Mastriani made an interesting statement in another post implying it would be disastrous to leave Iraq right now.
I am for withdrawing troops immediately. If anybody should decide whether or not we should withdraw troops, it should be Iraqi citizens, not U.S. citizens or government.
The same people who said it would be a fast war are stating it would be disastrous to leave. Personally, I don’t want any more of my tax dollars spent destroying Iraq, and then rebuilding it. Al Qaeda wouldn’t even be in Iraq had we not invaded, and we invaded on a false accusation that the rest of the world didn’t support or agree with.
Whether or not the war was justified is completely irrelevant to the issue of withdrawal. The fact is you are there, you have fucked things up, you have a responsibility to fix them. You break it, you bought it. What should be done, is what will benefit the rebuilding of Iraq the most. Two options as I see it, 1. Rebuilding with a hands on approach, establish law, rebuild infrastructure, install security, provide the people with basic needs. 2. Leave and finance the rebuilding, essentially leave it to the Iraqi people, but provide them with the resources to do so. I personally think option 1 is unachievable, and option 2 is idealistic. Whatever happens, the region is going to be destabilised for decades and the backlash of this war will be felt for a long time. Responsibility for this lies with the Allies. The only way to avoid responsibility would be to not invade, which obviously can’t be done.
As for your question, I’m not qualified to make that decision. Lets just hope those who are make the decision for the reasons stated above.
Well, the fact is that is a horrible inhumane idea. Its now well established that the collapse of iraqi society was systematically occuring and it would have happened whether or not the US stepped in. This is what most people DON’T KNOW or REFUSE to accept, but this is the reality of the situation.
The second point is that large parts of Iraqi society DON’T WANT whats happening to them right now, but there is a massive bloody civil war going on, I can’t imagine anyone wanting iraq to end up a failed-state (worse then it already is now) when MAYBE MAYBE intervention can stop or more realistically, slow the descent.
Do you realize that the iraqis are killing iraqis in a massive bloody civil war over religious reasons? What the forces of religion want in a country needn’t be that respected when people in the middle are being savaged to bits and the result of their civil war is going to destroy iraq for decades to come. Thats not good for iraq and because some iraqis want it… well, thats just absurd. Who cares.
nobody does, most people would rather abandon iraq again and again and again after claiming to try to help it. Basically: “its too hard, people lost the spirit, lets abandon the Kurds AGAIN, and let iraq fall into a dark-age/failed-state”
Really, that people claim leaving iraq as some kind of humanitarian action, it sickens me. Its not about whether the administration lied, whether they went under false pretenses, its about WHAT WAS going TO HAPPEN/WILL HAPPEN to Iraq, and maybe just maybe the coalition can stop it despite its horrible BOTCHED ATTEMPS, FAILING SPIRITS and etc.
I’ll say that an intelligence operation fullscale bent on survieling Iran was a lot more important then iraq.
You have to keep in mind the power of radical islam in Iran, theres eventually going to be a conflict between democratic values and Islam, thats not just some right-wing fairy-tale.
There is only one way out of Iraq: through the Iraqi people growing a pair and taking responsibility for their country, and not expecting to be handed every solution. It’s their country, they’ve already been deprived of any involvement in it for thirty-eight years, time to grow up.
As Cyrene stated, Iraq was entering into collapse prior to the invasion, but that’s a side point. The invasion itself is also a moot issue. We are there.
I see no reason to not defend Israel. This country, America, and it’s politicians, have a long standing history of lip service to “the common good” “Rule of Law” and “Championing the higher moral ground” … (properly read: lies and bullshit to cover hegemony).
Israel is a small country, and if you’ve ever been there, they are one of the most polite populace’s you could ever meet. Very well educated, and generally sound character as individuals, (obviously nothing is absolute, in any society, depravity will rise). They are discriminated against across the globe, despised and hunted in the Middle East … what do you suggest, hanging them out to dry?
Worrying about your tax dollars sounds a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
Are you complaining about the millions that are wasted every year by politicians just so they can travel to expensive resorts and dinners, on your tax dollars?
How about our sagging infrastructure, which is mostly untouched and ignored for nearly fifty years, are you protesting the monies not going to better roads, sewers, treatment plants and modern energy production?
How about the billions every year wasted on “the war on drugs”?
