opinion it wouldn't happen... it wouldn't be easy... and it would cause a lot of problems. Bringing "democracy to Iraq" was the party line, but it wasn't apparently that well-thought out.

Everything has fragile beginnings. Where things go from here depends on the will of the people for peace.

Personally, you can't just use a sledgehammer and expect to create stability that way. Time, diplomacy, patience... hell, a covert op assassination or two? ...Terrorism is fueled by poverty, instability, xenophobia and strife... things which the invasion have helped bring to the surface in Iraq. You don't use a hammer to get rid of ants in the garden... you find their nest and target that. You create an environment that doesn't support them.

Of course, all our arguing is for naught. Political pressure and economic reality is forcing the US out of Iraq years too early. I'm sure we all agree that a military force is needed to keep the peace while Iraq rebuilds, but unless someone else steps in to help, that's not going to happen.

 

[Touring Mars]

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.

To be fair, it's not silly at all. Infact, in his forthcoming autobiography, the respected Washington insider and former head of the US Central bank (not mention someone who worked with no less than 6 former U.S presidents) Alan Greenspan alleges that the war in Iraq was predominately about oil... (Article). However much it may sound unsavoury to even suggest that the motives of the coalition differ ever-so-slightly from the public justifications (which were extremely dubious themselves), it's not 'silly' to say that suggest that oil played a role - even a very significant role - in the early stages of the decision-making process which lead to war in Iraq. Oil was always going to play atleast some role - to suggest otherwise is, well, silly...

 

[Swift]

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.

I have a serious problem with a government that is supporting terrorism of any kind. By supplying Shia groups in Iraq, they are helping to kill American and coalition soldiers. So, yes that makes them terrorists. I do however know that the majority of the people of Iran do not like the current leadership but are pretty much powerless to change it. So we should do what we did in the Soviet Union, give the people information and hope for freedom and let them sort it out.

I don't think a direct military encounter with Iran would be smart. So I must change my earlier position. But we can at least threaten. Especially when we KNOW they are doing it.

 

[Alfaholic]

...By supplying Shia groups in Iraq, they are helping to kill American and coalition soldiers. So, yes that makes them terrorists...

I probably read this wrong once again.... did you just say that anyone who assists in the killing of US or coalition soldiers is a terrorist?

 

[Swift]

I probably read this wrong once again.... did you just say that anyone who assists in the killing of US or coalition soldiers is a terrorist?

Well, in the case of the Iraq situation yes. They are killing Iraqi, US and coalition forces. How else should they be described?

 

[KSaiyu]

Freedom and equality are not equal. That's basically the fallacy of democracy.

Are you free to smoke in public? No. Are you free to have sex in the park? No.

None of us are truly "free" in the total sense of the word. When I was a kid, we lived in a dictatorship, with curfews, midnight arrests and "disappearances" and news blackouts. When we became a "democracy", the news blackouts and curfews were the only thing that changed... but now, in the name of progress, we've got curfews for kids, again... and news nowadays is more of hawking the controversial sound bite than reporting the actual, honest-to-god truth.

Democracy is freedom for the masses to pick what the individual is allowed or not allowed to do with his or her life.

Yes, it is better than what they had previously. But forcing the issue from the outside of the process is what's holding things up. Force a bunch of warlords to become parliamentarians? Riiight. Genuine change cannot be forced on a people... it has to come from within. They may be politicians now... but how many of them actually believe that inside?

I do agree, though, that we have to stay in... until the holdouts give up trying to exert their influences, or their followers get tired of the killing.



Peace and stability are a human right. The right to life, and the right to prosperity. Once you take care of the basic human needs, the rest follow. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

Attempting to create a center of long-term stability... there's no way to force that to happen. A lot of us were of the opinion it wouldn't happen... it wouldn't be easy... and it would cause a lot of problems. Bringing "democracy to Iraq" was the party line, but it wasn't apparently that well-thought out.

Everything has fragile beginnings. Where things go from here depends on the will of the people for peace.

Personally, you can't just use a sledgehammer and expect to create stability that way. Time, diplomacy, patience... hell, a covert op assassination or two? ...Terrorism is fueled by poverty, instability, xenophobia and strife... things which the invasion have helped bring to the surface in Iraq. You don't use a hammer to get rid of ants in the garden... you find their nest and target that. You create an environment that doesn't support them.

Of course, all our arguing is for naught. Political pressure and economic reality is forcing the US out of Iraq years too early. I'm sure we all agree that a military force is needed to keep the peace while Iraq rebuilds, but unless someone else steps in to help, that's not going to happen.

