Ten Reasons to Leave Iraq Now (3 Viewers)

[pete shearman]

i'm supposed to be studying but am too bored so i'm on this site.

having read through these posts i've notced there's been some pretty simplistic analyses of the war. eg. the US should leave because war is bad. hopefully it will become more intellectual in later posts.

iraq really is a complex situation as some have already acknowledged. i feel that what the americans are experiencing in iraq reflects, to an extent, some of the difficulties the british faced in northern ireland. namely a military force that wants to retreat but cannot owing to the potential for civil war between two opposing communities. the americans at the moment are perceived by many in the west as barely holding together a fractured, increasingly lawless nation.

however, to insurgents they are seen as an occupying force that must be removed. what can america do? it retreats and violence will certainly escalate between shiite and sunni, it stays and it will suffer more and more casualties. essentially, like NI, this is a problem requiring a political and not military solution.

i'm predicting that the war is unwinnable. whether this is the case or not should be confirmed by the september report this year which will look at the success of bush's surge in baghdad. assuming it fails, america will have to concede military defeat and talk to its enemies. eg. iran. rice is already talking.

it looks as though partition will be the political outcome. america will negotiate with iran, abandon its axis of evil rhetoric, and have to concede major concessions to the iranians in return for their intervention. in due time, we will have a clearer idea of what awaits iraq politically.

we should move beyond looking at iraq as simply a war. it is sectarian conflict at its worse - and history teaches us that such conflicts are never resolved by violence alone. it is a disintegrating state which may no longer exist in future years. so as lenin once said, what is to be done? partition? dictatorship? a combination of the two?

what political options are available to the US government?

 

[BritneySpears]

I wouldn't mind Iraq being divided up into three areas cause Shiite and Sunni will have their own country, no more fighting and Kurds, long opressed by Arabs and Turks finally will have their own independent state after 1000 years. It will weaken all of them and therefore will put Westwern allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia as Arab leaders, politically and militarily and then US can invade Iran and possibly ask Israel to take care of Syria at the sametime. With Syria and Iran neutralized, Hizbollah in lebanon will be terrorists without weapons which can be quickly suppressed by Lebanese Boyscout (I mean Army). Then, Palestinians, without no militant supporters in the north will be isolated and have no options as aid from Iran has dried up already and are at the brink of starvation, will beg for peace and stop their terrorists activites. finally Mid East will have peace

 

[pete shearman]

haha, that's pretty idealistic.

the ultimate neo-con triumph with the fall of iran, the happiness of all iraqis secured, and the complete elimination of terrorist groups all over the middle east.

does anyone else think that's going to happen anytime soon?

 

[bazookajoe]

the millions of people that still drive cars disagree with you

I know, I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of that point

 

[Snaykew]

bshoc, although you may not be overtly right wing, you're really showing your anti-left side, which could be the same thing.

But one thing, after Castro's revolution of Cuba, they did not immediately turn to the Soviet Union for aid. Infact, they had no communist ideals (irc) and visited the USA first. Although he wasn't a very good politician and Nixon called him a communist, which isolated Cuba from the US. Castro HAD to turn to communism for aid so Cuba could survive. Or at least I think this is how the chain of events went. Can't exactly remember. >_>

Anyway, onto Iraq. This war can only be "illegal" if it is against the law in the US. There is no international government which dictates laws to every sovereign state. The concept and recognition of state sovereignty grants every nation the right to do whatever it wants. However, there is one point of state sovereignty that the US stamped on.

"Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself."

The USA took away Iraq's sovereignty and implemented their own political system.

But I don't agree with pulling out. The coalition went in and should be responsible enough to stay there, finish and clean up the shit they caused.

Employment needs to be encouraged in Iraq. If someone is employed, they have hope for the future. If an Iraqi is unemployed and has no hope for life, why would he/she contribute to social order when it doesn't benefit him/her? They would likely turn to extremism. The only way to fix Iraq is to create jobs and economic growth in the country. No matter how much firepower the US brings into Iraq, technology would win a war against guerillas.

And it does have some relevence to Vietnam. In Vietnam, basically the entire peasantry were anti-American(including the puppet government of South Vietnam). Although another aspect of Vietnam was that the population had fought 4 previous wars before the Americans stepped just so they could have their own country. First they fought and beat the French, then the Japanese, the French again and finally the Americans. No matter how long the Americans stayed there, they would have never won a war against basically the entire population.

Now, this peasantry can be related to most people in Iraq who are affected by the violence and poor living conditions. Also the fact that there is a foreign military in their nation policing them might contribute to hostilities.

But that's just my two cents. Iraq will be a difficult place to handle and fix, but if we don't fix it, we will be seen as unreliable and lose credibility among our allies.