How about the billions every year wasted on keeping criminals alive, instead of executing the majority, and then making all prisons self-sustaining institutions?
How about the billions that are siphoned off of education for piggy back pork projects so some politician can appease a corporate entity who paid their way into office?
No one has any idea how much the DOD wastes every year for “classified projects” that are nothing more than laundering schemes for some General’s pet project … like maybe a matter transporter? By closest estimations, it runs in the hundreds of billions, but tracing it is virtually impossible.
The point being, we no longer take responsibility for our government in even the smallest sense, so complaining that your tax money is being wasted on a poorly structured war, isn’t a valid argument.
You really want an end to the Iraq war … get out there and find an energy source that can be brought up to speed, with a high enough ROI, and doesn’t do overwhelming environmental damage … then Iraq can suck shit through a straw and who cares. At the moment we lose oil dependence, our first day of actual freedom in this country in more than 200 years will be on the horizon.
Until then, it’s much ado about nothing controllable.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding. You want the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their country, and yet you want the U.S. to remain there, interfering in their puppet government, and other governments in the Middle East and around the world? What am I missing?
You stated Iraqis need to grow a pair and take responsibility for their country, and yet you don’t think the same of Israel? Israel has an amazing national defense, nuclear capabilities, etc., and yet we are still involved in their decision making process when it comes to everything. They still come to the U.S. for an allowance. This is hardly independence. Israel, if involved in a war they couldn’t win, would no doubt ask for our help, and no doubt we’d help them. Do you think, at this point, they can take care of themselves?
It’s not hypocritical because I do complain about those things. I do complain about the war on drugs, the legal system (where it’s more expensive to sit on death row than to live a life in prison), about the department of education, etc. I do complain that we spend trillions of dollars on war and nation building when our own bridges are falling at home. But that’s not what this topic is about.
How is my argument not valid? Why would I want to be forced to spend money for a war I don’t believe in? Do you think that’s ethical?
First they have to want to actually try taking responsibility, (which still isn’t really happening), second they have to the capable leadership to actually make it plausible, (which isn’t happening yet), third they have to have the infrastructure and economy to support recovery. It’s a character game, then a numbers game, and they haven’t even opened up the Monopoly box yet.
Until they do, we are stuck in the quagmire.
You might want to take a look at the figures for countries receiving Foreign Military Financing from the U.S. government, I think you are under a grievious misconception. There is so much dependence upon U.S. monies for aiding other country’s defense, your argument against Israel is nullified, numerically.
They do take care of their country’s defense, we supplement their capability to do so, just like with the other 149 nations.
Unless you are a true revolutionary, the argument is invalid, because you aren’t taking back control of the government, it’s wanton spending, it’s lack of accountability to the citizenry of this country, it’s illegal operations.
Until you “take up arms” against the tyranny, any argument concerning where your tax dollars are going, is invalid. Not to sound like I am pointing the finger at you in particular, or you alone, this is a cultural context issue.
It wouldn’t be logical from a military view point, nor a diplomatic viewpoint to withdraw from Iraq. The surge is working, and we are just starting to succeed. It would be disastrous to our economy and Iraq’s if we just up and left. America has an obligation to fulfill it promise to the Iraqi people, and the Israeli government. Whether you think the invasion was a good idea in the first place or not, it’s too late. We have an obligation to give Iraq the means to succeed not only now but in future situations, when it is convient for all parties involved for America to leave. Other military superpowers should also feel the need to get involved and speed the process up. ( Not including Australia they’ve been their with us from the start.)
I don’t believe the ‘time to grow a pair’ argument really means anything other than to demonstrate the ability to speak of things in a very broad manner. The statement has value in the form of shock in face to face arguments but ‘growing a pair’ is not really a point of discussion.
All third world countries have been ‘entering into collapse’ prior to anything. I’m not sure the ‘it was doomed anyway’, or ‘it was inevitable because that’s how it happened and would’ve happened either way’ argument really means anything. The US is doomed anyway, Saudi Arabia is doomed anyway, Pakistan is doomed anyway, India is doomed anyway, Russia is doomed anyway, Iran is doomed anyway etc. because once it happens, it was bound to happen.