Very good post 👍

 

[Danoff]

North Korea has ties to Middle East. They have shared technologies behind China's back before. How were North Koreans less of a WMD threat to the United States?

They weren't. The largest WMD threat in the history of the US came from Soviet Russia. We didn't invade them either.

.... by creating one?

Oooooh, nice dodge. But seriously, you totally dodged the point. You advocated pulling out, I pointed out that pulling out now would be a humanitarian disaster. That remains to be the case. Whether or not you agree with how/why we went in, you surely realize that leaving at this point would be incredibly bloody.

Democracy is freedom for the masses to pick what the individual is allowed or not allowed to do with his or her life.

This shows a lack of understanding of the principles of limited government and takes a very narrow, specific view of the term democracy in order to create a weakness to attack. Yes, pure democracy is flawed. Good thing nobody's talking about that.

Peace and stability are a human right. The right to life, and the right to prosperity. Once you take care of the basic human needs, the rest follow. Sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

You don't have the right to prosperity, and you can lose your right to life. And basic human needs do not necessarily translate into a proper system of government. Every legitimate government on the planet was brought about by force.

You create an environment that doesn't support them.

Here I think we're on the same page.

To be fair, it's not silly at all. Infact, in his forthcoming autobiography, the respected Washington insider and former head of the US Central bank (not mention someone who worked with no less than 6 former U.S presidents) Alan Greenspan alleges that the war in Iraq was predominately about oil... (Article).

You do know how to hit me where it hurts. I have a lot of respect for Greenspan. He's a smart guy. His argument that the invasion was over oil is the best that I've ever heard because it wasn't about Iraq's oil at all - it was about control over shipment points (if I understand it correctly from the blurb you posted).

Still, Greenspan is a fantastic economist. And he's right to blast the Bush administration over economics - and when he does, I listen intently to what he has to say. But he's not a diplomat, he's not a foreign policy guru, and he's not a military general. It's quite difficult to listen to his accusations when it comes to a situation regarding national security. Yes, he's provided the economic motivations in an interesting light, but I remain unconvinced.

Ask the person I was responding to what they were getting at and I'm sure they'll tell you that we were going after Iraq's oil - a notion that really is absurd.

I think Greenspan is struggling with justifications for the war that either turned out to be incorrect, or didn't hold water. He sees an economic justification and latches to it because it makes the situation make sense.

But I don't believe that Bush is the simultaneous evil mastermind/complete retard that people think he is. He's not a greedy person, he's a simple-minded religious person who wants to do right by God. And to that end, I take him at face value when he says that we're doing nationbuilding in the region in order to effect a real, lasting, social change in an area where cultural differences have proven quite deadly for us.

 

[///M-Spec]

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.

We'll get back to this later. You've got your hands full at the moment.

It's not my country. So be it I say.

The most important person in my life is me. It's not ruining my day to day life. I'm not harsh or inconsiderate either. I can't do anything to help. Our soldiers are being killed daily. Some being killed in extreme ways. We have no business there. That's how it is there. Not here. I wish the US would stop putting its nose in everyone's business.

Well, I'm not sure how I could disagree more. You're about four years late using the 'we have no business there' argument. We ARE there. "We" ALREADY DID put our nose in everyone's business. And I think if we show up and tear a country to pieces, we should at least have the decency to put things as together as we can make it before we leave.

The President of the United States promised everyone; Iraqis, Americans, our allies, the rest of the world, that Iraq would become a role model for the rest of the Middle East. A lot of people have died for this (mostly Iraqis, who had pretty much no say in what would happen). Given the staggering cost, not only in human lives, raw dollars but also US international credibility, I expect him to live up to that promise.

The argument I'm attempting to make is much the same as my Professor here at Aquinas College; Deciding what is developed and what isn't is far more difficult than saying this one is because of....<SNIP>

Wait a minute. Hold on. Dude. Are you dodging the question? C'mon. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night.

First you said there are NO developed countries in the Middle East and that most the people there are poor:

*Actually, to correct you Philly, there really aren't any "Developed" or "First-World" nations in the Middle-East. No matter how beautiful Dubai may be, no matter how rich the Saudis may be, the people in these countries are still dirt poor.

So I dig up some facts which clearly demonstrate the opposite. But that doesn't suit you because suddenly it's about heathcare, basic services, human rights, political and social development, etc.

So I show you three countries that rank "High" on the UN's Human Development Index, which is based on life expectancy, literacy rate, combined gross enrolment ratio and GDP PPP.