I must add, I feel sad for the soldiers being sent to a war they do not wish to take part in. Also their tours have been extended to 15 months (the Americans). Many of them have lost their lives and much more are disabled for life. I think it was every soldier killed in Iraq, 10 more have been wounded which aren't nice wounds either.

Every day many people die on both sides. It's sad to see such loss of life and over what? Difference of opinions? Miscommunications? A mistaken action? Who knows..

 

[sam04u]

Retards, if only you knew. As you speak the Iraqi president is being brainwashed in the United States.

You think leaving will increase the violence? Are you retarded? Fuck off and kill yourselfs you imbecilic neocons.

The U.S doesn't give a shit about Iraq, who are you kidding? It's only partly about the oil. And nothing about Sadaam.

 

[Snaykew]

Who said it wasn't about the oil?

 

[sam04u]

Oh right, and be prepared in about 10-years when the CIA releases intelligence reports. Especially of the mental-state of the U.S soldiers compared to the "Insurgents" who are actually legally fighting off a resistance. (They can't clear it now though, that would be damaging to the U.S. )

Also wait till the long-term effect of weapons using Depleted Uranium and the real reports of deaths. (Too bad they can't release all that now.)

 

[Snaykew]

You mean the Gulf War Syndrome (in relation to the depleted uranium shells)?

 

[sam04u]

You mean the Gulf War Syndrome (in relation to the depleted uranium shells)?

Are you comparing the exposure of 6-months to 4-years? (Don't you know your physics?)

Maybe we should do a comparison based on the amount of ammunition used in the Gulf War compared to this one.

 

[bshoc]

Retards, if only you knew. As you speak the Iraqi president is being brainwashed in the United States.

You think leaving will increase the violence? Are you retarded? Fuck off and kill yourselfs you imbecilic neocons.

The U.S doesn't give a shit about Iraq, who are you kidding? It's only partly about the oil. And nothing about Sadaam.

Who is going to protect the Iraq civilian population after the coalition leaves and consequently the Iraqi government collapses?

There are no neocons here, at least I think, seriously I don't care if the entire middle eastern population rots and dies due to dictators and their retarded religion. I don't want to spread democracy, nor do I want my country to be perceived as losing a war by pulling out.

You support the insurgency, and have no place telling anyone else what to think.

 

[Snaykew]

I don't do physics.

But I was meaning is that what it is like, because I thought we already knew exposure to uranium was bad? Do you think your knowledge of uranium effects on humans is top secret or something?

 

[bazookajoe]

Retards, if only you knew. As you speak the Iraqi president is being brainwashed in the United States.

Ahahahahahahahaha

 

[ogmzergrush]

10 reasons to shut the fuck up:

10. We've heard it all before, and you bring nothing new to the table.

repeat.

 

[sam04u]

Ahahahahahahahaha

Sorry, I thought they had hospitals in the Middle-East. I must be wrong. Last time I had low blood pressure they had to fly me to the U.S (Shit health-care for the win!)

 

[breaking]

http://www.counterbias.com/888.html

Couldn't have put it better myself.

did you copy that off michael moore's website or something?

 

[breaking]

mang olol

ashton?
i thought this was nolans account now
fuck i'm confused

 

[BritneySpears]

hahhahaha but moore was right about hte war at the start mang olol

EDIT: We shouldn't be there because I believe in non-interventionist foreign policy.

That's the only reason. We shouldn't be ther ebecause the government should devise all policy based on my opinion.

I believe in the middle policy as we have today. Intervene when it is in the interest of this country such as timor/fiji etc but i would not recommend intervening in Zimbabwe or Venezuela.

 

[loquasagacious]

I wouldn't mind Iraq being divided up into three areas cause Shiite and Sunni will have their own country, no more fighting and Kurds, long opressed by Arabs and Turks finally will have their own independent state after 1000 years. It will weaken all of them and therefore will put Westwern allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia as Arab leaders, politically and militarily and then US can invade Iran and possibly ask Israel to take care of Syria at the sametime. With Syria and Iran neutralized, Hizbollah in lebanon will be terrorists without weapons which can be quickly suppressed by Lebanese Boyscout (I mean Army). Then, Palestinians, without no militant supporters in the north will be isolated and have no options as aid from Iran has dried up already and are at the brink of starvation, will beg for peace and stop their terrorists activites. finally Mid East will have peace

Not a viable solution for several reasons:
1)Turkey: they will block any such move as it will destabilise them by emboldening the kurdish separatists and giving them a base of operations.
2) Saudi Arabia: it would destabilise suadi arabia to have a militant sunni state on their border leading to overhrow of saud royals and emergence of a more radical arab state.
3) Iran: A radical shiia state would be the logical ally of iran which would bring the iranians deeper into the middle east hence destabilise the region.

So ultimately your suggestion is only marginally more useful than hoping that everyone has a good time.

 

[hiphophooray123]

11. Camel Spiders