Defending Israel is not about how polite their people are. I think the Iranians are probably the politest people I have ever met, all the Arab nations have been looking at the nation sideways for over a millenium, but there’s the US, not defending Iran. I don’t think their politeness or personalities at face value mean much for a nation’s importance to US foreign relations. Europe felt guilty for Nazism and the British instead divided land that wasn’t theirs to begin with to get rid of their problem. I don’t know of any prominent muslim authors discriminating against the jews for being big nosed money vacuums like Europe in the middle ages onwards, or of any muslim society specifically singling out the jews with, say, particular types of clothing. Being ‘despised and hunted’ is probably truer for jews as a whole in the Christian world. The Israel/Middle East debate isn’t an anti semitic issue, it’s a national/political one. Jews in Europe or America however, that’s anti semitic.
“Growing a pair” is colloquial inference of raising their character; i.e. responsibility, accountability.
There is a great deal of information on the eminent collapse of Iraq, regardless our incursion. Professional analysts have stated that we would have ended up there in less than a decade in any instance. Again though, that is purely academic and bears little relevance to now.
Their quality as an ally, and as a nation of people is high, in comparison to many others that we financially and militarily support, so I find it to be less of an issue.
Your pronouncement of “muslim authors” is specious at best. I’ve seen too many excerpts from recent writings to buy that tripe, and whitewashing Muslim hatred towards Jews, doesn’t change the fact. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, UAE, Iran have all stated at different points that the Jewish state should be destroyed. Color it however you wish, it doesn’t change what is and has been. That doesn’t include the commentary from those scumbags at the mouthpiece media outlet Al Jazeerah, nor the “radical Islamists” or “extremists”.
In the U.N., “prominent Muslims” make anti-semitic commentary that is never disciplined, go to the U.N. site, it’s recorded and obvious.
Your agenda is apparent, but doesn’t hold under scrutiny.
You can’t invade a country, destroy its government and infrastructure, fail to provide security, and then say “grow a pair”. It’s our responsibility to fix it. However, I’m not so sure we are on the right path or ever will be. I really don’t know if staying will improve the situation because much of the violence is directly from us being there and we don’t seem to be providing the rebuilding and infrastructure we promised. Hopefully the surge is everything some people are making it out to be.
I don’t think this is well established and we certainly weren’t doing them a favor. I honestly think its more well established that the soul purpose of the invasion was control of resources and financial cronyism.
It will not be about democratic values. America hasn’t gone to war in defense of democratic values since the revolution. It will most likely be for the reasons we usually interfere with nations, and particularly middle eastern nations - control of resources.
It is a colloquial reference, but I don’t think colloquialism is proper when arguing a point because it gives/takes away credibility based on the author’s ability to use language rather than facts. The lower classes of the world need to grow a pair and overthrow their capitalist masters. It really doesn’t say much in practicality. I have read a couple of these ‘professional’ analysts who said Iraq would’ve collapsed either way. Any third world country is bound to collapse at a given time. The Iranian government has been ‘bound to collapse’ for ~10 years, I have yet to actually witness it. Sure it WILL happen, but writing to say it was bound to, when it finally does, is irrelevant.
Their quality as an ally is pretty clear, they are politically alligned with the US for any given number of reasons and their strategic positioning allows for the policing of the middle east. My “specious” argument is as “specious” as the argument that the Iraqis need to “grow a pair”. As the previous posts states, “The Israel/Middle East debate isn’t an anti semitic issue, it’s a national/political one. Jews in Europe or America however, that’s anti semitic.” I have yet to read any prominent middle eastern authors who specifically singled jews out like Shakespeare or Voltaire; and they’re only two examples which come to my mind at the moment. I’m referring to historic examples of Jew vs Muslim, not Ahmadinejad Politically, the Europeans have been persecuting the jews for centuries, I’m sure you’re aware of enough examples. The jews in Iran do and have always lived without any specific penalties, in the same country whose current president so famously called for the destruction of Israel. The middle east vs israel is a political match, not an racial/religious one. Antijew sentiments may arise from this, but they are not the cause. Israel’s current position is as justified as an invasion of Istanbul…I mean constantinople… by Greece. Less so, as one was 5 centuries ago while the other dates back to several millenia ago.