But then that's not good enough and you want to tell me that it's hard to say if a country is developed or not, because it depends on what you consider developed. Which is a fine statement to make on its own, EXCEPT it contradicts your first post.

So finally then you come to this:

It depends. My estimation of the Middle-East is that the overwhelming majority of Middle-Eastern Nation Sates are not developed mainly because of the social measurements. I think it certainly could be argued that a Nation State like Saudi Arabia is developed based on oil incomes and Western influences, but when you've got shades of state-supported terrorism, the largest number of beheadings per capita in the world, and still on small centers of development about... It kinda makes in an un-developed nation. Its very much the same argument for Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, etc...

I'd summize that Turkey (if you call it part of the Mid-East) and Israel are the exceptions to that rule, particularly Turkey, but Israel is again straddling a thin red line based on their social issues again...

So now being a developed country is suddenly entirely dependant on what...? Western style democracy?

Sorry to be completely blunt, but what this reads like to me is someone who has already made a conclusion the Middle East is undeveloped and then changes the definition of development to suit his personal opinion, rather than someone that has considered what it means for a country to be developed, creates a set of objective standards to define development, then collects the data and arrives at to a conclusion.


M

 

[Omnis]

Looks like I came back a bit too late for this one. I hope you all will welcome my quick comment; please forgive me for not taking the time to read the entire thread. I'm going to meet Ron Paul this evening, so I have to get going. That should also give you a clue about how I feel about this war.

I think we should just leave. From what I've read on this last page, it seems you all are forgetting the biggest group of victims: the taxpayers. This war was undeclared and we went in with consent from a small group of individuals. Congress (and therefore the people) had absolutely no say in this. The government has no right to take your income, let alone spend it on a war in which you had no say. This war is not America's war. Tragically, we allowed the invasion to happen. Bush's regime deserves to have Iraq become a total failure, if only to demonstrate the catastrophe that is foreign interventionism. Democracy in the Middle East is a joke. Everyone flaunts democracy like it's some kind of miracle government. Democracy is nothing short of mob rule. Don't count on a Republic of Iraq either. Representative government will never work there when American special interest outweighs the entire Iraqi population. For Iraq to get better, the people themselves must orchestrate change. Social contract is undermined when you have someone shoving a pen in your hand and forcing your arm into signing it. The best thing that we could do at this point is to pull out of Iraq entirely, try Bush and Co. for war crimes, make a sincere apology to the people of Iraq, and then ASK if they would like help from our private organizations.

The Middle East will always be a cesspool of tyranny if we always intervene in its internal affairs. Iran serves as a great example. Our involvement united the people against us and allowed the Ayatollah to come to power. If we continue to occupy Iraq, the people will unite against the occupation and lead to the rise of similar totalitarianism. Iraqis must be united for reconstruction and to form their own representative government. America needs to return to being a humble republic and a role model. Continuing down this path of imperialism and occupation will destroy the country.

 

[Swift]

Looks like I came back a bit too late for this one. I hope you all will welcome my quick comment; please forgive me for not taking the time to read the entire thread. I'm going to meet Ron Paul this evening, so I have to get going. That should also give you a clue about how I feel about this war.

I think we should just leave. From what I've read on this last page, it seems you all are forgetting the biggest group of victims: the taxpayers. This war was undeclared and we went in with consent from a small group of individuals. Congress (and therefore the people) had absolutely no say in this.

I stopped reading your post right there because it's flat wrong.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

That looks to me that congress VOTED to send the troops to Iraq and authorized the president to do so. How is that illegal and without their consent?

 

[Danoff]

Omnis, I think you and I agree on a lot of subjects, but the libertarians (Ron Paul included) a screwed up with foreign policy. The fact that you're towing the party line here makes me question whether you're actually considering these issues.

I think we should just leave.

Making a bad situation worse.

From what I've read on this last page, it seems you all are forgetting the biggest group of victims: the taxpayers.

I haven't forgotten about the taxpayers here, but it's hard to put a price on long term stability in the middle east (that is the goal here) - especially when we know the alternative will exact a far greater price.

This war was undeclared and we went in with consent from a small group of individuals. Congress (and therefore the people) had absolutely no say in this.

They usually don't. We quite normally rely on the executive branch for these sorts of things.

The government has no right to take your income, let alone spend it on a war in which you had no say.

Actually the ability of the government to tax is totally legitimate and very important - to think otherwise is to be an anarchist. And no, I don't think that the public should be voting on whether we go to war. We are a republic afterall.

Bush's regime deserves to have Iraq become a total failure, if only to demonstrate the catastrophe that is foreign interventionism.

