A history teacher used to say that if Britain had simply listened to the Colonists rather than dictating to them we would be living in a radically different America today, one where revolution might not have ever happened. And it strikes me that 200+ years later we're repeating Britain's folly. Among all the politicians and pundits no one is talking about what the people being affected by our presence every single day want. Sure, the Iraqi parliament officially wants us there but given their lacking record of independent, effective governing that seems like little more than a rubber stamp. So why not have a referendum where the Iraqi people decide the fate of their country? If they want us there then maybe - despite what the anti-war protesters say - we do need to stay in Iraq. We created this situation after all. But if they don't want us there what could justify our continued presence? Sure, things might go to hell but isn't the ultimate responsibility of Iraq up to the Iraqis? Europe didn't decide to occupy America because we fucked up with hurricane Katrina after all. If we're really bringing democracy to the world how can we not abide by it with something as simple as whether we should be in a country or not? I admit, it's not a perfect plan but it seems much more dangerous to adopt a policy of dictating to other countries rather than listening to them. We might find ourselves on the wrong side of a revolution.
Amazing how long this one's been sitting here unanswered. Five years ago everybody knew all the answers... We can probably start with the fact that if any Iraqis other than the Bush Administration's pet ex-patriots (Chalabi, et al.) had been asked what they wanted *before* the war, there wouldn't have been any war. Nowadays it's probably a function of being unable to find a majority in-country willing to say "Yes, please. Stay as long as you want. We've gotten used to the checkpoints and the rubble and the IEDs, and we really appreciate the chocolate bars."
Its really not that simple. I don't care 'what' the Iraqi people say.....remember back after the Soviets left Afghanistan, and the country was in pretty piss-poor shape? Instead of helping, the US pulled out too. Now, 15 years later look what happened. We HAVE to stay....and I think the Iraqi people would agree.
Yeah, no. Wouldn't you agree that Iraq needs to be able to independently run their country before the US steps back? Maybe not. Maybe Obama will sweet-talk all those terrorists into laying down their arms....Iraq will suddenly become stable, and he'll invade Pakistan and start a 'nuclear' war. Strange as that sounds....it might just happen. Except for the sweet-talking part. Way to go!
Would you say any nation that had been preemptively attacked and had its infrastructure destroyed by another nation which then occupied it for damn near five years without restoring the infrastructure it destroyed might be in the same position? Having acknowledged that, could you wrap your mind around the possibility that preemptively attacking smaller, weaker nations JUST BECAUSE IT CAN is usually an attribute of nations we tend to label the Bad Guys? Or is it only bad if the Soviets and the Nazis do it, but because it's the USA, it's okay?
If you ask the Iraqis what they want, there's a pretty considerable danger the answer is gonna be "An Islamic state". Whether the largest majority of them really feel that way, or whether they would just say that because the local militia made it known that when asked you say Islamic State or else, the effect is the same. And it's unacceptable, intolerable to countenance the prospect that our lads bled and died to set up an Islamic state.
True. And we knew that before we invaded and put Saddam out of power. We knew with near certainty that the result would be a Shiite majority that wanted a government much closer to Iran's than to a real democracy. We knew we'd be trading Hussein's dictatorship for either a theocracy or a corrupt and powerless government that would require our continuing presence to survive. So why did we invade without any sort of plan for dealing with that very obvious reality?
What the 'fuck' does ANY of that have to do with leaving Iraq before Iraq is ready for the US to leave? Thanks for completely ignoring EVERYTHING I said. Funny really, because your hero, Obama, does the same thing when he is directly asked when the US should leave Iraq. What is surprising in all of this, is how you're still stuck back in 2003 when the US invaded in the first place. I'm still waiting to hear from you whether or not the US should leave before Iraq is ready for that to happen. I doubt you'll answer though....because you just wouldn't want to argue with facts, would you?
No, Britain's folly was going all wobbly and releasing her grasp at the end of the 19th century. Rule, Americannia!