My “agenda” is to provide anti-theses to commonly held views.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that the “surge has started to work,” nor that we are “just starting to succeed.” Succeed in what, exactly? I also don’t think a reasonable excuse for staying in the country is that we invaded in the first place. This argument seems circular: We should stay because we invaded, bombed, destroyed, etc. At the very most I’d find monetary aid appropriate, and that’s it.
We have no obligation to Iraq, any more than we have an obligation to Darfur (a place where mysteriously there is no U.S. military presence).
I’d like to pose a question that will hopefully lead the discussion in a certain direction: why is it detrimental to apply the golden rule on a national level, as opposed to just an individual level?
When one does this, it seems screamingly obvious that we shouldn’t invade other countries if we wouldn’t want other countries to invade us. It seems evident that we wouldn’t want other countries to interfere in our civil war. It seems apparent that we would never allow another country to build a military base on our soil, nor would we want a permanent military presence of another nation within our own. Why is it, then, that so many support such stances? What complications make the golden rule on a national level null and void?
But why should the U.S. be involved at all in any of these developments? Why can’t we let whatever happens over there happen without our interference?
How is my argument not valid? Why would I want to be forced to spend money for a war I don’t believe in? Do you think that’s ethical?
This is of course your opinion, and I dismiss it readily. I don’t think one as to resort to a violent revolution against one’s government to be considered a revolutionary. Ghandi would agree, as would MLK. My concerns with how my tax dollars are spent are valid regardless of whether or not I have the power now or in the future to change it.
I wasn’t aware this discussion was under formal philosophical debate rules. It would be helpful, in the future, to reference that fact, if it is your intent.
Referencing the lack of character of the Iraqi people can be done through both historical context and information, and the current scenario under inspection. I have read more than a couple of the articles by professional analysts, and their is a fairly uniform conclusion; Iraq was politically, socially, economically and culturally, (Shia v. Sunni), in dire straits. In some context your perspective merits understanding, but no, not “every third world country” is bound to collapse, poverty can be stable, caste systems can be stable, religions can be stable … it’s a case by case issue.
I find your position here lacking a great deal of scope. This is not “just” a national/political issue of the current era, or the last sixty years. The context of this issue goes continually backwards to the first days of Abrahamic tradition. The inherent bile and vitriol that is exhibited by both sides, has a deep root in historicity. It involves a great many former Arab empires, as well as current regimes. It entails not only the history of the Semites, but the Palestinians and other Arabs. There is centuries of enslavement, extortion, murder, espionage, politics, ethnicism and all the other possible parameters of human distortions descending from social contact.
From my reading, a great deal of this actually is a trifecta of religious distortion; Islam, Judaism, Christianity. I really see no manner with which you prove that this isn’t ethnicism on either side. History shows otherwise. In light of the manner with which Muslims and Arab countries do lip service to championing the cause of Palestinians, calling for Israel to give up lands that other Arab nations have decided don’t belong to Israel, and then keeping Palestinians as refugees, and not allowing them citizenship in their countries … that makes any claim contrary, to be more than dubious.
As far as your commentary regarding Iran, the documentation to the countrary is in any human rights database, you aren’t even on the mark. Any charity that might be purported to exist is due to the fact that actual power still belongs to the Shah and the Imams, and even Ahmadinejad knows he can’t retain power without their approval. Doesn’t change his statements, or a number of other Arab commentaries recorded in U.N. proceedings.
dorky, I can’t possibly respond to your post … it’s a convoluted mess of different quotes belonging to you, me and some others …
The only thing that I can say; I know more than my fair share of Indians, and I can’t think of one that characterises Ghandi as anything more than an old fool. He wasn’t a great leader, he was weak and blind, and India suffers for his lack of leadership. Vimal and Kishore are both from Kashmiri, they’ve related why they no longer reside there … weakness leads to subjugation or death.
I’d find someone else to put up as collateral. You might want to try Machiavelli or Fromm. Revolution is paid in blood.
Politically, the Europeans have been persecuting the jews for centuries, I’m sure you’re aware of enough examples. The jews in Iran do and have always lived without any specific penalties, in the same country whose current president so famously called for the destruction of Israel. The middle east vs israel is a political match, not an racial/religious one. Antijew sentiments may arise from this, but they are not the cause. Israel’s current position is as justified as an invasion of Istanbul…I mean constantinople… by Greece. Less so, as one was 5 centuries ago while the other dates back to several millenia ago.