And the Iraqis deserve to die in the streets? Or did they deserve to be ruled by a genocidal dictator?

I'm not in great support of intervention abroad. But when it comes to national security it's critical that we act strongly. Follow me down this train and tell me where we should have gotten off.

- America allies itself with Kuwait (because we like them so much)

Still ok? Alright I'll keep going.

- American ally (Kuwait) is attacked by an aggressive nation looking to seize Kuwaiti resources. America comes to defense of her allies.

Is that intervention? Is protecting our allies ok in terms of foreign policy? If not, then how do you expect to have any allies?

- After repelling the Iraqi assault, America does not want to invade Iraq. A cease fire treaty is signed with contingencies.

Still alright? Obviously we didn't want to "intervene" in Iraq. We just wanted them to leave our buddies alone. So we let them go their merry way, but not without a few conditions that benefit us . Would you have preferred an unconditional pull-out? Better to just leave them alone after their defeat? We saw an opportunity to get Iraq to agree to some reasonable terms in order to help prevent them from becoming a threat in the future. Is that not worth a shot?

- Iraq violates cease fire treaty and America asks them nicely to comply. They don't so America asks the UN to make them comply, they don't. So America enforces the treaty.

Still on board? No? You'd rather that we didn't enforce our treaties with other nations? Don't you think that would cost a thing or two in our diplomatic relations with other nations?

- America topples the Iraqi regime. Then we decide to stick around and clean up the mess created by Saddam's removal.

Obviously you're not on board at this point. You think we should have abandoned the Iraqis to a chaotic, bloody, civil war - the winners of which would rule with an Iron fist.

I know you'd prefer that we could just mind our own business and they could mind theirs. But it just isn't possible. Please, let me know which of these steps you're not happy with.

Democracy in the Middle East is a joke. Everyone flaunts democracy like it's some kind of miracle government. Democracy is nothing short of mob rule.

Nobody is talking about pure democracy so stop arguing with a fictitious opponent.

Don't count on a Republic of Iraq either. Representative government will never work there when American special interest outweighs the entire Iraqi population.

As a Ron Paul follower you should know that special interest doesn't have to be a major factor in a republic. Just because our system is screwed up now doesn't mean it had to be, or that their system has to be.

For Iraq to get better, the people themselves must orchestrate change.

I think everyone agrees.

Social contract is undermined when you have someone shoving a pen in your hand and forcing your arm into signing it.

I'm gonna need further explanation.

The best thing that we could do at this point is to pull out of Iraq entirely, try Bush and Co. for war crimes, make a sincere apology to the people of Iraq, and then ASK if they would like help from our private organizations.

Hard to ask for help when you're being gassed by an oppressive regime. What war crimes have "Bush and Co" perpetrated? Treaty enforcement? Attempting to spread representative government? And how would pulling out of Iraq help the national defense situation at all? You'd immediately have civil war, which thousands of Iraqis would then blame us for. Flush diplomacy in the region down the drain. Crap on what's left of our reputation. Teach the world that we have no resolve, that there is no fight so small that we will not run from it, that there is no treaty we have the balls to enforce.

Honestly if you thought carefully about this position I think you'd see that it's nothing but trouble.

The Middle East will always be a cesspool of tyranny if we always intervene in its internal affairs.

Blame America first eh? Their problems are always our fault. If we'd just leave them alone they'd be happy, peaceful and prosperous - yea right! They've been killing each other since the beginning of time.

 

[YSSMAN]

Sorry to be completely blunt, but what this reads like to me is someone who has already made a conclusion the Middle East is undeveloped and then changes the definition of development to suit his personal opinion, rather than someone that has considered what it means for a country to be developed, creates a set of objective standards to define development, then collects the data and arrives at to a conclusion.

I'm pretty much reiterating what I was taught, and for the most part I take Dr. D's stuff as for the most part correct.

Please keep in mind that when I did my assignment for what is developed/not developed, I wasn't marked "correct" or "incorrect," but was instead told to rethink my assessments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Israel (to some extent).

I'm really not looking for an argument, but I figured it was worth discussing that there are very different definitions as to what is "developed" and what is not.

 

[a6m5]

They weren't.

Thank you.

The largest WMD threat in the history of the US came from Soviet Russia. We didn't invade them either.

There was a very good reason for that. The U.S. and Soviet both had enough power to destroy each other, many times over, with their nuclear arsenal. Therefore, neither side were willing to use their nuclear weapons against one another. That would've meant "the end".

Very different from the Iraq or North Korea situation in 2003. Apples and oranges.