We will ask them when ever they are able to understand English. At that time they can be considered a civilized nation. They should be taught English in their schools and then they could understand things for themselves, rather than listening to the bullshit from the local mosque leader or whatever. English is the language of freedom.
Yes. The answer is depends entirely on whether we omit the bolded part above or not. If we leave it in, then the answer is undoubtedly "yes". If we omit the bolded part above, then the answer becomes "well, that all depends on why it was done". Again, the answer is depends entirely on whether we omit the bolded part above or not. If we leave it in, then the answer is undoubtedly "no, it's bad for the US to do it too". If we omit the bolded part above, then the answer becomes "well, that all depends on why it was done". You seem to believe that the US did in fact invade Iraq "just because it can", while I think that the reason was quite a bit different than "just because it can".
You, see there. I respect that because you typed it in English. Had it been Arabic It would receive none.
Now, just wait a minute. There is a reason why Japan and Germany get taught English in their schools since WWII. If the people understand English , then they can understand what is going on in the world and not be so shut in and easily lied to about worldly things by their future leaders. I think many conflicts could be avoided if people understood each other better. Who knows, if Saddam had spoken English, he might still be alive or maybe still in charge today. He might have really understood what was going to happen and gotten in line a bit. I think it would do everyone some good to learn another Language.
Wouldn't you agree that until the US steps back, Iraq will never be able to independently run their country?
No shit Sherlock. Wouldn't you agree that if the US steps back too early Iraq will become MORE violent and possibly fall to terrorists like Afghanistan eventually did after the Soviets left and the US refused to help reconstruct? Wouldn't you agree that millions could die if the US pulled out too early like they did in Vietnam where 2 'million' civilians were killed when the US pulled out. You see, history has 'proven' that leaving TOO EARLY will result in an even bigger problem in the future. Even Obama understands that....which is why he won't give a direct answer and confirm when he would pull the troops out. Problem is....all the dumbasses voting for him because of that issue think he'll pull them out ASAP.
If the U.S. hadn't invaded Iraq, there'd be no need to puzzle over how to leave five years later, would there? Of course, that would assume that the Bush administration is even thinking about Iraq at the moment, as opposed to just letting it drag on so it can be dumped in the lap of the incoming administration.
Iraq will never be ready for the U.S. to leave. Whether we leave today, in five years, in twenty years, or in a hundred years Iraq will be a failed state until we leave and, barring Iranian "pacification," will have to endure at least a few years of total chaos after we leave. The only reason not to leave now is so that it becomes someone else's problem when the inevitable happens.
Absolutely correct. Also, absolutely of no help whatsoever in solving the problem that exists now. But I guess for some people it's easier to point to the mistakes of the past than to solve the problems of the present.
Like Chaos said, while correct, it has NOTHING to do with any of this. You're just avoiding the question because like Obama, it is kinda tough to give an answer. Iraq COULD make substantial gains in the next year that would allow the US to sit back even more, or they could face a pretty tough summer. Considering how well the surge went....we have reason to be optimistic.
Perhaps....but you're discounting the daily gains being made by the Iraqi Government to take over their own country. Iran will 'always' be an issue, no matter how you look at it.
Saddam did speak English. He just didn't do it in interviews because it didn't mesh with the image he was trying to project.
Meh. At this point, I'm less concerned with Iraqs internal stability than I am with the effect an unstable Iraq would have on the rest of the middle east. If it was only the Iraqis having to suffer the consequences of their actions, I'd have no problem lessing them to what they please, but that's just not how it works.
Yeah, I suppose I can agree with that. I'd rather the US not have gotten involved anywhere else besides Afghanistan....but we really can't change that now. What good does it do to complain about what happened 5 years ago?
Why not ask the Iraqis? That's what we're doing now. They run their government, they make their own laws, and they build their own bombs to kill their countrymen. Are we criticized for removing strongmen when the alternative was to leave one in power? Do we do nothing, and let men live in fear and bondage? Does the doctor not set the broken leg, regardless of the injured's pain? I don't profess to know these answers, but I tire of people who act like they do.
